sambum

5 hours ago, midasthailand said:

The person taking the video was NOT another cop, it was a local Thai woman who repeatedly asked the Kiwis to stop!!

This has already been pointed out a couple of times, so I was wrong to assume it was another cop - OK?

However, once again, the original post certainly IMPLIES that the incident was being videoed by the police :- 

" After the police pursuit, the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police."

How do you interpret that?

22 hours ago, Dolf said:

They stole his gun.

Thank you! (I think a more accurate term would have been "disarmed" it, but hey, the justice system is out to get them!

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

so stealing a pair of shoes could land one in deeper trouble than assaulting a cop ?   theoretically at least ,  I was going to say .".well this is Thailand " afterall, but there are plenty of instances in other countries were the disparity in punishments for different crimes defy logic

Honest question - did they steal a pair of shoes? I can't recall anything of 18 pages of posts regarding this incident where theft was mentioned.

2 hours ago, charleskerins said:

You believe a Thai policeman took the video of another officer being assaulted instead of jumping in?   

I am saying that that is the way that it seems as written in the article.

7 minutes ago, jesimps said:

In my 17 years of driving my car here I've been stopped and fined 200 baht each time on made up violations. Each time I gave them a wry smile, paid up and got on my way. What's the point in causing a scene for a couple of hundred baht? Even if these guys hadn't been speeding and all over the road, they had no motorbike licence so were breaking the law. Why risk a barney with a copper resulting in possible jail time over paying a small fine?

It shouldn't be that way, but it is!

"Section 335 of the Criminal Law: committing theft in a dwelling place. The penalty is imprisonment from one to five years and a fine from 20,000 to 100,000 baht."

First mention I've seen of that one!

4 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Difficult to say, given that before I saw that quote, I'd already read several articles that shed more light on how things had unfolded.

Funny, that! I've trawled through a few pages here and you are the only one to quote "several articles" "multiple other sources", "other reports", "various articles", and "multiple different sources" - all in a couple of hours.

Not that I'm doubting your wide range of reading matter, it just seems unusual that nobody else seems to have seen any other reports on this incident? 

4 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

One might, although as I say, based on multiple other reports, it would appear that two different videos were recorded. One apparently by the policeman who was assaulted, which we have not seen, and one by a bystander which we have.

Funny how "multiple other reports" seems to have suddenly become a "buzz phrase" on this thread!

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, the article simply says that the incident was being "recorded by the police" - it does not say that the video which is available online, is the one taken by "the police".

 

Again, multiple different sources make it clear that "the police" refers to the policeman who was assaulted with some reports even suggesting that it was the fact that he was filming them, that aroused the ire of the two men.

 

As far as I am aware, the video that the policeman himself was filming, has not been made public.

Be honest - If you were reading this and looking at the video for the first time, how would you interpret it?:- 

"the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police."

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I think you're misinterpreting the phrase, "while having the incident recorded by police" to mean that the video we have seen, is what was being recorded by police. 

 

Other reports, including the one above from The Thaiger (which includes the video in question) state that the assault started while the pair were being filmed by the policeman that was attacked but that the video doing the rounds was not the video taken by the policeman, but was shot by a witness to the incident.

"I think you're misinterpreting the phrase, "while having the incident recorded by police" to mean that the video we have seen, is what was being recorded by police."

Well, one would - wouldn't one? 🙂  

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It is reported in various articles from multiple different sources about this incident, that it was a bystander who took the video, not a policeman. 

Then this article is "false news"!  From the article itself:-

"...the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police."

27 minutes ago, ryandb said:

 

Yes guessing the state of mind is by definition conjecture as we do not know it!!

 

Ah I missed the recorded by the police, but it still doesn't change what the video shows which is the only evidence at this time but very weird if that was a cop why exactly they didn't draw their weapon (assuming they were carrying) especially when once the guy took possession of it.

".....very weird if that was a cop why exactly they didn't draw their weapon"

Couldn't agree more!

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Have you never read a news article that got some things wrong? The article also say the cop pursued them, but says nothing about another cop doing so.

 

Another post on here said a Thai woman took the vdo.

"Have you never read a news article that got some things wrong?"

So we don't believe anything that has been said in the article? Or just "cherry pick" the parts that suits our agenda   we like?

(Maybe the other cop followed on behind - camera at the ready?)

Not doubting you, but I don't recall seeng a post which claims a Thai woman took the video - could you provide a link, please?

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I already said that the vdo looks like some amateur civilian hiding from possibly getting shot using their phone camera. I'll withdraw that if it is claimed by the cops that they took it. IMO if it was a cop the assailant was lucky to not be shot.

From the article itself:-

"...the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police.

Or to fire another conspiracy theory into the equation, was the whole thing just a set up, with a cop taking the video just making sure that he had enough evidence to convict the "bad farangs"? 

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

???????????????

 

The vdo looks like a phone camera vdo being taken by a civilian that was hiding from possibly being attacked, or shot.

 

Looks to me the cop was on his own, and the other cops turned up after it was over.

 

How does discharging a weapon render it harmless? One removes the magazine and the chambered round to make a gun harmless, not firing a bullet which might ricochet and injure a bystander.

 

Whether he threatened them or not is irrelevant. If one is a visitor in a country which isn't populated by the woke and with an ineffectual police force like back home ( where I have seen the cops laughed at because the scum thugs know that the cops are ineffectual and won't do anything about it ), one doesn't attack the cops after evading a traffic stop and breaking traffic laws, unless they want to be in strife. The guy attacking the cop was lucky not to be shot.

 

I've seen plenty like them in Pattaya where they hire a large m'bike and speed as if they own the road. They don't impress me in the slightest.

I just hope the NZ government doesn't waste any effort trying to get them off.

"The vdo looks like a phone camera vdo being taken by a civilian that was hiding from possibly being attacked, or shot."

No, sorry, but it does say in the article:- 

"...the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police.

20 minutes ago, ryandb said:

 

Well, you were replying to my comment so I stuck to the parameters of what I said.

 

But talking about who was taking the video and trying to guess their state of mind is conjecture and does not add anything to the story right now, once they make a statement or their statement is released then that will enlighten us.

"But talking about who was taking the video and trying to guess their state of mind is conjecture" - WRONG!:- 

 "the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police."

To repeat myself, if the person taking the video was another cop (See above!) why didn't he/she jump in and help? I guess it was to make sure that they had enough incriminating evidence on the pair of Kiwis.

But I also would like to see any video evidence of the original roadstop.

10 minutes ago, ryandb said:

 

Well, you were replying to my comment so I stuck to the parameters of what I said.

 

But talking about who was taking the video and trying to guess their state of mind is conjecture and does not add anything to the story right now, once they make a statement or their statement is released then that will enlighten us.

I was replying to your comment because it does seem odd that someone (Not CCTV) was taking a video of the situation, and from what has been said already, it would "appear that" that person is another cop, and I was implying that if it was,why didn't he jump in to help? 

1 minute ago, ryandb said:

 

What does this have to do in any way with the point there appears to be no evidence of road traffic offenses besides what the Police said happened?

 

 

 

1 minute ago, ryandb said:

 

What does this have to do in any way with the point there appears to be no evidence of road traffic offenses besides what the Police said happened?

 

 

 

What does THIS have to do in any way with the point I was making about who was taking the video?

14 minutes ago, Startmeup said:

Cops <deleted> up majorly and are now in massive spin campaign to make themselves look to be wronged

Indeed, the statement that "Indeed, further criminal charges may be brought." implies that the book is about to be thrown!

6 minutes ago, ryandb said:

Is there photos of them fleeing? evidence of the Road Traffic Offenses outside of the police statement of this right now? 

 

I've only seen video of them restraining the cop, I'm sure there will be some eye witness statements appear in time but right now there is no evidence of what the police stated happened before the video

"I've only seen video of them restraining the cop,...."

And who was taking the video? obviously someone pretty close to the situation who does not appear to be fazed by the fact that a gun is being waved about?

There's obviously 2 sides to every story:-

 "Top brass have vowed to pursue justice in the case. Indeed, further criminal charges may be brought. Initially, the pair face charges of assault, robbery, obstruction and bribery."

Where did the robbery and bribery charges come from?

"Two foreigners on motorbikes did not follow the traffic laws, not riding close to the left side of the road and riding at high speed in a community area, according to Chalong police. The police on duty asked for cooperation from them to stop their motorbikes."

So how often do you see Thais riding at high speed in a community area or not riding close to the left side of the road? Happens all the time where I live!

So if they were riding at high speed, how did the police on duty ask them to stop their motorbikes?

"After the police pursuit, the two foreigners were infuriated and allegedly attacked the police while having the incident recorded by the police."

What's all that about? Not making excuses for the pair, but who was taking the video while the cop was being attacked? (Obviously not CCTV!) If it was being "recorded by the police", how is it that they didn't step in to help their colleague? It also appears that one of the "farangs" discharges the weapon thereby rendering it pretty harmless. Maybe the officer threatened them with it?

However, I am not making excuses for this pair of idiots, and they can rightly expect to be "jumped on from a great height" by the top brass for the assault and restraining of a police officer. I do think that the future looks pretty bleak for them, and their punishment will probably only start with the court case! 

2 minutes ago, CartagenaWarlock said:

Total BS. They should be arrested and deported. You cannot just go to any country and start working. 

I say that I like Thailand better than my own country, and you call it BS? How do you know what I or anybody else thinks of their countries? 

If you are going to reply to a post make sure that your answer is relevant to the point made or your post may well be considered BS!!!

7 hours ago, proton said:

 

That only applies to wine, I thought it included local beer and spirits also?

I think the word "Imported" is a bit of a giveaway!

2 hours ago, AverageAussie said:

 

It's easy to get confused. The precise numbers are always going to be an estimate - and not just because they will vary from year to year. The definitions will vary and of course there are different organisations that do the counting & different inputs to compare.

 

For example, the percentage of workforce that is DIRECTLY EMPLOYED by the tourism sector in Thailand can be about half the actual value of GDP output for the sector (and as little as 7% by some organisations). That can happen because of a flow-through effect; a hotel makes $x revenue per annum from its room bookings, a big percentage of that is expended as wages, those employees spend that money on other sectors (food, transport, housing etc) and those sectors will increase their spending. So even if it's only 7% employed - if that sector stops earning (such as during a pandemic) then the flow on effect can multiply the economic impact.

 

Here's a more comprehensive graphical representation of the current economic sectors in Thailand. Variations can be quite stark.

 

Overall though, the Thais are MUCH MORE dependent on the tourism sector than most other economies. Expats & retirees actually morph closer into "local resident" status, insofar as their economic impact. Except of course most are no longer working or directly contributing to output of goods & services.

Thank you for your comprehensive breakdown, and I do not dispute your figures, but the point I was making is that as qualified readers of the English language we do not need to be told 3 times in 3 consecutive sentences what the anticipated number of tourists are going to be - according to Kasikorn Research.

Also, I was only pointing out that whenever "guesstimates" are made, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports (TAT) can always be depended on to make sure that their figures are way above anybody else's!