If a security officer arrests someone for shoplifting and that person is found 'Not Guilty', could the officer have made a mistake?

The correct understanding here is that while a security officer may have had the authority to make an arrest for shoplifting, the outcome of a trial resulting in a 'Not Guilty' verdict does suggest that there could have been mistakes made during the arrest process. The standard for arrest and for conviction are different; an arrest can be made if an officer has probable cause to believe a crime was committed, but a 'Not Guilty' verdict indicates that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This can mean that the evidence available to the security officer at the time of the arrest might not have sufficiently supported the crime, or that the circumstances surrounding the arrest were misinterpreted. Mistakes can occur even if procedures were followed, as procedural correctness alone does not guarantee that the decision to arrest was justified based on the actual evidence and context.

Hence, while a security officer may act within their rights, there is always a possibility of an error in judgment that could lead to an arrest that is deemed unwarranted in the legal system. This distinction emphasizes the importance of the thoroughness of evidence and understanding of the situation at the time of the arrest.