GOLDBUGGY

10 minutes ago, charmonman said:

Maybe they should start sharing this information on criminal records more widely then. At least do a criminal record check before giving people visas and maybe require a visa from everybody (forget the 30 day visa free entry thing).

Not Feasible! Even this Data Base shared by Canada and the United States will not show when somebody has been granted a Pardon. 

Since this Anerican was a Teen when his first Manslaughter took place he could have, and probably did, apply for a Pardon long ago. Only Murder 1 and High Treason cannot do this as there sentence is for life. You sentence must be completed before you can apply for a Pardon. So if he kept his nose clean until then, he most likely was granted a Pardon. So his Criminal Record would have been errased from the Public Eye. 

The reality of it all is that you can't prevent people like this from entering your country. You also can't keep throwing out the full barrel of apples everytime you find one rotten one it it. The price you pay for welcoming all tourist is you get a bad one every once in awhile. 

12 hours ago, marinediscoking said:

Happened on a Friday and took the police until Tuesday to get witness statements from the staff. That is disgraceful. 

 

Police everywhere will tell you, "every witness has a different version of events that happened."

Generally Police do not discuss a case that is ongoing. Other than a suspect is being detained and held and is being questioned.

They report to there Commanding Officer and the Prosecuter. They do not have to report to the public or you. So if they give you any crumbs later, be grateful for that.  

16 hours ago, RareDingo said:

I'm never sure about internet news, or any news anymore.  News outlets sometimes just trying to sell news, any news, to make a buck.  However, IF and I say IF this man has been charged with murder before (so young 42 to be out of jail), how they hell did he ever get a passport and how the hell did the Thai customs authorities ever let this piece of work into their country.  They are only asking for trouble, which they got, or more, some poor bastard on holiday's messing around with a Thai bar lady.  The mind boggles.  I hope the truth comes out, and those posting picks on social media are just as complicit in this crazy act as the boofhead who clearly has an anger management issue.  JMHO

Firstly, a Criminal Record does not disqualify anyone from getting a Passport. 

Secondly countries do not share data bases on files that contain people who have a Criminal Record. Only Canada and the United States do that. So Thailand Immigration would have no idea if he had a Criminal Record or not. Only wanted Criminals are shared data bases from Interpol. Since he was not a wanted criminal again they had no way of knowing his past hsitory. 

8 hours ago, speedtripler said:

It seems like nothing.... 

Half a dozen conflicting stories on the Web about both of them by now

The American has 1 previous murder under his belt so if I had to flip a coin I'd say he went overboard teaching the ozzie a violent  lesson and is the most guilty party... 

 

The friends who may have egged him on or videotaped the assault and the dead/dying victim  afterwards should be dealt with severely Imo 

 

Deported isn't good enough.... 

 

 

If his friends did egg him on and there was 3 or more that is a crime in Thailand under Section 294

Whoever participates in a public order offense (Public Drunkennes, Disorderly Conduct, etc.) among three persons upwards, and any person, whether such person participated or not has died, shall be imprisoned not more of two years or fined not more of four thousand Baht, or both.

If the participant in such affray can show that he or she has acted so as to prevent such affray or in lawful defense, such participant shall not be punished.

18 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

???

No different degrees for Murder in the page you linked 

The page is a list of "Offence Causing Death"

 

 

Is it that you can't read or just refuse to read? 

Premeditated Murder in Thailand (1st Degree Murder in the United States) carries the Death Penalty in Thailand and like it does in many States in the United States.

Manslaughter in Thailand (3rd Degree Murder in the United States) is inflecting injury on a person causing death, when you did not intend to kill him, resulting in 3 to 20 years in a Thai Prison. In the United States it could be Life (25 years) but generally it isn't and is 15 years or less. Depending on the circumstances. 

Murder in Thailand, which was not Premeditated but you inflected injury with the intent to cause death (2nd Degree Murder in the United States) results in punishment of between 15 to 20 years in jail, and close to what it is in the United States. 

Is it that you can't see the differnece  between the Death Penalty or spending 3 years in Prison, or you can't see the difference and simularities in Thailand to the United States, because they don't attach a number beside the different types of murder in Thailand? . 

8 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

I don't know what you are talking about guys. From what I know about Thai laws (from previous murder cases) there is nothing like 3rd, 2nd of 1st Degree for Murder in Thai laws.

Murder is just "an unlawful killing of a person" and so in this case this is a Murder.

No! Thailand has different Degrees for Murder as well as different punishments. Here they are:

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-murder-death-sections-288-294/

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Thank you for giving us your definitions of American degrees of murder.

 

Oh dear, this isn't America!

Do you care to explain how this differs from Thailand?

51 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

I don't think that is quite correct.  There are many different tests and it varies by jurisdiction but IF the death was caused by multiple kicks to the head -- it would likely qualify for 1st degree (Thailand has different terms but it sort of follows the same line).  The specific intent can happen 1 hour before, 1 minute before or just before when swinging.  Many jurisdictions also include other tests such as depraved indifference to human life... and if the boots to the head are the correct story it would definitely qualify.  If you get into a fight and take one punch a person and they fall and are dead - that falls on one side.  If however you grab a bat and swing it at the person in a fight - it would fall on the other side.   

Several kicks to the head causing death would not qualify as 1st Degree Murder! To get 1st Degree Murder it must be "Premeditated". In other words it must be planned before the action is carried out. There are a few special cases however when this is not so. For example a death of a vicitm during rape is 1st Degree, even though it was not planned. Or death of a Bank Teller during a robbery or committing a crime with a weapon. And so on. 

For 2nd Degree Murder, the act wasn't premeditated but during this fight you had full inteneions of killing this person. Perhaps while the victim was laying on the ground out cold, you picked up a knife and stabbed him in the Heart. That would be 2nd Degree Murder. 

For 3rd Degree Murder, you are involved in a Bar Fight and your actions cause his death. A popular defense for this is of course "Self Defense". For 3rd Degree Murder they do not have to prove that you intended to kill him. It could have even been an accident, by hitting his head as he fell down after you punched him. However, if he came at you with a knife first, your actions may then be justified.  

All 3 Degrees of Murder carry a possible Life Sentence. However when Capital Punishment is the law, you can only be put to death for 1st Degree Murder.  For 2nd Degree Murder the sentence is longer depending on the circumstances, but generally 10 to 20 years. For 3rd Degree and depending on cicumstances again, generally runs 10 years or a little less.   

No it is not possible to get a risk free investment that pays 8%. Either back home or here in Thailand. 

Risk and Reward go hand-in-hand. A 8% Return on your Investment is a very good return by most peoples standards. As somebody already pointed out here some of the safest investments are Saving Accounts or Government Bonds. But the Return on these Investments is barely enough to keep up to Inflation, and if it even does.

This doesn't mean you have to invest in some Penny Stock drilling for Gold in China someplace to get a decent return on your investment. Many Stocks pay regular Dividends which almost always outdo Savings Accounts and Government Bonds. Major Banks and Utility Companies are famous for that.

Of course the more stable this stock is, the less it pays on Dividends, because there is less risk on them defaulting on there Dividend Payment to the Stock Holders. So Major Banks, Utility Companies, Satellite and TV Cable Service Providers,  and the Food Service Industry like Boston Pizza, Pizza Hut, KFC, McDonalds, all mostly pay Dividends as well. Presently I earn about 6.5% Dividend in the Food Service Industry from a long running stable stock. 

Stay away from Speculation Stocks and things like Bitcoins. Especially if you don't understand how they work Probably better off in the long run to go to Los Vegas and role the dice then invest in these type of investments with little knowledge about them.  

Easy to see from what has been reported that he could be charged with Manslaughter (3rd Degree Murder). I highly doubt he internded to kill the other guy, and even if he only threw one punch, he was the first one to throw it. 

Fine and dandy to step in to try and help a Damsel in distress, but it was her getting attacked and not him. You cannot claim self defense if there is not threat on you or your life, unless of course that person being attacked was your daughter or wife. 

5 hours ago, pegman said:

฿100 says he gets another majority. It wouldn't bother me if we stopped shipping armoured personal carriers to the terrorist exporting unelected thugs in Saudi. I've toured the London plant and know they have a great product with a heavy order book. There would likely be no layoff of workers should that order be cancelled.

As the article says, the USA and Russia sells much more weapons and miltary equipment than anyone else in the World. Making them both steep competition. I think we both can also agree that you can't keep guns out of the hands of crimnals, or they would have done this a long time ago. So perhaps they should try a different approach to this. 

If you don't want "Thugs in Saudi Arabia" buying weapons then perhaps they should stop giving them the money to do so. Saudi Arabia still sells a lot of Oil to the United States and elsewhere. So maybe it would be better if the United States, and the rest of the World, bought more of it's Oil from more Friendly Countries, like Canada, thus giving them Thugs less money to buy arms??? 

Just a Thought!

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Jay Leno has too much money and wasn't funny.

Yeah! I didn't think he was so funny either. But Johnny Carson playing the Wizzard and reading the future answer to a question was priceless though. 

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed I do, and it was.

If things go the same way we can expect quality products from China in about 20 years time.

Yeah! Where to next I wonder?

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course I have. I worked there for 10 years.

People use it because it's too expensive to park a car, unless it's outside their house. Even Californian cities could do the same.

I wonder how many people drive in New York City? But I am also sure many people who live in L.A. don't have cars either. But I do agree that cities in California could do that also, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are not doing it right now. I am sure parking is not cheap in L.A. Central either. 

The ones I met at the Refinery near L.A. all had cars, but for a good reason. They couldn't afford to live in L.A. Center as it was too expensive for them to own or rent there. Even when they all made good wages. So they lived outside of the city and had to drive longer distances to work. thus needing a car. Most also Car Pooled.  

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course you can. An American average sized car is a large car elsewhere, and going by the car shows everyone WANTS to buy cars with really big motors. Those SUVs are LARGE cars.

Who actually needs to drive a Hummer as an everyday car?

Well I would guess a person who has a lot of money and can afford a Hummer would buy one? Which there seems to be alot of those People in Califonia, who are rich. But it also seems like people are like this everywhere, and not just California.

But then with the price of fuel, who would buy a Lamborghini which has a 12 Cylinder Engine and has about 740 Horse Power behind that engine? Maybe somebody Rich also? Jay Leno has 169 cars and 117 motorcycles and he lives in California. What can you say about that?

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree, and I try not to buy anything made in China- it's junk anyway, but as almost everything is made there now, it's difficult not to.

Not sure if you are old enough, but I remember a time when we all used to say that about products that came from Japan to. 

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Keep up. Fracking has allowed the US to be an exporter of fuel now. I think it only imports about 30% of needs now.

Well actually 60% of the Oil they use daily in the USA today comes from the outside of the US. As I said from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezula, and Nigeria. In that order! But again what is your point? That at a higher cost and price the US wouldn't need to Import Oil at all?

You could say that about the USA and everything else, from Running Shoes to Washing machines and TV's. But are the American People willing to pay a triple price to buy Running Shoes or a TV now, which may not be of the same good quality they had before, just because it was made in America? I beleive the answer is No!

So why Frac for Oil when it is more expensive they buying it from Saudi Arabia and shipped by Tanker Ship to the Refinery in Texas? A day like that may come in the future but not today. The Oil is still sitting in the ground and it isn't going anywhere for awhile.    

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That works for London.

Ever take a Sub-way in London during Rush Hour?

I have and now know why the Public Transportation System works so well for them in London. It is because so many people use it! 

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I guess the point is if one doesn't want to allow oil extraction in one's state, then one should be using something other than oil to power one's life style. Apparently though, Californians are quite happy to have someone else's state polluted so that they can drive cars on oil. 

Perhaps the federal government should agree to not allow offshore drilling in exchange for California paying a 500% tax on all oil based products entering the state. That sounds fair to me.

Maybe a 500% Tax would be fair, if all Oil Based Products came from the USA, but they don't. They come from Saudi Arabia, Venezula, and Canada. So since most of the Oil entering the United States comes from another country, why should California be singled out from the rest of the States? 

Another reason you can't do this is maybe it would be fair then for California to charge a 500% Tax on there Vegetables they sell to the other states? Or Florida for there Oranges? Or Texas for there Beef and Oil? Iowa for there Pork, Corn and Wheat? And so on! Which you can't do in a country with a Democracy! 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it has to be subsidised. No public transport will ever pay it's own way. It's a "good thing" though, so worthwhile.

London has no problem filling its public transport. Just make it inconvenient to have a car in the city. I wasn't able to park a car in the accommodation car park, so no car.

 

Not odd at all. Americans only have to drill for oil at sea because they are the most wasteful people on the planet. Been driving huge cars with enormous engines for decades till the easy oil all gone. Shameful, really.

I don't think an American idea of a small car is the same as anywhere else in the world.

 

I've no intention of "saving the planet" by not driving a car. I did my bit by not having children. Just don't need one here with available public transport. Back home I have one because no public transport in the rural areas, but it's small. I don't need a tank to get me around.

 

That would be true, but I was referring to the well with a pump, not the actual drilling. I heard that it only takes 12 days to drill a well now, and they'd surely pay for me to stay in an hotel if they were drilling one next door.

 

It's exactly that statement that exposes the hypocrisy of Californians. Don't want oil wells- don't drive cars using petrol.

 

I refuse to buy running shoes made by slave labour in another country. I try not to buy anything made by slave labour, though it's not always possible to know now. Probably clothes and shoes are high in the slave trade, but companies are so good at hiding their sources that it's not always possible to know.

Yes Public Transportation is a good thing and why any city I know of which is of a decent size has that. Your beef seems to be that this is not good enough. My beef has been that to get better people have to use it more and there has to be a greater demand for that. My Father never took the City Bus even once in his life, and I know many more like that Setting up a Bus Route just for you to catch the bus once a day to and from work to the outside of the city is not feasible. They need more than one passager a day to do that. 

I didn't know you could still buy huge cars anymore. To be honest I haven't seen a 1970's Cadillac, or a Ford Lincoln Town Car, or a Crysler New Yorker, in years. I can't remeber the last time I saw an 8 cylinder engine. So they all look small to me now.

But we are all wasteful for sure. Perhaps the only way you are going to get Americans to walk away from there Cars, and take Public Transportation, is to make it too expensive or difficult to even own and drive a car. Then try to get re-elected the next term to enforce that. 

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it has to be subsidised. No public transport will ever pay it's own way. It's a "good thing" though, so worthwhile.

London has no problem filling its public transport. Just make it inconvenient to have a car in the city. I wasn't able to park a car in the accommodation car park, so no car.

 

Not odd at all. Americans only have to drill for oil at sea because they are the most wasteful people on the planet. Been driving huge cars with enormous engines for decades till the easy oil all gone. Shameful, really.

I don't think an American idea of a small car is the same as anywhere else in the world.

 

I've no intention of "saving the planet" by not driving a car. I did my bit by not having children. Just don't need one here with available public transport. Back home I have one because no public transport in the rural areas, but it's small. I don't need a tank to get me around.

 

That would be true, but I was referring to the well with a pump, not the actual drilling. I heard that it only takes 12 days to drill a well now, and they'd surely pay for me to stay in an hotel if they were drilling one next door.

 

It's exactly that statement that exposes the hypocrisy of Californians. Don't want oil wells- don't drive cars using petrol.

 

I refuse to buy running shoes made by slave labour in another country. I try not to buy anything made by slave labour, though it's not always possible to know now. Probably clothes and shoes are high in the slave trade, but companies are so good at hiding their sources that it's not always possible to know.

After reading you interesting posts, and I mean that sincerely, I am really not sure what you main point is. Is it that if Californians don't allow Oil Rigs on there Shores, then they should not be allowed to drive cars?

Many States don't even have Oil to drill for. Ever hear of any Big Oil finds in Utah or Nevada lately? How many Off-shore Oil Rigs can you count from Manhatten Island? So would it be fare to say that since the State of New York doesn't produce it's own Oil, then all people living there should not be allowed to own or drive cars? 

Although the United States was by far the Worlds Largest Exporter of Oil in the 1890's, the United States has been a huge net Importer of Oil since the 1960's, or even much earlier. How do you deal with that? Tell the people they can drive there cars until the Oil runs out? Or like Singapore, and restrict the amount of cars on the road, where some people have to wait 10 years to even buy a car? Or pay twice as much for a Used Car? 

You seem to go back to keep saying that you wouldn't mind a Pump Jack in your back yard which is pumping out Oil. I suppose that if it was my Oil they were pumping, and if they were paying me for that, I wouldn't mind either. But if it was somebody elses Oil, and you got nothing for it, why shouldn't you mind? 

My main point has been that because there is more than enough Oil in the World right now and all the Storage Tanks in the USA are full, you don't need this Pump Jack in your Back Yard and anymore than California needs it on there Shores. Saudi Arabia and Russia recently both cut back Oil Production just so they could reduce the supply and increase the price high enough to make taking the Oil out of the ground profitable. At any given moment they could open the taps and flood the market with Oil again. 

The days when everything you bought said "Made in the USA" are long gone. Hard to believe that at one time most of the Oil that was Exported around the World came from the USA. Or that all cars build in the World came for Detroit. That almost everything you bought from Washing Machines to TV's came from the USA.

You say you avoid buying things made from Child or Slave Labour. My Freind I am telling you that this is near impossible to do now, unless you run around totally naked all the time. Maybe you don't see it this way, but people in China earning less than $10 a day working 12 hours a day everyday, is very close to Slave Labour in My Books. 

So I will go back to what I said in the first place. Califonia is right in not letting them drill for Oil off there shores mostly because they don't need the Oil. And if they don't need the Oil there is no point in taking a big risk of a possible Oil Spill.    

I think the Government of Canada should concern itself with increasing Exports, and thus increasing local jobs. Rather than reducing that by deciding if a Democratic Elected Govenment, and Ally, like the Philippines, can buy our weapons based on how they might use them. That is like selling a new car but only if the driver promises to keep the speed within the speed limits. Which he may not do anyway!

The big problems with this government is they keep trying to prove to the World how good they are, and at the cost of jobs and money back home. Stop! You are not that good! In fact you are doing a terrible job and you won't be re-elected. So instead ask the Philippines, will that be cash or credit card?  It is not like you are the only act in town and the only place to buy weapons.  

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm glad that you realise that wanting oil to be pumped anywhere except where one lives while driving a car the size of a tank with a truck engine under the hood is hypocritical.

Yes California brought in laws to reduce pollution, but how much is spent on a decent public transport service as against building more roads?

Catalytic converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move American's huge cars.

In comparison, my car back home is tiny, microscopic compared to a normal sized American commuter car. I only have one there because public transport does not exist where I live.

 

But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

I didn't realise I was calling for no oil pumping where I live. Pump away by all means next door to my house, pump away on every street corner. I have no objection at all if it allows me to travel.

BTW, I don't have as much as an electric bike in LOS, as I use public transport, bus or train where possible.

The trouble with Public Transportation is 2 fold. First it is always subsidized by the city, and thus a money losing venture. The second problem is more important. Public Transportation is only effective when people decide to use that.

A good example was that I lived in Poland for awhile, and shall we say both before and after. When I first got there the roads were basically empty. Very few at this time could afford to buy a car. Even though back then a New Polish Fiat, and a pretty good little car, only cost about $4,000, you could not buy a car on credit. It was Cash Only! 

At that time Public Transportation was fantastic, although almost always packed with people. You could easily go anywhere in the city on a few pennies. If you missed your bus you had no worries as another one would come along in 10 minutes. To go outside of the city the train system was also fantastic. A First Class Coach was peanuts, and yet most sat empty as Poles mostly travelled Second Class, for half that price. 

Then a funny thing happened. Poland got out of the Communist System and later joined the EU. So now people could get Bank Loans, which in the past was near impossible. Most did and the first thing they bought on Credit was a new car. 

So now the streets are packed with cars and Rush Hour is every hour, as the infrastructure was not designed for so many cars. The buses now sit almost empty. It got so bad for Public Transportation that many Bus Routes where reduced or cancelled and many others discontinued. 

So my point being is that in order to have a Good Public Transportation System, you need a lot of people willing to use that. In Europe they are much more willing to ride there bicyle to work, or take public transportation, including the Sub-way. But in Canada and the USA, we are much more spoiled. We are used to having our own cars and the freedom that goes with that. The truth is, most of us want roads and not new buses that nobody will ride in, and why they don't improve on that. 

Catalytic Converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move a car. In fact they use more fuel. But it is odd you pointed this out as I never said they did save on fuel. Catalytic Converters reduce Carbon Monoxide, or Smog. That was the goal of the California Government and not to reduce the amount of fuel burnt. But the higher cost of fuel and the amount burnt, did drive people into buying smaller cars, which was also there goal. 

I don't mind being a Hypocrite, as I think most people are. To be honest I never met a Man or Woman in my life who sold there car and walked or biked to work, only because they were trying to save the Planet. I am sure some exist, but just to say I never met anyone like this.

So just because you don't own a car, it doesn't mean it is because you are tying to save the planet. Probably saving money and the hassel of drivng in the city was your true reasons.  I have friends who live in London and they don't own a car either. In that city they just don't see the point of it all. But live on a farm or in a small village and then lets see how long it takes you to buy a car or truck. 

You don't seem to mind an Oil Rig moving in next door to you and keeping you up all night drilling, which to be honest I find hard to believe. But I guess you feel it is your contribution for having and use to travel by public transportation or otherwise. Did it ever occur to you that you make this contribution everytime you buy a litres of fuel? Oil Companies don't drill for Oil to just give that away later.  

California is right in trying to keep Oil and Mining Companies out of there Beautiful State. Let them drill for Oil elsewhere. Even when they use Oil to drive there cars. No different than you buying a pair of running shoes made from cheap child labour in another country. Or the Rubber Factory there to make them. I like to keep my back yard clean. Some people move in an old junker and let it rust and rot there. So it depends on that individual I guess.