The incident occurred on January 13, 2021, before 8:00 a.m. at one of the discount stores in Bolesławiec. There were not many people in the store early that morning. The security guard easily noticed a man who took three packages of laundry capsules and left the store without paying. The man ran after the thief to recover the goods.
“I jumped out and grabbed him by the jacket,” the security guard recalls. “He turned around and hit me in the face with an open hand. We struggled, and he dropped the capsules. I told him he was under arrest. I wanted to use pepper spray, but I couldn’t. As a result of the struggle, we both fell onto the pavement. There was a boot-scraping grate on the pavement at the entrance to another store. I fell onto that grate. I split my forehead open, was covered in blood, and felt severe pain in my shoulder. I also tore the man’s cap off and used it to stop the bleeding. I returned to the store. There, I fainted and was taken to the emergency department. I was so tense that they had to anesthetize me and relax my muscles so the doctor could set my shoulder,” the security guard says, describing the incident.
The first shot to the back of the head
The police quickly caught the thief. He was charged with robbery theft (Article 281 of the Polish Criminal Code), an offense punishable by one to 10 years in prison. The accused did not admit to the charge. He denied using violence against the security guard in order to retain the stolen containers of powder. He testified that he had struggled with the security guard, who was holding him by his clothing, and that he had only tried to break free. He added that the security guard had tripped him, causing both of them to fall onto the pavement.
Because of the conflicting testimony, the prosecutor reviewed the surveillance footage and concluded that…the thief was right! The prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings under Article 281 of the Polish Criminal Code because the statutory elements of a prohibited act were absent. According to the prosecutor’s office, the theft of the laundry capsules constituted an offense under Article 119 of the Polish Code of Petty Offenses. The act is punishable by detention, restriction of liberty, or a fine, as the capsules were worth just under PLN 200.
The second shot to the back of the head
The security guard was still in the hospital when he received a message from the security company telling him to submit, on time, an application for exemption from ZUS contribution assessments. The security company was the guard’s second employer and, in accordance with the law, did not pay his health insurance contributions, including accident insurance, because the man was employed under an employment contract at another workplace where such contributions were paid. However, he was injured while guarding the store.
“I worked for the security company for three years,” the guard says. “I was a good employee who was harmed, and they did not treat me like a human being. Even though I was still in the hospital, they already wanted the application for exemption from contributions. I received no compensation because no accident insurance contributions were paid for this work. And I had to respond to the theft. I can’t just turn my head away…” the guard adds.
A contract of mandate that is subject to mandatory pension and disability insurance is exempt from the accident insurance contribution if the work is performed outside the contractor’s registered office or place of business. In such a situation, the contractor is not covered by accident insurance, even if they wanted to be, because accident insurance cannot be entered into voluntarily.
The 40-year-old man working as a security guard at the discount store is a war veteran. He spent 13 years in the army. He has been receiving a disability pension for six years, has post-traumatic stress disorder, and served in Afghanistan. He says that he is not so ill that he cannot work. He now faces lengthy rehabilitation after shoulder surgery.
“The first shot to the back of the head was the discontinuation of the investigation; the second was the lack of insurance,” the war veteran says. “What could I have expected? Human justice—what else?” he adds, bringing his story to an end.
The whole story shows that a man who performed his work honestly and with commitment feels doubly wronged: by a private company and by the state.
The security guard added that his male and female colleagues at the discount store treated him very kindly and wholeheartedly. They showed him a great deal of sympathy and care.
Would it have been better if the man had not run out of the store after the thief and had allowed the theft to happen? If he had pretended not to notice anything? He would be healthier today and would not have suffered the bitterness he now has to cope with.