Hero Security Guard @ Sainsburys

[Kapt.Kopter]

got it in one, and its red too >:D<

lets hope you don't need someone to step in and help you

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We send young fathers to war Sue.

XXXXXX

What's that got to do with it?

Trying to stop someone stealing two TVs is hardly in the same league as defending one's country :))

[DJKillaQueen]

Of course it's not in the same league but both jobs have a requirement to stop people who may be violent (and many fathers do many jobs where they may die or be seriously injured - look at the death rates in the construction industry for example).

Sam's job is to stop shoplifters (amongst other things). When he does that he has no way of knowing if the thief will attack, or is armed, but his job requires him to stop the thief all the same if he can. Otherwise why would he be employed as a security guard?

Where I do agree with you though is in this. If Sainsburrys are only willing to spend money on one security guard then they shouldn't require that guard to use force to stop a thief. Like you say, two stolen tv's are hardly going to bring Sainburrys to it's knees, and most thieves will have a go at one guard, but might give in when faced with two.

[red devil]

Does anyone know exactly what the job description of being a Sainsbury's security guard entails?

It may be only be to act as a deterrent, not to physically get involved...a lot of comments on this forum are based on supposition, not real facts...including mine ;-)

[randombloke]

I do despair when I read people moralising about things like this. Fathers of small children who wouldn't thank him for getting killed? Why didn't he get stuck in a bit earlier? PLEASE do me a favour.

What matters here is that a vile, violent thug assaulted a man (Sam)doing his job. That he was beaten to the ground and then kicked in the head shows what a thug the man was. Hopefully Sam is ok, and suffered no lasting damage. Sam may have been foolhardy but he had noble intentions and acted with courage and selflessness. Absolutely Sainsburys should have more than one guard but 99% of the time they don't need them, this was the 1% when they did. I'm no expert but I suspect that we all have our own way of dealing with these sort of things in the heat of the moment. I've stood by and watched in the past and I've also chased after and apprehended a thief when my girlfriends handbag was snatched. I'd hope if I saw someone being viciously assaulted I'd have the balls to intervene and stop it happening. I don't have small children, I have a grown up one but I'd still want to look him in the eye and be able to say I did something and didn't stand back, I think he'd respect me more if I did. I'd hope he'd intervene too.

There's a story sbout Nikita Kruschev addressing a meeting and a lone voice said "You saw what Stalin was doing, why didn't you try to stop him?", Kruschev quietly asked, "Who said that?" to which there was a resounding silence. "So, now you know why"was his withering response.

[Sue]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does anyone know exactly what the job description

> of being a Sainsbury's security guard entails?

> It may be only be to act as a deterrent, not to

> physically get involved...a lot of comments on

> this forum are based on supposition, not real

> facts...including mine ;-)

xxxxxx

Yes exactly, my thoughts too, in fact I was going to try to find this out, but life's just too short ....

I can hardly think Sainsbury's management expect their security guards to put themselves in real physical danger - the guy could have had a knife. As it was it was bad enough. But as you say, we just don't know.

And just to be clear, I am certainly not trying to detract from people's bravery in acting as they did.

As randombloke says, "I suspect that we all have our own way of dealing with these sort of things in the heat of the moment". Of course if you are dealing with thieves and violent people in the course of your job, you will hopefully have had appropriate training, but I presume that doesn't include voluntarily continuing to engage with somebody who is kicking your head in.

Apologies if I've misread the situation.

[scor46]

I've lifted this from a legal website. It may not apply to Sainburys own store policy.

Security guards do not actually have any more legal powers than any member of the general public, they have just been employed by a business to help them to protect themselves from theft.? Security Guards, like any member of the public, can make a citizens arrest under certain conditions.

Basically, you are entitled to detain a person that you suspect of shoplifting, as long as you have reasonable grounds for this suspicion. In order to detain them, you are also entitled to use a ?reasonable? amount of force. The extent to which you are entitled to use force really depends on the situation, but it should only be used where absolutely necessary.

Your entitlement to use force to detain a shoplifting suspect is based on the fact that you believe they have committed a criminal offence, so you need to have proof of this to show that you were entitled to use whatever force you exerted.

[camberwell70]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> most thieves will

> have a go at one guard, but might give in when

> faced with two.

How do you know this, have you done a survey?

My guess is that 'most' thieves will run away.

[Jeremy]

I don't see what your problem is, camberwell70. Yes they would try to run, but if a security guard is trying to detain a criminal, they will of course fight back, rather than get handed in to the police.

[camberwell70]

I've never seen a thief attack a security guard.

Most just give up quietly or, as I said, run away.

I don't think petty thieves are, in the main, violent.

[camberwell70]

I think the criminal in question, the one who attacked the security guard, was the exception rather than the rule.

[scor46]

I asked one of the police officers at the time if it was normal for a thief to retaliate in such a way and he told me that it was very unusual. He said that generally the culprit holds their hands up in a sort 'fair cop' type of fashion.

[Sue]

So, does anybody have any information about how Sam is after his very unpleasant experience?

[James Barber]

Via Southwark News speaking with Sainsbury's I've heard he is at home with his family. He's now waiting for an operation on a leg. That Sainsbury's didn't think his injuries life threatening but he's not out of the woods yet as he did sustain a head injury.

What a brave guy.

He and the two members of the public who helped should get bravery awards.

[Dodo1]

Has anyone e-mailed Sainsbury's Customer Service??

[pommie]

unfortunately i have seen a few incidences whereby a member of the public (shoplifter) has attacked a security guard verbally or physically. Sometimes its even kids who do this who think they are clever and look good.

[Chick]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Via Southwark News speaking with Sainsbury's I've

> heard he is at home with his family. He's now

> waiting for an operation on a leg. That

> Sainsbury's didn't think his injuries life

> threatening but he's not out of the woods yet as

> he did sustain a head injury.

> What a brave guy.

> He and the two members of the public who helped

> should get bravery awards.

Brave Guy??? What an idiot risking his life for what? Two cheap TV?s?? What dent would that have made to Sainsbury?s profits? Different if he had been attacked by burglars in his home.

Saying that I hope he is ok but takes his health more seriously in future, it?s not worth it.

[Marmora Man]

Chick, you are so wrong. Sam is a brave guy - he didn't stop to make an economic evaluation he did his job as he saw it.

Your rationalisation is too sophisticated - taken at face value no one should retaliate, respond or fight back for anything less than saving a life. This would be a charter for mayhem.

However, if you feel that way - perhaps I could pop over and take a few bottles on wine or beer, maybe some CDs and a DVD or two, your phone would be nice too. Retaliation or trying to stop me would be futile - after all its only a few cheap items.

[sophiesofa]

Well done to Sam and helpers! If you ever read this I hope you have a speedy recovery and Sainsburys give you a fitting thank you.

[DJKillaQueen]

I have a friend that works at sainburries and Sam is doing fine I'm told.....which I think is the news we all want to hear (tu)

[Chick]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chick, you are so wrong. Sam is a brave guy - he

> didn't stop to make an economic evaluation he did

> his job as he saw it.

>

> Your rationalisation is too sophisticated - taken

> at face value no one should retaliate, respond or

> fight back for anything less than saving a life.

> This would be a charter for mayhem.

>

> However, if you feel that way - perhaps I could

> pop over and take a few bottles on wine or beer,

> maybe some CDs and a DVD or two, your phone would

> be nice too. Retaliation or trying to stop me

> would be futile - after all its only a few cheap

> items.

MM you are not compairing like with like.

You are welcome to bring round a bottle of wine.

Again I hope the man is getting better.

[EDOliver]

Sam is a brave guy - hats off!

What was he suppose to do, let the thieving s*** just walk away with two new t.v's??? Wouldn't it be a sad society if we just turned a blind eye. Thieving is thieving and you need to be dealt with accordingly.

[James Barber]

Southwark News reports today that DC Bruni of Southwark CID is asking ANY witnesses to call them on 020 7232 6145 or go via Crimestoppers.

Hopefully they'll get lots of witnesses calling - it would be sahme for this guy to have been so brave for it to be wasted for lack of witnesses. Any defence lawyer would easilly be able to discredit Sam's evidence as a rsult of a head injury. So witnesses important to get a conviction.

[Sue]

EDOliver Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sam is a brave guy - hats off!

>

> What was he suppose to do, let the thieving s***

> just walk away with two new t.v's??? Wouldn't it

> be a sad society if we just turned a blind eye.

> Thieving is thieving and you need to be dealt with

> accordingly.

xxxxxxx

I think the situation changed when it became apparent that the guy was extremely violent. As I said above, he could have had a knife.

As somebody else said, normally shoplifters who are caught do not resist in such a violent way.

This was not a normal situation of apprehending a shoplifter.

Would you all be saying the same things if Sam had been killed? That the loss of his life was worth it because it showed society's thieves that they could not get away with it?

The theft would have been on CCTV. The thief would have been caught and dealt with anyway. That's how society deals with thieves.

Intervening to help somebody who is being attacked is a different issue, and I think this thread has sometimes confused Sam's reaction to the thief with the subsequent intervention of bystanders once Sam was being attacked.

[KidKruger]

I think it's all too easy to say what Sam 'should' have done.

His terms of engagement won't include fistfighting.

It was his choice and he's not to be criticised by us for what he decided to do.

You cannot even guarantee that whatever you say you would/should do, you would actually carry out yourself.

In a situation like that all the chit-chat goes out the window so let's not pin so much surity on the rights/wrongs.

To get involved in an altercation like that, and then to perpetuate it in a full-on fight, takes guts IMO. The thief probably had been in fights before, which is more than most of us have experienced. To challenge an experienced fighter takes serious guts. It was Sam's choice but he had the balls to make the decision and stick with it, yes he came out worse but he didn't know that would be the case, he wasn't sacrificing himself, he thought he could detain the thief.

Sam did what he felt was appropriate and I'd assume he didn't want to allow this theft out of pride in his job and his genuine belief that this kind of activity is plain unacceptable, not because of his desire to scrap some scallywag.

To call Sam an idiot is extremely direspectful. And naive. Keyboard BS.

I think we need an 'EDF hero of the month' award and this month's should surely go to Sam.