sanemax

50 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Yer... it is,

 

in some places of the world.... and even worse.... as demonstrated by having it listed as a capital offense or an offense liable to life in prison

 

some people's still use sexual assault against women, as a form of terror, with dozens of men lining up for their turn, often killing or maiming the victim, who might even be a grand mother

 

are those machine pistols on your avatar?

   Although we have to stick to Thai laws and this story .

You shouldnt really be using this story to further your feminist agenda .

If you would like to discuss the story you speak of , you really should start a new thread about it

On 11/2/2016 at 10:53 AM, sanemax said:

 

   

You cannot seem to understand what I wrote 

I did say that he was responsible for what happened, then you say that Im mental and then you also say that he was

55 minutes ago, farcanell said:

therefore.... he was responsible for the happenstance of the fall..... I fail to see how this is debatable.

    No it isnt debatable,  because we are both saying the same thing .

We agree with each other, so we can not debate it !!!!!

7 minutes ago, jobsworth said:

my understanding is that the woman was not in agonising pain when this worm molested her but in trying to run away from the worm she fell down a cliff resulting in agonising pain.

 

He then climbed down and molested her as She lay there injured

I would get her log in details and log in to her account and check everything out .

Check her private messages and everything .

Then keep her log in details and log in regularly

Already a thread runnning

Does his Mother have Thai ID ?

If so, then why hasnt the boy got Thai ID previously ?

4 minutes ago, performance said:

Savannakhet what are the transport options from Pattaya ?

   Hi, I just googled that for you

https://www.rome2rio.com/s/Pattaya/Savannakhet

1 hour ago, LivinLOS said:

1 hour ago, claffey said:

If you can read you will see that I have consistently referred to 'lying' to immigration officials. That is what could be construed as illegal. Especially if you write tourism on the documents but live here indefinitely. I guess it depends on what 'tourism' means. 

 

I do fail to understand why some Westerners feel that it is OK to reside in a country for many years on 'tourist visas'. If people want to live with no security in their lives and risk being deported from their 'home' that's up to them. I personally couldn't do it. I'd always be looking over my shoulder. The fact that you need to apply in different consulates highlights the suspicions that immigration have towards such people...

 

   I do not lie to immigration officials and there is no deception .

All my entry and exit stamps and visas are all in my passport for all to see and all my visits to Thailand are all on computer for immigration to see , we are not pretending that we dont live here .

  I also write "visiting friends", on forms, which isnt untrue .

Immigration also need a valid reason to deny you entry or to deport you . 

I am not eligible for a long tern  visa and I dont intend to stay another five years, so I dont want to get an Elite visa .

    If Thailand decided to limit my stays here, I would just go to another Country , 

1 minute ago, LivinLOS said:

What you mean exactly like the OP being told 270 days in one year ?? 

 

Precisely the start of this thread, is exactly what your saying they are not trying to do.

   That was stated by a lady in a visa shop, nothing to do with Thailand or Thai immigration or anyone official, its was also incorrect information

4 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Its people constantly looking for loopholes that causes all these clampdowns that hurt the legit stayers. 

 

 

    I am here legitimately though .

There are no laws stating that you cannot get consecutive visas, either retirement visas or tourist visas

12 minutes ago, claffey said:

And what would you think of people in your own country who lie about their intentions in order to gain entry to your country? You'd want them deported probably. A tourist visa is for a short term visit. It's not intended for people who want to reside there. Lying to immigration is against the law in every country, including Thailand.

   I always write "Want to go to Chiang mai" , that is the truth , Ive been in CM for six years now

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Dude...technicalities!

Yeah...if someone TRIES to kill me, I would call him a killer, if someone tries to eat me, I would call him a cannibal...if someone TRIES to rape me...that makes him a rapist!

 

And I am really not discussing this BS argument "he didn't throw her of that cliff"!

Are you mental?

He is TOTALLY 100% responsible for what happened to her!

Period!

Everything that happened, happened BECAUSE of his rape- attempt in the first place!

You can NOT take everything apart and look at all steps, isolated!

That is not how the world works: action, re-action, consequence...

 

 

    You can call people what you like, but that doesnt make them what you call them .

If someone did try to kill you, they wouldnt actually be labelled a killer until they had killed you .

There are two different laws, "Murder" and "Attempted murder"

You cannot seem to understand what I wrote 

I did say that he was responsible for what happened, then you say that Im mental and then you also say that he was responsible for what happened !!!!!!!!!!

   My point was that did nt deliberately throw her off the cliff .

Deliberately doing something on purpose is quite different to things happening that you are responsibly for .

   If you drive a car fast and it crashes, you would be responsible for the crash, but thats entirely different if you deliberately crashed a car on purpose 

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Dude...technicalities!

Yeah...if someone TRIES to kill me, I would call him a killer, if someone tries to eat me, I would call him a cannibal...if someone TRIES to rape me...that makes him a rapist!

 

And I am really not discussing this BS argument "he didn't throw her of that cliff"!

Are you mental?

He is TOTALLY 100% responsible for what happened to her!

Period!

Everything that happened, happened BECAUSE of his rape- attempt in the first place!

You can NOT take everything apart and look at all steps, isolated!

That is not how the world works: action, re-action, consequence...

 

 

    You can call people what you like, but that doesnt make them what you call them .

If someone did try to kill you, they wouldnt actually be labelled a killer until they had killed you .

There are two different laws, "Murder" and "Attempted murder"

You cannot seem to understand what I wrote 

I did say that he was responsible for what happened, then you say that Im mental and then you also say that he was responsible for what happened !!!!!!!!!!

   My point was that did nt deliberately throw her off the cliff .

Deliberately doing something on purpose is quite different to things happening that you are responsibly for .

   If you drive a car fast and it crashes, you would be responsible for the crash, but thats entirely different if you deliberately crashed a car on purpose 

31 minutes ago, DM07 said:

I really don't get some posters here and why they try to defend the rapist.

He tried to rape her!

He didn't really rape her?

Yeah...if you define "rape" solely as "penetration", that may be right!

But even if the law has very clear definitions on "rape": for Christs sake, he masturbated over and on her, while she was lying helplessly and in pain on the ground!

I personally, would not need penetration, to feel raped!

 

 

 

 

   No one is trying to defend him at all

You cal him a rapist and then say that he only tried to rape her ?

Yes, rape can be defined in various ways, but we are talking about actual rape in the sexual intercourse way and that didnt happen .

   Yes, his actions caused her to fall off the cliff, but he didnt deliberately intentionally throw her off the cliff .

    If he had picked her up and thrown her off the cliff and then have sex with her as she lay helpless, he would have been charged with attempted murder and rape and he would probably have gotton a life sentence .

   But that isnt what he did .

20 minutes ago, The man from udon said:

 your saying I smoke weed here.you seem to have the knowledge that tourist come here for cheap drugs.how cheap are they?  

   You need to get to the Overstay hostel and ask to speak to the owner , for prices 

48 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

I do.... and I matter... certainly more to me than you, obviously.

 

and how do you know that it wasn't rape, as in genuine penetration... degrading rape, when rape is also defined as sexual assault, which was the charge brought against your scumbag mate?.... although to my mind, having a mate of yours, as you seem to be advocating his innocence, straddling a crippled girl and tossing off over her, is about as depraved as it gets.

 

 

    I would just like to see him charged for the crimes that he committed .

Some posters seem to making things up , things that never happened and then saying that his sentence was lenient based on things that didnt happen  

1 hour ago, MiKT said:

 

Yes, but to keep flogging this particular dead horse the way in which you are, provides more than subtle indications that you don't live up to your pseudonym.

   Strange that you should say that , because this discussion is about what constitutes murder , and its a new off shot to this topic , so, it can hardly be described as flogging a dead horse

1 minute ago, MiKT said:

 

Don't worry amykat, he does not live up to his pseudonym.

   To get charged with murder, you have to shown intent .

You deliberately killed someone on purpose .

The example she gave didnt show any intent at all .

She was wrong

2 hours ago, amykat said:

 If you walk into a bank to rob it, and don't intend to kill anyone, but someone has a heart attack and dies, you will be charged with capital murder. 

   No you wouldnt be charged with capital murder .

Do you even know what the word "murder" means ?

9 minutes ago, amykat said:

Well these answers are here, in this thread for one thing.

But you have done this to me specifically in other threads, which is why I say this,

The better my points and arguments, the more "forgetful" and stupid you became claiming you couldn't even remember who you were writing to, although you never wrote to anyone but me in the thread.

   Well , if the answers have already been posted, then I didnt see them .

Yes, I do not recall the name of every poster that I have replied to on TV

Which thread are you talking about in which I didnt reply to anyone but you ?

Actually this will turn into bickering and this thread going off topic, so, it would be better to forget it

21 minutes ago, amykat said:

Farcenell ...this is just a warning to you about Sanemax ....he likes to play stupid, ask questions over and over again, keep arguing the same inane points, in my opinion, this just pleases him to cause other posters a lot of work to explain ourselves, then he pretends he can't remember who you are, what your points are, what you said, etc ...in my experience.  So don't waste too much time on him.

  That is quite an unfair assessment . 

I was just asking questions about the case .

I had only read what was reported in the OP

I hadnt read what was reported in the USA

I asked some questions and Farcenell replied and I appreciate Farcinell taking the time and effort to inform me .

   I now know that it was a violent sexual assault , although I disagree with term "rape" being used in this case

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Ah.... I'm seeing your point.... did he penetrate her body, whilst molesting and masterbating on top of her... that's what your really after.....

 

i believe her words were to the effect that he did everything possible, other than rape.... ( which as a 23 year old, perhaps she believes requires penile penetration, which is incorrect)  but with her privacy already violated, do we really need to pursue the question of wether, during the molestation, there was insertion of fingers?

    Rape suggests sexual intercourse though .

"Sexual molesting" which is what has been reported could mean anything .

I am trying to defend what he done . 

He doesnt seem to have had sexual intercourse with her , he went and got help for her 

He didnt physically harm her, her injuries were the result of accidentally falling

He didnt have sex with her . 

He could have left her there or killed her and then just say that she fell .

Did the woman really need to run ?

Maybe he made sexual advances towards her , looking for consensual sex

She realised she was in a bad situation and decided to run and fell .

20 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Yes.... most definitely... I have supplied definitions of rape, from different sources, three times in this thread.

 

i shall do so again for your benefit.

 

 

    The report only says that he sexually assaulter her, the report dosent say that he raped her 

14 minutes ago, DM07 said:

...I ...can't believe...what i just read....

   It is true though, why can you not believe something that is true ?

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

.... and it would certainly have been a better physiological choice of actions than raping her

 

 

  Did he rape her ?