Jump to content
Thailand Forum
webfact

Murder! Police charge driver who went the wrong way and killed baby

Recommended Posts

Wiggy    891
7 minutes ago, AlQaholic said:

They way he drove straight into the black pickup on the video, may indicate intent, on the other hand being drunk may be a good defense tactic, that may be why police suddenly found alcohol in his blood.....

Fair point - that or maybe even a suicide attempt. Or that he was 'blind drunk' and didn't even see the pickup. Lots of defense options either way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark01    757

If only the lazy ****s would get off their <deleted> and do something about preventing this sort of stuff instead of just fining people for no tax, or no helmet, etc...

 

One in jail is not going to stop the thousands of accidents every year caused by this sort of driving.

And may I add, the bib are no better than the public

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TKDfella    411
14 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Been through that argument a number of times, in the US the proper term is "driving under the influence" a common term is Drunk driving drunk is a noun drink as used by British and Australians is a verb 

Noun: a word that is the name of something (such as a person, animal, place, thing, quality, idea, or action) and is typically used in a sentence as subject or object of a verb or as object of a preposition

 

Verb: grammar : a word (such as jumpthinkhappen, or existthat is usually one of the main parts of a sentence and that expresses an action, an occurrence, or a state of being 

 

Technically both terms can be considered correct, but I will use the correct legal term in my country "driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol" in some states the term used is "driving while intoxicated". 

You might also inform cardinablue that the word is 'English' with a capital 'E', ha!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALLSEEINGEYE    2,885
On 9/12/2017 at 3:20 PM, joecoolfrog said:

This is true but 2 wrongs dont make a right . Would you rather that nobody was ever prosecuted because of the (disgusting ) free pass given to the privileged few.

Of course not! Not what I meant at all. I am just disgusted that so many get away with it at all. I want to see justice across the board not just for the unconnected. No free passes for anyone. I hope that is more clear now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonmarleesco    1,628
On 9/12/2017 at 10:28 AM, djayz said:

Good. One person who'll be charged and hopefully sentenced. Better get him behind bars pronto before he runs off. 

Now, let's see if the cops can capture Mr. Coward, errr, sorry I mean "Boss" and put him in front of a judge, too. 

That would upset Noel, were he still alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonmarleesco    1,628
22 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Been through that argument a number of times, in the US the proper term is "driving under the influence" a common term is Drunk driving drunk is a noun drink as used by British and Australians is a verb 

Noun: a word that is the name of something (such as a person, animal, place, thing, quality, idea, or action) and is typically used in a sentence as subject or object of a verb or as object of a preposition

 

Verb: grammar : a word (such as jumpthinkhappen, or existthat is usually one of the main parts of a sentence and that expresses an action, an occurrence, or a state of being 

 

Technically both terms can be considered correct, but I will use the correct legal term in my country "driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol" in some states the term used is "driving while intoxicated". 

Drink, as used by the British and Australians, is both a verb and a noun. Past and future tenses as a verb, past, present and future tenses as a noun.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JAS21    1,391

As soon as I saw the video I thought ... why is the oncoming car in the outside lane. I say to my wife many times "please" drive on the inside lane when you can't see what is around the bend!

 

And she has a UK driving licence ... She used to tell me don't drive in the outer lane as it is illegal and Mr BIB will be waiting for you around the corner ... now she has slipped back into the Thai way and it is me who says inside lane please ... If that lane is really bumpy the OK and if stopped try the dead dog story ... 

 

Of course she now understands that inside lane is the left lane whereas here it is viewed as the outer lane (right)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpy Duck    206
8 hours ago, TKDfella said:

You might also inform cardinablue that the word is 'English' with a capital 'E', ha!

I am not that much of a spelling/grammar nazi. 555

Hell I have seen many posts on this site that were totally senseless because of spelling and grammar. Usually by people with crappy spell check on dumb phones (smart cannot apply) then there are those using English as a 2d, 3d, or 4th language. 

Edited by Grumpy Duck
The hamster ate it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gumballl    374
On 9/12/2017 at 1:25 AM, Wiggy said:

"Most seen driving on the wrong side of the road keep close to the road shoulder."

 

Yes - if they know they are on the wrong side of the road.

 

I hear you all, and your comments are understood. But surely just simply driving on the wrong side of the road in a seemingly confused (drunk) state isn't intent. Remember the guy who killed the two graduate students? He was possibly (probably) drunk and on medication. That started off as a murder charge but was later dropped. The two cases have similarities. Please don't anyone think I'm defending this guy; he needs to go away for a long time, but his defense on the current charges might be easy: "I didn't know I was on the wrong side of the road and didn't mean to kill anyone." To prove otherwise will be tough. Whereas with a gun a defence is more difficult, "I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger, but I didn't mean to kill him." Everyone knows if you point and fire a gun then your intent is probably to kill. 

 

Just saying.

He could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  It happens often in the US under similar circumstances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stargrazer9889    950

I  agree that this guy may get off of the murder charge,  because of the country

he will be tried  in. I do not have confidence in my own countrys justice system.

 Good luck to the family of the victim.

Geezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Si Thea01    1,998
On 9/12/2017 at 1:22 PM, Wiggy said:

 

As mentioned earlier that's manslaughter, but does that exist under Thai law? I  don't know.

 

Yes, under the Thai Criminal Code, section 290, police can lay a  charge of manslaughter, with the penalty being imprisonment of between 3 and 15 years.  There is also a charge of negligence where whoever committing an act by negligence and that act causes the death of another persons than the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined not more than 20,000 baht.  This is governed under the same criminal code, section 291.

 

Not knowing the full details surrounding the incident, or the proofs required to prove murder, I have no idea why they have done so, however, given they have, it may suggest there is more to this incident than we are aware of.  This charge is laid under section 288 of the criminal code and the offender can receive the death penalty or be sentenced to between 15 to 20 years in prison. Under section 289, which relates to the death penalty, there are 8 separate aspects, any one of which, if proved, will result in the offender receiving the death penalty if convicted of murder. :wai:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiggy    891
1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Yes, under the Thai Criminal Code, section 290, police can lay a  charge of manslaughter, with the penalty being imprisonment of between 3 and 15 years.  There is also a charge of negligence where whoever committing an act by negligence and that act causes the death of another persons than the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined not more than 20,000 baht.  This is governed under the same criminal code, section 291.

 

Not knowing the full details surrounding the incident, or the proofs required to prove murder, I have no idea why they have done so, however, given they have, it may suggest there is more to this incident than we are aware of.  This charge is laid under section 288 of the criminal code and the offender can receive the death penalty or be sentenced to between 15 to 20 years in prison. Under section 289, which relates to the death penalty, there are 8 separate aspects, any one of which, if proved, will result in the offender receiving the death penalty if convicted of murder. :wai:

Thanks for posting that. Very useful to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 September 2017 17:26
Sponsors
×