A private security guard who was accused of racism and false imprisonment for detaining a 15-year-old boy at Superdrug was today cleared of all charges after just 30 minutes of jury deliberations.
I mean, what else explains this?
Jake De-Geus and his colleague Edwin Hirst, who were employed to patrol a high street in Chichester, West Sussex, had been accused of tackling the teen in an 'unlawful' and 'unjustified' manner. De-Geus, 30, who wept as he told jurors he wasn't racist, insisted they had been 'justified' in deciding to detain the schoolboy, who had refused to leave the store when asked, pretended to steal shampoo and then head-butted him.
And thanks to CCTV and body worn video, the court - and more crucially, the jury - can see this all unfold. And put themselves in the place of these guards, or the place of a shopper trying to buy something while these 'children' are in the store.
Hirst, 40, was also accused of assault by beating having punched another teenager in the testicles. But now, a jury has unanimously cleared the pair of all charges after a week-long trial at at Portsmouth Crown Court, Hants, and jury deliberations of just half an hour.
Not even long enough to have a cup of tea!
During his evidence, the court was shown body worn footage of the incident, for which the teenage boy apologised for the 'vile language' he used. In it, he could be heard telling the rangers to 'turn me around so I can spit in your face'. It was heard he had been banned from Greggs and Sports Direct and admitted he had 'probably' behaved badly at Boots in a previous incident.
And he won't be named or face any charges. This is why we are broken as a country. And I fear, beyond all repair.
3 comments:
"having punched another teenager in the testicles"
LOL!
Presumably the video evidence was available at the time of the initial offences,so why did the CPS persist in bringing this matter to court ?
"LOL!"
These days, we have to ask: boy or girl?
"Presumably the video evidence was available at the time of the initial offences,so why did the CPS persist in bringing this matter to court ?"
It's a fair question, isn't it?
Post a Comment