Follow up to the assault case...

Hi dear readers and thank you for your kind words of support. As promised, I am going to update you on what happened further to what happened on Sunday. For those of you who didn't read my last post, I will summarize it in a nutshell. Last Sunday afternoon, I wandered into a deserted car park of an office building in West London, with the sole intention of looking for a quiet corner to have a discrete piss (I was bursting to go okay, with no public toilet in sight). All I had done was walk a short distance into the car park when I was challenged by a man who asked me if I had just broken into the building as the burglar alarm had tripped. I said no, leave me alone, I didn't do anything and tried to walk away. He then restrained me as if I was some kind of criminal trying to escape and didn't let me go until he took a photo of me. He said that if I was the person who had been breaking into his office, he would break my legs and that there had been a spate of break ins at his office.

All this while, I was terrified, of course. Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I felt compelled to make a police report at that stage because if that had been a break in at this man's office, I wanted to co-operate as a witness and be eliminated as a suspect. I spoke to some of my friends and I was told that this man had no right to restrain me like that - it would tantamount to common assault according to the letter of the law. The police also checked that there were no reports of burglary at that building on last Sunday - which led to the conclusion that it was but a false alarm and the man jumping to the wrong conclusion.

So many stories of overzealous security guards over the years...

That was all last Sunday. What happened next was that I received a phone call from the investigating officer who explained the following (he was not expecting a long conversation with me).

I was technically speaking, trespassing. The car park of the office is technically speaking, private property. So regardless of your intention of stepping even one inch into that car park (eg. a little old lady cutting across the car park as a short cut, or a young child who enters the car park to pick up a stray football), then yes you are trespassing. So I said, "okay, you called me on my mobile, I was walking along a busy street when my phone rang. I have actually just stepped into the car park of an office block to get away from the noisy traffic in order to have this conversation with you. There is no fence to stop me from accessing this car park - even though I don't work at that building, I am not visiting that building, I am just looking for a quiet place to have this conversation on my phone. Am I, technically speaking, trespassing, for simply standing in this parking lot, talking on my phone with you?"

The answer was, "Yes. Technically speaking. Whether or not they choose to erect a fence around the car park to prevent people from accessing the car park is irrelevant, it is still private property and they have the right to raise a complaint if someone does step onto their car park. The only difference is that if they see a man talking on his mobile phone in the car park or a little old lady taking a short cut by cutting across the car park, nobody is going to bat an eyelid and call the police. Life goes on. There are public car parks where anyone can pay to park their cars there - those are clearly public areas, then there are private car parks which are not open to the public. Private car parks are not technically speaking, open to the public. There is a difference."

I had a crash course on all the laws involved in this case.

I then pointed out to him that trespassing is not a crime in the UK per se - it is a private, civil matter. If someone simply walked across a private car park but caused no damage, then no law has been broken. If someone walked into a private car park and committed a crime like fly dumping/fly tipping or vandalism, then the criminal aspect of the situation is the fly tipping or the vandalism, rather than trespassing per se. Again, if someone had to break a window to gain access to a building, that is burglary (or "breaking and entering") - that is not the same as someone strolling into a private car park which has no fences or gates designed specifically to keep the public out (as in this case).

The officer then realized that he was not dealing with some average Joe who knew nothing about the law - I knew a lot more than most people. He then explained that I was correct - trespassing per se, is a private matter. Let me give you an example, if you walked into a supermarket and there was water on the floor: you slip and fall, breaking your leg in the process. You can sue the supermarket for the accident but that would not be a criminal case - it would fall under tort law, otherwise known as a civil wrong. However, even if trespassing was a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence, it still remains undisputed that even if I was merely walking through that car park without causing any damage - I should not have been in that car park in the first place and my presence there gives that man the right to challenge me. How did should have done so, is another matter but it doesn't change the fact that you were trespassing.

If you broke your leg in there, you could sue but it won't be a criminal case.

"Context is everything. You happened to have been in that car park when an alarm went off, so they had the right to challenge you as you were, technically speaking, trespassing - you may not have realized it at that time, but you were. A visitor to the building who is say a client of one of the businesses in that office block is not trespassing when he walks into the building on a Monday morning for a business meeting - the context very clearly justifies his presence in the building. But in your case, you had no justifiable reason to be in that car park even if you did nothing and caused no harm - it is still trespassing, technically speaking. I can understand why you may have felt indignant given that you had done no more than walk a few steps into this car park and caused absolutely no harm, but in the future, you should not put yourself in such a position in the first place if possible.

As for his strong language used with you, that's clearly not the right way to speak to someone but in the context of the situation - he was clearly emotional and he didn't say he would break your legs per se. He said he would break the legs of the person who did break into his office and we could split hairs over the wording of that sentence, but that was not a direct threat made to you but rather something expressed out of anger and frustration over what had happened in the past. We will speak to him about it, of course and advice him on how he should handle situations like that when he thinks he is a victim of a crime - clearly, you should always call 999 rather than try to take matters into your own hands."

Do you understand the laws about trespassing? 

Whilst I didn't like what he said "technically speaking" (how many times did he use that phrase!) , I do accept the law for what it is. You see, before Sunday, I didn't realize that simply putting your arm on someone else without causing them harm could tantamount as common assault - but by the same token, I didn't realize that simply by walking across a private car park, I was committing trespass. And I certainly understand the difference between tort law and criminal law. Crikey. Let's think about the number of laws that we break everyday without even knowing that we have broken the law, that's a scary thought. The next time you walk across a car park, think to yourself - does this tantamount to trespass?

So whilst the man who challenged me did, technically speaking, break the law by committing common assault - I had, by the same token, technically speaking, also committed a "civil wrong" the moment I took my first step into that car park because I was, technically speaking, trespassing. So in the eyes of the law, we were both, technically speaking, at fault. The stance they took was that given that this was not a serious matter (ie. no bones were broken, no one got hurt) and it was a case of misunderstanding when a man trying to protect his property became overzealous in the way he approached and challenged me, they would try to speak to the man to get his side of the story but it probably would not go any further than that - they have more serious crimes to focus on.

The police have their priorities on dangerous criminals who are a menace to society.

I am trying hard to see both sides of the story as well as the bigger context. Let me give you another story as a case study. I was in a park with my friend Ben and a few of our friends one sunny afternoon. Ben got off his bike, leaned his bicycle against a tree in order to tie his shoe laces. A young man saw the opportunity to steal the bicycle, so he leapt onto the bicycle as Ben was bent over still tying his shoe laces and tried to cycle away. Ben's friend Darren saw what happened and jumped at the thief in a split second, knocking him off the bicycle. The thief hit his head on the pavement very hard and there was blood everywhere. (All of this from the attempted theft to the injury happened within 4 seconds or less.) Darren was terrified at that instant because he had simply acted on instinct to try to protect Ben's property but had clearly no intention to seriously harm the thief like that. The unconscious, bleeding thief on the ground was in fact a young teenager of only about 13 or 14 year old. So in this case, how would you feel if charges of assault were brought against Darren who had acted on instinct when he witnessed the theft of Ben's bicycle?

Now let's imagine a hypothetical situation whereby Ben's bicycle did get stolen, Darren didn't stop the thief but they encounter the thief a few days later in the same area riding Ben's bicycle. They have a heated argument where the young man they have confronted denies having stolen the bicycle. Darren gets so angry, that he loses his cool and then beats up the thief in revenge for the theft. How would you then feel about assault charges being brought against Darren if we assume that they did catch the right person who stole Ben's bike in the first place? If charges are to be brought against Darren in this case, then what are the mitigating circumstances given the context?

Is Darren guilty of assault?

It was also explained to me that in the eyes of the law, they do make a distinction based on intent. So in the case of Ben's bicycle and indeed in my case, the intent was to defend one's property - if someone had attacked me to rob me or if it was a hate crime (say if I was singled out for my ethnicity or sexuality) - then it would be a different story altogether. But if the person who attacked was doing it to defend his property, then he was actually acting in defence - even if the action may seem out of proportion to the threat posed and in my case, he was barking up the wrong tree when I clearly had done no more than walked a very short distance into that car park. Is this man as much of a menace to society as say, a mugger who preys on the disabled and the elderly?

The police tend to be more sympathetic towards people who are acting to defend their property as opposed to someone who acted out of criminal intent. I do agree that intent is vital in any investigation and I do recognize that the man who attacked me didn't have anything against me personally. I was all about trying to protect his property as he has had his office broken into several times before and the police had been unable to help him on previous occasions. Put it in that context, it makes a lot more sense to me now why he had acted the way he did when he saw me in that car park. I don't condone what he did to me, but at least I now see his side of the story.

Can the law be flexible - does the context matter?

I told all this to my friend Ken last night - my dear friend Ken has been ever so supportive since Sunday's incident. On Monday night, we met up and I basically told him everything I have shared with you here on my blog and this was what Ken's response was. "I can't believe you are even trying to be understand to this guy who attacked you like that! Why are you trying to be understanding to him? You've had a traumatic experience, a bad scare and your response is so... academic? Why are you talking about all this legal stuff right now?"

I replied, "What is the alternative? To only see the world from my point of view, to only focus on my experiences and my feelings and ignore the perspectives of others around me? You must understand, I am not doing this out of charity or kindness - I am doing this to help me understand what the hell is going on in this crazy world I live in. I get thrown into circumstances which are bewildering and the only way I can free myself from this fear and confusion that engulfs me is by trying to make sense of all the factors and parties involved. It's not about forgiveness, it is not about being nice - it is about gaining insight and clarity of my situation and then giving myself the information and tools to deal with it appropriately, rather than just react with anger and hurt. I spent most of the first 36 hours after the incident reacting almost instinctively, out of fear and anger - now that it has been a while, I feel it is time for me to pull myself together and be rational and pragmatic. That is the kind of person I want to be, one who is rational and pragmatic, not someone who cannot move beyond fear and anger. I wanna do the right thing, for me."

How do you make sense of life's bewildering circumstances?

Ken then said that my response was actually incredibly measured and that not many people would be able to come out of a situation like that thinking the way I do right now. I laughed and said, "Well, I am just trying to do what is best for me in order to move on with my life, to get back to the things I enjoy, to spend time with the people I love and matter to me. And you've done me a big favour by spending your Monday night with me."

Let me also share with you what another dear friend of mine Jessica said to me when I talked to her about what had happened. "Do you know how much worse it could have been? There you were in a situation, this man thinks you're a threat - you think he is about to harm you. You're both in a highly charged situation, both motivated by fear and you're both strong men capable of doing a lot of damage to each other physically. It is a miracle that you and him both came out unscathed, without any injury. Back home (Jessica is American) we have had instances where people have been shot for stupid misunderstandings like that: shoot first, ask questions later kinda shit. Remember the George Zimmerman case in Florida? Gosh, when I heard about what happened to you, my first instinct was to say thank goodness this man was not even more violent and he didn't break your arm or something like that. You managed to defuse a potentially dangerous situation, you stopped it from escalating... I know it sure sucks to have experienced what you did, but I am just relieved you're not hurt. You'll never ever see that man in your life ever again, so you need to now do what is necessary to move on with your life and like many of your friends who care about you, I want to do all I can to help you do that, I wanna be there for you and help you get through this."

I want to also share with you what Olivia, another dear friend said to me.  She agreed with pretty much what Jessica said. "You could've been badly hurt. You weren't. Now what do you want out of this? If there was ever something you always wanted to do, like go climb Mt Kilimanjaro or go sky diving, then use this as an excuse to say, okay, maybe I was afraid before and made excuses to do that thing I have always wanted to do. But you no longer have that excuse - you could walk into a car park tomorrow and get killed - so it's time for you to just get on with all those things you've always wanted to do but never dared to or have always made excuses not to do."

Lastly, I want to share with you what my friend Sally said to me. Allow me to cut and paste her message from Facebook: here's something I heard before, "When something bad happens you have three choices. You can either let it define you, let it destroy you or you can let it strengthen you. - Unknown." I think at some small point all of these things happen to an extent but ultimately after time it strengthens you, you still hold that internal scar from each thing that happened, you never forget it, but it strengthens you.

How would you react to something like that? 

So there you go. That's where I stand right now. I am ready to move on with my life, with the knowledge that after this experience, the next time I come across someone who has suffered something traumatic, I will have the right experience to be able to say the right things and be helpful. I am going to let this make me a better person - why? What is the alternative then? Become a worse person? Become an angry, bitter person for the rest of my life over this? That's not who I am and my good friends (and hopefully my dear readers) all know that.

Ironically, an old friend (whom I hadn't seen since around 2003 or 2004) unfriended me on Facebook today. He accused me of over-reacting to the whole incident and that I should just stop making such a big fuss about it all. I calmly invited him to meet me for a cup of tea or coffee so we could sit down and talk about it, face to face. (Many of my friends did meet me to catch up and check up on me this week.) Did he accept my invitation to meet for tea? No. Out came more harsh words about me not taking responsibility for my own feelings and reaction to the case and he unfriended me. Geez. Just like that - didn't even want to talk about it. Who needs friends like that?

I'm better, slowly but surely, I am getting there. At least my appetite has returned and I am sleeping better. Work has been keeping me busy this week and that's good - it gives me a sense of purpose to be kept this busy. Let me know what you think. And thank you all so much once again for your kind messages of support :)

I can't change what happened, but I can choose how I react. 

Update: 25th October, the police said that they have spoken to the man involved and verified that there was no break in - they have also told him about what was appropriate in terms of the way he should approach and challenge a person in the car park should a similar situation arise in the future. They are not taking it any further and I have no desire to prolong this - I just want to put this behind me and move on.

Here is the main body of the email I wrote back to the police: Thank you for your email and I also wish to thank you for attending to the building and speaking to the staff involved. I have no desire to prolong this any further - I just want to put it all behind me and move on. 

I just want to state that the way the staff in question approached and challenged me was inappropriate (I am sure you dealt with that when you spoke to them) and that the way they accused me of wrongdoing forced me to get in touch with the police and make a report because if there was genuinely a break in (which as I understand, there wasn't), I wanted to be eliminated as a suspect and treated as a witness (and assist accordingly). Nonetheless, I understand that there is a difference between an overzealous person trying to protect his property and someone like a mugger who assaults strangers with the intention to rob or intentionally cause harm. This man is clearly not a menace to society and your resources are better spent dealing with those who actually are.  I am a well educated, intelligent man who can understand that principle and see the bigger picture.