Strip shock at petrol kiosk!
-
The Electric New Paper :
Strip shock at petrol kiosk
Cashier accuses man of stealing sunglasses. He denies it
FIRST he was accused of stealing a pair of sunglasses.
By Teh Jen Lee
29 July 2006
FIRST he was accused of stealing a pair of sunglasses.
But what he did next stunned those who witnessed the incident: He pulled up his shirt and pulled down his jeans, to prove his innocence.
Did he over-react at the allegation of shoplifting?
Tattoo artist Lee Kai Woon, 31, maintained that he did not, because, according to him, it was an employee at an SPC petrol kiosk, where the incident took place, who told him to strip.
He claimed that the cashier at the kiosk in Jalan Bukit Merah sparked off the dispute when he wrongly accused Mr Lee of stealing the sunglasses.
When Mr Lee denied the theft, he claimed the employee told him to strip if he was innocent.
DIFFERENT ACCOUNT
But the SPC casher denied this. He gave a different account.
He claimed that Mr Lee appeared to be 'high' that night and reacted by shouting when he asked about the sunglasses.
Going by his version, Mr Lee had apparently stripped on his own. He insisted that he did not ask Mr Lee to strip.
Both sides have since lodged police reports.
But the police told The New Paper that they are not investigating the matter because no law had been broken.
Still, Mr Lee said he felt humiliated by the incident.
He said: 'It's such an insult. I have been losing sleep over this.'
On 16 Jul, around 11pm, he went to the SPC petrol kiosk near Bukit Merah Central to buy some canned drinks.
Mr Lee, who is married with a young daughter, was there with friend who lives in the area.
'My friend was looking through the papers while I was looking at the sunglasses. I casually commented that I had lost my Oakley sunglasses, worth about $400.
'I put back those I tried on because they were too cheap, about $40. I felt they would spoil my eyes,' he said.
After he moved away from the rack, the cashier asked him whether he had taken a pair of glasses.
'I said no but the man didn't believe me,' claimed Mr Lee.
'He asked me to pour out the contents of the plastic bag I was carrying.'
There were no sunglasses in the bag.
Next came the alleged order to strip. The cashier asked him to do it, even though there was a female customer around at the time, Mr Lee claimed.
He pointed out that the cashier was tall and bigger than him so he felt he had no choice but to comply.
'He stood behind the counter, pointed his right hand and ordered me to strip. You can see it on the CCTV,' said Mr Lee, noting that he was aware that the kiosk had installed a security camera.
'I wanted to clear my name so I took off my T-shirt. He was still not satisfied so I had to pull down my jeans too. I have never been so humiliated in my life.'
When no sunglasses were found, the cashier did not apologise. Neither did the customer service department, claimed Mr Lee.
A spokesman for SPC confirmed that Mr Lee had reported the matter to their head office.
'We gave him the assurance that we would look into the matter immediately,' said SPC.
As it turned out, the missing pair of sunglasses were later found elsewhere in the shop.
Mr Lee said: 'If they had apologised, I would have let the matter rest.
'This was my first time at this kiosk. I can't believe they treat customers like this.'
He made a police report that night though it was past midnight.
'I was so mad. After making the report, I went home but I could not sleep the whole night.
COULD NOT SLEEP
'I kept thinking about what happened. The next day, I made another report because I felt it was sexual harassment,' said Mr Lee.
He also complained to the SPC customer service unit.
Mr Lee's wife, Debbie, 30, a cafe manager, said: 'I've never seen him getting so angry.
'I think he felt discriminated against, just because he has tattooes.
'That's probably what irked him the most.'
SPC's version of events is quite different.
In a police report filed the following night, the cashier reported that Mr Lee and his friend 'appeared to be high'.
Mr Lee was also 'seen loitering suspiciously at the sunglass rack'.
After that, a pair of glasses appeared to be missing.
When the cashier asked Mr Lee about the glasses, he denied taking them and started shouting.
Even when the cashier went back to the counter to serve another customer, Mr Lee continued to shout.
Then he 'suddenly took off his shirt and trousers' and he told the cashier that he would come back to look for him.
The cashier added that he lodged the report because he feared for his safety.
Mr Lee denied being high that night and denied threatening the cashier.
'They can say anything they want. I'm not stupid,' he said.
Mr Lee insists that he was wrongly accused and badly treated.
'I know there's a CCTV recording. Why would I complain about this if it was my own doing?'
A police spokesman told The New Paper: 'We will not be investigating this incident because no crime was committed.'
When told this, Mr Lee was indignant but resigned.
He said: 'If the police don't think there is a case, what can I do?'
-
-
-
-
fwah..
police very slack hor?
nowadays even noe something happened but can bo chup wan. -
the guy must be drunk
-
So the video shows his a trouble maker not SPC?
-
noOriginally posted by used:the guy must be drunk -
so it's not against the law to strip in public or ask/force someone else to strip in public?Originally posted by hoganrock:A police spokesman told The New Paper: 'We will not be investigating this incident because no crime was committed.'
our police super idle
-
police super idle la.Originally posted by kalangkabo:so it's not against the law to strip in public or ask/force someone else to strip in public?
our police super idle
they only attend to cases seriously when it affects impt ppl or serious car accidents. these minor cases they will just brush it off 1. -
Originally posted by boredandsleepy:police super idle la.
they only attend to cases seriously when it affects impt ppl or serious car accidents. these minor cases they will just brush it off 1. -
so funny there are no charges. No law applies meh??
-
how i know?Originally posted by Urroh:so funny there are no charges. No law applies meh?? -
if its some minister see whether the police will attend anot.
-
Originally posted by stellazio:if its some minister see whether the police will attend anot.
-
thought only when the staff has indeed saw with his own eyes that the "customer" put the unpaid merchandise into his bag or whatsoever, then the customer left the outlet's premises, then only can the staff stop the "customer" outside the premises? Even if the staff saw that "customer" really shoplifted.. but if the "customer" (he / she) is still within the outlet's premises, the staff is not allowed to stop until the customer has finally exit the outlet's premises with the unpaid merchandise?
-
ya.. go out den they can "OEI COME BACK!!" but this is just popular policy in stores i think. not law.Originally posted by Phoebie:thought only when the staff has indeed saw with his own eyes that the "customer" put the unpaid merchandise into his bag or whatsoever, then the customer left the outlet's premises, then only can the staff stop the "customer" outside the premises? Even if the staff saw that "customer" really shoplifted.. but if the "customer" (he / she) is still within the outlet's premises, the staff is not allowed to stop until the customer has finally exit the outlet's premises with the unpaid merchandise?
either case, with evidence of CCTV and third party customer there as witness, how come they still cannot decide which side is right?
and why the hell police brush it off like that!? abit cannot trust the police nowadays liao. -
kns.
horrid ppl! -
there's actually a loophole if the staff stop the shoplifter within the outlet premises, the shoplifter can always argue back saying he / she will pay the merchandise at the cashier counter later, afterall he / she haven't step out of the outlet premises, and he / she can actually lodge a complain to the police.Originally posted by Ito_^:ya.. go out den they can "OEI COME BACK!!" but this is just popular policy in stores i think. not law.
either case, with evidence of CCTV and third party customer there as witness, how come they still cannot decide which side is right?
and why the hell police brush it off like that!? abit cannot trust the police nowadays liao.
many years ago, there's this case whereby the shoplifter is stopped by the plain security offier outside the outlet's premises. This shoplifter really did stole the merchandises in the outlet. He / she was brought back to the outlet's office. And he was sitted at one of the desk in the office. Happened that the desk's owner didn't locked his / her desk drawer. The shoplifter secretly put all the stolen merchandises into the unlocked drawer, while the security is not around, or not looking. Inside the office there's no CCTV installed. Then this smart shoplifter later fan yao the security officer yi kou, claiming the security officer anyhow accused him. This fellow sued the security guard / retailer and the case was brought to court, and the retailer lost the lawsuit and even have to pay a large amount of money to compensate that fellow. The security officer was sacked. -
there's actually a loophole if the staff stop the shoplifter within the outlet premises, the shoplifter can always argue back saying he / she will pay the merchandise at the cashier counter later, afterall he / she haven't step out of the outlet premises, and he / she can actually lodge a complain to the police.
many years ago, there's this case whereby the shoplifter is stopped by the plain security offier outside the outlet's premises. This shoplifter really did stole the merchandises in the outlet. He / she was brought back to the outlet's office. And he was sitted at one of the desk in the office. Happened that the desk's owner didn't locked his / her desk drawer. The shoplifter secretly put all the stolen merchandises into the unlocked drawer, while the security is not around, or not looking. Inside the office there's no CCTV installed. Then this smart shoplifter later fan yao the security officer yi kou, claiming the security officer anyhow accused him. This fellow sued the security guard / retailer and the case was brought to court, and the retailer lost the lawsuit and even have to pay a large amount of money to compensate that fellow. The security officer was sacked.