AITA for informing a young man of his rights, allowing him to get away before police arrived to search him? ?
A Reddit user in the UK recently found himself in a tense situation involving a local community support officer and a young man suspected of carrying cannabis. When the officer held the young man on the spot until real police arrived.
The Redditor intervened, informing the lad that he was under no obligation to wait, prompting him to leave before any search could be conducted. Was this a justified defense of the young man’s rights, or did the Redditor cross a line? Read the full story below.
‘ AITA for informing a young man of his rights, allowing him to get away before police arrived to search him? ?’
I’m in the UK, and we have what are called ‘community support officers’ – AKA ‘plastic bobbies’. Basically, they look a bit like uniformed police at a glance, they act a bit like real police officers, but they have very little actual power or authority.
Don’t have handcuffs, or a baton, no powers of arrest, pretty much glorified security. If they see a crime all they can really do is alert the real police. They act as a deterrent I guess, and save money on real police walking around.
So, as I’m walking through a local estate, I see the local community officer stood with a young lad I recognise as local, who looks pretty nervous. I walk over and ask what’s up. The officer informs me they’re waiting for the police to arrive as he suspects the lad may have some cannabis on him so they’ll be doing a search.
I ask him if he’s told this lad he has to stay here and wait for them, to which he says yes I’ve told him he has to wait until the police arrive to conduct a search. So I tell him well you can’t hold him here, you know you can’t. I turn to the lad and tell him as much, to just leave, now, he can’t hold you here, so jog on.
He looks a bit unsure, asks if I’m being serious so I say yea, go, quickly now, he’s not allowed to hold you here but the police will so leave before they get here. So he does. The community officer and I then have a chat, all friendly.
I actually chat with him quite often so we know each other, I’ve got respect for what they and the police need to do, but I felt like he was keeping the boy there under false pretenses and that’s just not on.
He tells me I shouldn’t have told him he could go, I tell him he shouldn’t have not told him. So, given the situation, AITA for letting the lad know his rights, and that he was free to go?
Let’s dive into the reactions from Reddit:
theory240 − NTA… As long as you are completely truthful in your statements… Never the a**hole for encouraging people to exercise their rights.. \–
Artistic_Thought7309 − Informing someone on their rights is never an a\*\*hole move, it is what makes society democratic.. Well done you. NTA
Nevermore_Novelist − If your instructions were truthful and the CSO had no legal rights to detain the kid, then you’re definitely NTA for informing the kid of his rights.
meganhines28 − NTA. You didn’t help him “escape”—you gave him a quick crash course in freedom! The “plastic bobby” might need to brush up on what he *can* actually enforce. Rights are rights; you just pointed out the exit.
_s1m0n_s3z − That was false arrest if he told the kid he had to stay. ‘I think he might have weed’ is FAR from valid grounds for a citizen’s arrest. NTA. Not only are you not an ass, you were doing your civic duty and protecting the rights of a fellow Briton against the encroaching police state.
cressidacole − I’m flabbergasted that a police officer would arrive for a youth suspected of minor possession. NTA, by the way. The CPO should know better.
sindy007 − NTA. You didn’t break any laws; you just reminded the kid that “plastic bobbies” don’t have the power to play cop. Knowing your rights isn’t a crime; maybe next time, the officer should brush up on his own limitations.
Derbyshirelass40 − We call them hobby bobbies and they love to try and look all official telling people what to do but they don’t have the power to detain anyone. NTA
City_Girl_at_heart − As an American, I was interested enough to look this up. It appears each Police area can allow these officers almost all of the same powers regular Police have if they choose to, with certain exceptions. Not every area gives them the same level of authority. If, in the relevant police area, the PCSO:
(a) finds a controlled d**g in a person’s possession (whether or not the PCSO finds it in the course of searching the person in the exercise of a power or duty conferred or imposed by his or her designation under section 38), and
(b) reasonably believes that it is unlawful for the person to be in possession of it, the PCSO may seize it and retain it. If, in the relevant police area, the PCSO either: (a) finds a controlled d**g in a person’s possession; or (b) reasonably believes that a person is in possession of a controlled d**g, and
(c) reasonably believes that it is unlawful for the person to be in possession of it, the PCSO may require the person to give his or her name and address. It might be worth checking your local Police’s level of powers.
sswishbone − NTA – the UK has policing by consent without fear or favour. By enforcing non-existant power of detention, the PCSO was certainly acting with fearful intent.
Do you think the Redditor was right to inform the young man of his rights, or did he interfere too much in a police matter? How would you balance respecting authority with ensuring fairness? Share your thoughts below!
