Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
  • Announcements

    • Tech Doctor

      Thai Visa Website   09/30/2017

      In honour and respect of the late HM Bhumibol Adulyadej Thaivisa will make all sites greyscale for the period of October


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,902 Excellent

About pookiki

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Location
  1. So bottom line is that you don't know. None of us know. What do you do when there is no video and only conflicting stories of the people involved? What about the respective injuries suffered by the two? Do you have the medical reports? Shouldn't that be taken into account?
  2. Well, if I was the farang's lawyer and your were the judge, I'd move to have you recused from the case for obvious bias. You have consistently taken the position that the Thai man's actions in hitting the Brit should be mitigated on the 'video' of the previous confrontation. However, you have already decided that the farang man's statement can't be credible because there is no video. Why? Maybe there are witnesses, right? Road rage incidents in Thailand are truly over the top.
  3. Another one of your misconceptions. The videos are evidence. Courts of law apply different levels of 'proof' depending on the nature of the crime. And by your somewhat twisted logic, the absence of any video for the totality of the incident, there is no proof of what may or may not have happened. It's up for the courts to decide.
  4. Nothing has been 'proven' because TVF is not a court of law. We have all seen the clips and have our own observations some in common, some not. For example, there is no consensus that the Thai man suffered any injury from the machete. So, was the Brit guilty of attempted murder or terroristic threatening? I think the TVF jury is out on this issue. The Thai man was hit by the car. Was there intent to harm or was this the result of rage from an earlier incident? We don't know. Nothing is proven. Apparently, the Thai man suffered the scratches on his arm from hitting the windshield on the car. The injuries are certainly not consisted with an injury from a machete. Then there was the punch in the parking lot. I don't think there is any argument about the punch. So, there is not proof on the totality of the incident - only our limited observations.
  5. Robblok, according to your 'theory' of mitigation you have determined that the Brit was entirely at fault without knowing all the evidence. Maybe, just maybe, the Brit's rage was in reaction to an earlier incident where he felt his life was in danger. The fact of the matter is that Thai police did a piss poor job of keeping the Thai man at a reasonable distance away from the Brit. There is a significant difference in physical stature and age of the two individuals. Thai police, on the other hand, encourage incidents like these with their staged reenactments and press conferences where there is close physical proximity with the accuser and the accused.
  6. If we all thought that we had the right to exact our own form of justice when we felt wronged, there wouldn't be any reason to have police, courts, or the rule of law. I've been assaulted and physically injured. Sure, I was mad but I didn't seek my own personal revenge. If you are attacked, you certainly have the right to defend yourself. The punch to the head came after the assault occurred and it could have easily killed the Brit given his age. It's not always easy to control one's rage but if we can't, let's just go back to the law of the jungle or the survival of the fittest.
  7. So, if the punch to the head [while he is talking with a law enforcement officer] to the Brit was serious enough to kill the man, it would have been justifiable homicide under Dutch law? In similar circumstances in your own country, the Thai man would not have been arrested on the spot?
  8. C'mon Robblok, the police have already intervened and are trying to sort out the facts. You let the police do their job. Assault is assault. If attacked, a person surely has a right to defend him/herself. The punch to the Brits head was not defensive.
  9. I am in no way condoning the violence perpetrated by the Aussie/Brit whatever he is BUT the fact remains that there was an assault on him in front of a Thai policeman - several in fact- followed by a threat from the Thai to kill the man. How does that not lead to an arrest on the spot when the police are witnesses? And why is the Aussie/Brit the only one who has to post bail?
  10. I had never seen one of these nests until I went on holiday to Sri Lanka. From the outside, the nests are works of art. I was not aware of the lethal nature of these insects bites until I read this article.
  11. I think you missed the point. My post was not contesting the court's guilty verdict. My post concerned the junta's confiscation of Yingluck's assets over the rice pledging scheme even before there was a verdict. As I understand the court's verdict, Yingluck's negligence was only related to the G2G rice sales. The junta has already taken action to seize the assets of those directly involved in the G2G sales. Yes, the court imposed a five year jail term and Yingluck has fled. The junta has also used its extra-judicial powers to declare her guilty of an issue for which the court cleared her.
  12. If my memory serves me correctly, Prayut ordered the seizure of Yingluck's assets (forget the amount) on the sole basis that she was negligent in the rice pledging scheme? If so, then Prayut has 'illegally' used Section 44 in seizing the assets. Unfortunately, there can be no illegal use of Section 44.
  13. Yingluck cleared over 2011 flooding

    There is also evidence that the dam releases followed the protocols that were established separate and apart from any decision by a official in the Yingluck government. They are not all saying what you assert. But as you point out no one has learned anything from this catastrophe. Isn't that real negligence?
  14. Yingluck cleared over 2011 flooding

    The primary finding was that there was no negligence and this is from an insurance industry expert.