Si Thea01

1 minute ago, tropo said:

It wasn't fun for us. We (my wife and I) were the defendants. If we didn't negotiate a settlement it would have resulted in us having to post bail and surrender our passports and our retirement visa canceled. Sure, it's likely we could have won in the end, but negotiation worked well for us. At that stage, we'd already spent more than 100k on lawyers and were happy to be done with it. A civil case had been brought against us at the same time. We had a civil hearing one day and a criminal hearing the very next day. It's their ploy, to use a criminal case to help loosen the wallet.

Yeah, that is exactly what my lawyer told me about the criminal bit.  It loosened his wallet believe me. Sorry to hear that an A hole lawyer stuffed it.  At least with my lawyer, he only required 20k up front and then after negotiating, 20 percent of the compensation received.  Seeing that he didn't get what he said he would I paid him 15 percent, he wasn't happy but stiff, he took it. 

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

Evidence has to be presented within 90 days. Even if the court case takes 6 months, it doesn't matter, as long as video evidence was submitted to the court within 90 days (for criminal cases it's longer for civil cases) of it being recorded. Unfortunately, a lawyer caused no end of trouble for me by submitting key video evidence 2 days late despite him having it on hand a month earlier. They struck it out as being inadmissible and it destroyed my case - and allowed the plaintiff to come back and sue me 6 months later in a criminal case for making false charges against her - because the evidence was submitted late.

That sucks, another crap lawyer.  Mine wasn't much better but at least he got everything before the court, that is the brief, which had to be submitted shortly after the charges were laid.  I was then given plenty of time, longer than 90 days, in which to get witness' statements before the witnesses were required.

Then each witness, as they were specialist doctors, were given ample time to arrange their affairs in order for them to attend. After the second specialist gave his evidence, the defendant changed his view and then decided to negotiate but it took bloody two years of BS to get it finalised, fortunately, in my favour.

7 minutes ago, tropo said:

If you start a criminal case against someone through the court, without the police being directly involved, a paid settlement is on the cards. Both parties are invited into a mediation room to attempt to negotiate a settlement before the case is heard in front of a judge.  

 

I'm not sure how it works when the police are prosecuting.

Agreed with the mediation room bit, a waste of times, four attempts with me and it ended up in a hearing before the judge, who in the end told the defendant that they should think very seriously about settling the matter, which, in the end, after two years, he did.

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Thank god you are not his lawyer. 

As I have explained earlier, paying the guy off and pleading guilty will garantee a prison sentence. 

It's criminal case, which is a crime against the state laws, nothing to do with the Thai guy now. You have to pay at the police station before it goes to the court. I also don't think 72 of provocation would help. 

His only hope is self defense 67.

I used it. I won. Almost identical situation to him. 

I cannot follow your matter. You say it was declined by the prosecutor because of lack of evidence, yet you had video evidence but then you say you won but lost because the prescription of time was finished, which I am assuming you mean, "Statute of Limitations."  So how can you win and lose at the same time?  as I stated previously, I do not believe self defense would stand p but that is IMO.  Could well happen, we will just have to wait and see.

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Not quite correct either. 

My case was declined by the prosecutor as he said there was not enough evidence. 

I had video of the whole thing. 

I won. However, I also lost because the prescription of time was finished. We will agree to disagree. 

If you accept he was maltreated seriously by unjust cause. 

Then 67, 68 69 quite obviously precede it and apply. 

I just don't understand why you say yes to 72 and not the self defense law. 

Two unrelated cases.  My case, which related to medical malpractice was presented to the judges,who after looking at the brief of evidence, accepted to deal with the matters.  What do you mean by prescription of time.  Are you talking about Statute of Limitations.

It may well be that he was initially provoked, that is why I said it may apply in any attempt to mitigate but that would be up to the court and lawyers.  Why not self defense, because once he armed himself and later ran the guy down he has used excessive force.

5 hours ago, EcigAmateur said:

I find hotels that do not charge upfront or daily as stupid as customers who think that it's ok to pay when they leave. Anybody with a brain would pay upfront even if not asked for the peace of mind of the owner as well as customer.

 

 

 

 

If I may ask, why is one stupid if they pay when they leave?  And if they pay when they leave, they have no brain.  That's clear and sound reasoning. 

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

You are talking about a private criminal prosecution by the injured person section 28(procedure code). In the case you take the role of the prosecutor yourself, usually instigated when public prosecutors do not support your case.obviously if you drop the case there is no one to prosecute. Totally different scenario. In that case it is a good idea to settle.  

Section 69 says if the action is in excess of what is reasonable the judge can give a lower punishment  but if it is caused by fear or excitement or fright the court can decide not to give punishment as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe. Should have seen him run, it was hilarious ????

Section 67 68 69 criminal code his best option. I hope he is reading this. He fits all the boxes. 

Not quite correct.  It has nothing to do with the Public Prosecutor not supporting the case, they were never involved, nor did they sight the evidence.  In Thailand, if one does not want the police involved, for whatever reason, (obvious) than they can engage a lawyer and have the  case dealt with under the Thai Criminal Code.   In my instance, two hearings were run in conjuction, the first, a claim for compensation, the second a charge under the criminal code. 

The latter had to be proven as a wrongful act, with the defendant being released on bail.  Upon request of the judges it went to mediation but failed, so it was back to the court. Further negotiations took place and the matters was settled "out of court."  As such, both matters terminated and compensation paid the same day.

As far as Sections 67, 68 and/or 69  I have to disagree but Section 72, "Provocation",  may apply in any attempt to mitigate the charges brought against the Pom but that will be up t the court and lawyers.

5 minutes ago, tropo said:

What are you on about? It's stated quite clearly what is required on the Australian Embassy's website. What is required now is exactly what was required in 2010, when I went through the process.  

 

This is what you said: "Anyone can say anything on a Statutory Declaration, which by the way is a legal document but before they would marry us I had to have one from the Australian Government otherwise no marriage".  

 

That's so vague it's impossible to contradict it. What document from the Australian Government? A stat dec? 

 

Getting "one form the Australian Government" means what? A stat dec from the Australian Embassy?

 

Your childish response, trying to make this personal, says a lot too... believe me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please make up your mind with the dates.  You initially say 2007, when I was married, now it's gone to 2010 when you were married. Which is it?  If is not required today, doesn't mean it was not when I married. I don't make things up. 

For your benefit I was  referring to the single status document from the Department of Birth, Deaths and marriage, which it appears is now not accepted by itself. That is what I had to have otherwise no marriage. Not personal, just highlighting what actions you are advising others to take and as I said, if others follow your advise then it shows that anything can be said on a Stat Dec despite it being a legal document.  

1 minute ago, tropo said:

 A stat dec from the Australian Embassy, translated (into Thai) and certified by the DFA is all that is required by the Amphur. It's the same now as it was in 2007, clearly stated on the Australian Embassy's website.

 

It doesn't make sense that they must see divorce papers IMO. If you wanted to cheat, all you had to do was answer "never married".

 

 

You seem to know all don't you?  I know what I was required and instructed to produce, so please, unless you know what my circumstances were, then don't post a response that tries to contradict and prove me wrong.  Your opinion doesn't matter much when it comes to what officials here require.  And not all people appear to be like you, want to cheat the system by lying.  Does it make your day by telling people that they should act dishonestly.  Says a lot believe me. 

31 minutes ago, tropo said:

You don't need to obtain documents to prove you are single. A statutory declaration made at the embassy is all that is required. You state on that that you are single.

When I was married it was required by the Amphur. Anyone can say anything on a Statutory Declaration, which by the way is a legal document but before they would marry us I had to have one from the Australian Government otherwise no marriage.  That was back in 2007.  If you were previously married, you will need to provide an original divorce or death certificate to demonstrate you are no longer married. You must bring original documents to be certified by the Australian Embassy. The Embassy cannot certify photocopies.  

20 hours ago, hellstens said:

I think it is the same as Sweden, If you register a marriage in Thailand

it is not valid in your home country, you need to marry here there too

And yes you can get a marriage visa, it is only registered in Thailand anyway, But you need to renew and ask for a marriage visa in Thailand, not in your home country. 

I have done this for years and have no problem. :)

 

 

Sorry but Oz is not the same. To marry in Thailand, you will need to obtain documents to prove you are single and in my case, when my Australian wife passed away, I had to have a copy  of the death certificate. Both translated.  If you are legally married in Thailand, and obtain the marriage certificate, and it has to be translated, then it is recognised in Australia and you do not have to marry there.  

59 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Unfortunately the advice to admit guilt and pay off the "victm" and the case will be finished is a myth.

This must happen at the police station, before the case is filed with the courts. Once the case is filed, it is a criminal case and the process of the law must be completed. If he pays now, it is a full admission of guilt , the judge will have no choice but to follow the legal prescription for premeditated murder , he would get a lower sentence because of his admission and compensation. A lot of thai people go to the mediation room thinking the case will finish if they pay. This is not the fact at all in a criminal case.

He absolutely should not pay. He has a good chance with the illegal confinement 310 by the Thai and self defense 67 (1) and and causing injury in effort to escape 67 (2).

This man should never never pay and admit guilt. Even if the Thai wants to drop the case, the prosecutor can file the case anyway. 

I must disagree with you insofar as your allegation that in a criminal case, if compensation is paid, then the case will not finish.  Under Thai law, I charged, through a lawyer, an individual with a criminal offense and did not involve police.

As such, I became the Prosecutor but obviously needed the assistance of a lawyer.  Compensation was offered, and after negotiations, a higher amount was accepted and that terminated the case and the individual, after payment, was able to leave the court a free man.

In so far as the Sections you refer to, 67, self defense, I would say that the Pom  acted in excess of what was considered to be reasonable under the circumstances once he armed himself.  As for Section 310, which is Necessity,  can you explain how this would justify the actions of the Pom?  Also, one needs to look at the definition of confine and detain.  I would say hardly applicable given all the circumstances.

11 hours ago, Ochomo said:

"Police said the raids were carried out as part of crackdown on foreigners linked to crime in Thailand and who pose a security risk."

Africans are an easy, highly visible target. I refuse to accept the narrative that Africans are the ones most linked to crime in Thailand. They are just easier to target. They have less money,  mostly without consular representation, cannot afford lawyers, and honestly, nobody likes them so they can be targeted without cost.  Their prison population must be examined against this unfortunate background. I do not condone crime by any race but reading the news, I cannot help but suspect that these raids may have  more to do with race than eradication of crime. But again, I may be wrong.

Who cares if they're targeted, good on the coppers.  Given that so many have been found to be here illegally and involved in crime then why not target them.  The poor dears, less money, can't afford lawyers, consular representation, who cares if they're proven to be criminals.  More of those quality tourists hey, and not related to the eradication of crime?  I say stiff cheddar, should more of it, and while at it get stuck into the caucasian  lot as well, then we won't have people playing the race card.

If it is proved that they're breaking the law, target them, profile them, and get rid of them.  Stop turning criminals into victims. And what is this unfortunate background? If they want to come here, then like the rest us, about 98 percent, do so legally.  And given what they've been charged with you don't think they pose a security risk?  Thank God you are not in charge of Immigration.

13 hours ago, Gunnar Horpestad said:

Hurrayyyyyyyy for stupidity
What in the hell are they thinking?
They must be totally brain dead.
On the beach:
No eating
No drinking
No smoking
What is next???
No swimming????

You're probably right given what is seem floating in the water. 

7 hours ago, Thechook said:

Every hotel I have stayed at has made me pay up front, is there special treatment for Russians.

I'm not Russian and have never had to pay up front.

11 hours ago, Chrisdoc said:

I was at Pattaya beach around 2 pm Sunday. Tide coming in. Piles of rubbish. Never seen it so bad. Definitely hadn't been cleaned yet. I usually sympathise with the deck chairs guys but I can't understand why they don't clean up in front of their sites at least. It's not like they are really busy. I wouldn't sit in that but plenty sunbathing in the filth.

Sent from my SM-J120G using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

There's a difference between being busy and being just plain lazy. If the quality tourists are prepared to sunbathe near and in amongst the crap then why should they get off their backsides and clean?  Sought of reminds me of animals wallowing.

51 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As many have said here, Kim is not stupid.  He's setup the US as the bogey man to help keep his minions in order.  He needs an external threat for their focus.  So he can stay in power and live the good life.  Not much different from other countries that have dictators for leaders.

 

The world would be a better place without him. And the NK population would be in much better shape.

Sometimes I disagree with you but on this occasion, not so.  

51 minutes ago, greenchair said:

And please add to that section 310 that says anyone that prevents a person from their right to freedom and liberty of movement  (or something like that ) is liable to 3 years imprisonment. 

And section 67 that says anyone that causes injury to another in the effort to escape imminent danger that he did not cause shall not be liable. 

 

Section 310 of the Thai Criminal Code refers to illegal detention.  Who and how was anyone illegally detained.

Section 67 of the Thai Criminal Code refers to Necessity.  Can you tell me how any of the actions of those involved fall under the need of Necessity.  Maybe you listed the incorrect section.  

28 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

There are two cars queuing in the right hand lane to turn right.  The Brio comes from the left hand lane and dangerously pushes in to turn right at the same time as the Brit is turning.  Then the Brio overtakes the Brit.  The Brit then tries to overtake but the Brio moves into the oncoming lane to block him, then drives very slowly blocking the road for all.  Finally he stops his car completely forcing the Brit and the car behind him to to pull up sharp. The other car then overtakes and disappears but the Brit immediately goes to the back of his car to get his machete and the first on foot incident ensues. 

 

Up until this point the red headed Thai punk is totally to blame.  He probably thought he was on a safe wicket confronting an elderly farang who was unlikely to be armed and got a nasty surprise.  Not all farangs are what they seem and the Thai was lucky to avoid serious injury or death, not that I condone the Brit's actions.

 

Personally I think they should both have their licences revoked for life.   Although provoked the Brit deserves to do some time for assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder and the Thai should be do less time for assault which could easily have ended in death and could also be charged with attempted death.  Probably nothing much will happen to either and certainly not to the Thai driver who only needs to deliver a couple of gold bracelets to the police mia nois.

 

Incredible to think the Thai punk was quite happy to provoke a potentially fatal confrontation and get out of his car to fight with his wife and baby in the car.   Both have sh*t for brains.                   

Just a couple of sequences you missed. At the 0.40/2.59 mark, the Brio overtakes the Pom and the pick up  pan tech in front of him, and is now 2 vehicles in front.

At the 0.58/2.39 mark, the Brio is not between the Pom's vehicle and the pick up. (clear vision)

At the 1.19/2.21 mark, the Brio has stopped on the left hand side of the road.

At the 1.30/2.10 mark, the Brio has moved off and gets in front of the Pom's vehicle.

At the 1.38/2.01 mark there has been either a cliche or an editing of the video.  There is no vision of how the Brio moved out onto the incorrect side of the road.  The rest is as you stated.

Given what occurred in the time frames listed it tends to suggest that the Thai has decided to escalate the situation. So, I agree that up to the point where he forced the Pom to stop, he was the aggressor.  After that, it went completely haywire, with the Pom loosing it

The Thai then looses it in the school car park, yelling out that the  Pom had tried to kill him and showing the injuries he had sustained.  Probably justified but it does not justify the king hit.  And the copper, he is an absolute disgrace, to just stand there and not take any action. Should be given an inactive post as he is bloody hopeless in an active one.

11 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Leave the Anti Thai brigade to it. The Police have got it right. Attempted murder charge vs assault charge for the Thai. Spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

In a previous post I said that I was unaware of how he could be charged with "Attempted Murder" as I was not aware of  such a charge within the Thai Criminal Code.  I erred in this regard because additional research resulted in the following being noted under the Criminal Code section of Attempts.

Whoever commences to commit an offence, but does not carry it through, or carries it through, but does not achieve its end, is said to attempt to commit an offence.

Whoever attempts to commit an offence shall be liable to two-thirds of the punishment as provided by the law for such offence.

Whoever commences and commits the offence, but the result is impossible, such person in said to attempts and commits an offence.

The offence is attempted to commit by whomever, such person shall be punished two-thirds of punishment as prescribed by the law for such offence. If the act mentioned in the first paragraph is done on account of blind belief, the Court may not inflict the punishment.

Whoever attempts to commit an offence, but, on his own accord, desists from carrying it through, or changes his mind and prevents the act from achieving its end, shall not be punished for such attempt to commit the offence. But, if what he has already done comes under the provisions of law as an offence, he shall be punished for such offence.

Now given the Police would/should be aware of all the facts, of which we are not, then it appears they have acted within the law when laying the  charge of "Attempted Murder."

Whether or not it results in a conviction is for the court to decide, not the police or those on the forum who agree or disagree with the results so far. 

On 10/14/2017 at 9:03 AM, Big Guns said:

It looks like a Volkswagen Touareg.

You may be right, a new one is due so I m lead to believe.

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Yes I do Si Thea. While I was asleep the other week with my mouth open the wife put something in it. I started choking.

 

I am not a man of the Law Si Thea. Your arguments are strong and I might concede the point about attempted murder. What about aggravated assult by goldman?!

So are you saying you know what constitutes the proofs of attempted murder.  I doubt it very much.  Now,  I don't know, at least not in Thailand, because there is not a charge, at least that I am aware of, contained within the Thai Criminal Code.  So how the police instigated this I have no idea, maybe some recent amendments, don't know.  All I can tell is what happens in NSW, Australia, as a comparison.

No, not even aggravated assault, no such charge.  There is however, under Section 295 of the Criminal Code, Offence Against Body   "An offence where that whoever, causes injury to the other person in body or mind is said to commit bodily harm, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years or fined not exceeding four thousand Baht, or both." 

There are other offences which give rise to include negligence but I don't intend to go into them here.  As for what will be or not be preferred against the Thai is up to the cops, not me or anyone on here. I think we should just sit back and play the waiting game. It will all come to a head and then there won't be any need for guessing.  What do you reckon?

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

He only damaged the car.

 

The cowardly Thai hit the old boy when a copper was watching. This was attempted murder by goldfinger. He probably knew the copper and was confident that the elderly gentleman couldn't retaliate; if indeed he lived. 

Haven't answered the question  owl. Yes, it was the actions of a coward but don't assume he did it for the reasons you have offered.  You really have no idea of what constitutes an attempt to murder someone, so please do not persist in saying that he should, (Thai) be charged with that offence.

Just now, owl sees all said:

I understand this 'general' point Si Thea. 

 

Goldfinger is a bully. An angry Thai who hit a pensioner when he knew it was safe to do so. He is probably used to getting his own way and didn't like it when the elderly gentleman stood his ground.

 

The old boy is a hero to many of the posters on TVForum.

 

 

I am sorry but I must disagree.  If you classify the Thai as a bully than what do you call someone who arms himself with a machete, then uses it, albeit to damage the Thai's car.  Forget about the  car impacting bit for a moment and tell me if you would not call that attack with the weapon a threat, intimidation, the use of superior strength to gain one's way.  That defines a bully, of which a thug is also contained within the definition.

In my almost 30 years in law enforcement I have had a criminals, twice, drive their vehicles at me, twice I shot, both times wounding the offenders but it saved my life. And you should have seem the crap I had to go through when subjected to three investigations that in the end found I had acted within the law. Yes, they lived and later were convicted and received a substantial sentence for their actions.  Both were charged with numerous offences, including attempted murder of a Police Officer. These matters are different  but it shows what can happen when people become thugs.

In this case the Brit is lucky the Thai wasn't armed, otherwise he might have not been around to tell his lies.  A hero, I find that one of the most abhorrent statements I have ever heard, praising and glorifying a thug.  if as you say many posters think he is a hero than I suggest they and maybe yourself take a good hard look at yourselves. Oh By the way, I'm in no way condone anything the Thai did, both these fools continued to escalate the incident, almost to the point that someone could have died.  Road rage at its worst.

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

A thug in your eyes Kieran but a hero to many. Standing up to goldenfinger.

Come on owl, they're both thugs.  To call the Brit a hero doesn't even come within a cooie (coo-ee) of what the word means.  Your suggesting this person should be put in the same category as a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities. Please, the true heroes would turn in their graves if they heard this.