Sig

Reasonable question. Yes, I believe it could be argued as a second degree murder. Of course, it depends on any given country's different sorts of laws on murder. In the U.S., second degree murder would apply if the attackers acted without premeditation (this was obviously a premeditated attempt to kill, so that would make a stronger case against the Burmese), but with "malice aforethought or extreme recklessness" and "demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life". The attackers don't need to be the immediate cause of death, like a bullet in them, but as a secondary cause of death due to their actions. I can't imagine it as anything other than murder in this case, but if for some reason or another it didn't fit the laws here, it's difficult to imagine that it wouldn't at the very least be manslaughter. It was a heinous unjust reckless action with nothing but intention to kill or grievously harm. If the fishermen were in Burmese waters, the law would allow the Burmese to board, inspect, and seize their vessels and arrest the perpetrators, not to use lethal force or otherwise harm them. That is, of course, assuming the fishermen were not armed or responding with violence. Yeah, "erased from power" would be the least I feel toward the genocidal tyrants who have usurped power there. I think erased from existence would be more beneficial. I guess I'm not as diplomatic and polite as you 😅

Financial difficulties.... I don't imagine that "high valuation" had anything to do with how much it was insured for. Well, as luck might have it, his financial difficulties may be over! I suppose it's better that it burn to the ground than spending decades rotting to the ground.

What a stupid, ignorant apples and oranges comparison... as if there's no such thing as unfit and abusive same-sex couples. In fact, statistics show that same-sex couples suffer approximately DOUBLE the amount of abusiveness in their relationships than heterosexual couples. I can't speak for others, but if I were a kid and could choose, why on earth would I choose a same-sex couple to raise me when the probability of being raised in a household with parents in an abusive relationship is so much higher....? The choice seems pretty obvious.

Among others who think that Burma is within their rights to defend their territorial waters.... Yeah, sure they are, of course, but I think you'd be very hard pressed to find that they were within their rights here! Unless, of course, a major part of the story is missing - that the Thai fishermen responded to the Burmese legal (assuming they were in Burmese waters) boarding and inspections of their vessels, with violence. If that were the case, then it could warrant shots fired. International law doesn't call for poachers to be killed on sight! That is insane to give even an ounce of defense to such an action. "Nothing to see here"? Murder is no big deal in some people's book, apparently. Just wait until it hits your family....

With corruption so rife on all sides, it sure is difficult to know what to believe in this story, re legalities of their fishing. But, firing on civilian boats like that is insane. A human being DIED... was murdered. Not that the Thai or Burmese government cares. Also, the equipment lost is a massive tragedy for those fishermen. Hard to know though... they may have deserved to lose their equipment. But a life taken is not any kind of justice whatsoever, if they were in Burmese waters. The criminals who run the country of Burma are deeply evil, on a whole different tier than the criminals who run Thailand. As far as I'm concerned, every Burmese government official part of the military and every military member, should be put to death. And every other government official should suffer penalties for supporting the genocidal sub-humans running that government. Thailand is disgusting in their support of Burma as well. Not to mention China, without whose support Burma wouldn't be able to do what they do, AT ALL. Others, like Japan also acting so despicable. The UN and ASEAN are COMPLETELY useless as they standby and watch that nation descend into such misery. My hope is that it can be proven that the fishermen were actually in Thai waters... not a whole lot of confidence in that, but that sure would be nice and then take serious action against Burma and get the fishermen compensated, plus a good amount for what they went through.

As I already mentioned, I answered already. Apparently you either still haven't learned how to read or you refuse to bother and prefer to hold on to an untenable position. So sad.

Yeah, I figured you're the type to play word games. And I already answered the game you're playing. Learn how to read. Learning just a tad bit of common sense wouldn't hurt either.

Same question..why would they be looking for something that is legal in Thailand? TiT...what you believe and reality are 2 different things. It's not what I believe. I know for a fact that you attributed a quote to me that was not something I stated. It's also not only dependent on what I believe about transporting cannabis on international flights from Thailand, it's factually illegal. Unless you're playing some sort of semantic game here... like, the idea that simply carrying cannabis is legal, so they shouldn't be looking for it... even though the guy is checking in for an international flight... and (hard to know since you don't explain yourself better) You're just wrong, either way. With more details on how wrong you are... Tourists are not allowed to use cannabis recreationally and to use medical cannabis, they need to get a Temporary Use Authorization for Cannabis (TUAC) permit from the Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine Department. And even if you are in a category of being allowed to carry it, there is a limit of 5 ounces. That's just slightly lower than 53.65 kilograms. And they search for it in order to stop illegal transport, exactly like this idiot. Go ahead and bring just a small bit, maybe a couple of kilograms, heck, for that matter, 2 ounces of cannabis, while heading for an international flight out of BKK and let them know that you know it is legal to do so. Be my guest... I'll wait to read about you in the news.

More like every establishment entrenched corrupt politician....

why would they be looking for something thats legal in Thailand? Edited 3 hours ago by wombat Please be more careful with your quotes. I didn't say that.... That was a partial quote from a comment another user posted, which I was commenting on.... Other than that, I don't believe it's accurate, at all, to say that transporting 53.65 kilograms of cannabis through the airport is legal in Thailand.

I thought they were Thai... TINO - Thai In Name Only Not like they give a damn about the country... other than their ability to siphon money and exercise power over peons who give obeisance to them, in the hopes that they too can grab a piece of the pie or at least some crumbs.

Yes there is. They're Thai citizens. Absolutely! And they should legitimately be allowed to return to legitimately serve some years in prison.

Sure there is! Prison.

Yeah, just like getting killed when riding a motorcycle in the opposite direction of traffic at night with a burned out headlight....

You already give the answer yourself which shows, the comment is not that strange, simple, you do NOT go on the water with the monsoon season here and you know the weather can turn in 5 minutes in disaster. Sure, the weather can turn in 5 minutes, but you will see it coming, unless you are operating out on the open water in complete obliviousness - aka negligence. The completely reliable testimony🤥 from the totally reliable tour guide🤥 was that "the sky was beautiful" when they started. That's a joke that some brown envelopes will quickly deal with. I guess it depends on one's definition of a beautiful sky! A clear sky all around does not produce heavy rains in 7 minutes! One sees squalls coming. And any operator should also know what direction storms are coming from on any given day. Three minutes in advance would have given them time to turn around and get back. There is no excuse that I can fathom. Negligence. What else is new around here.... SOP

But Was this also unforeseen? Suggests overloaded, people standing, etc. that a boat operator would see. The investigation should go further. For one, NOT unforeseeable. What a load of excrement that is! And yeah, that vessel was quite apparently not seaworthy, at least not for the load of people on it. No other boats out there seemed to have any issues. I have a funny feeling that the local stationary stores are all sold out of brown envelopes. This story reeks to high heaven.

I find the statements from Ms. Petchaluck Ruchirawarat, highly suspect. And not like she doesn't have anything to lose, being the group’s tour guide. I think I'd find a more reliable witness to ascertain whether or not "the weather was initially clear when they departed" and just 7 minutes later heavy rain and winds hit? I've been in the tropics and Thailand enough years to have seen hundreds of those kinds of storms/squalls hit... you ALWAYS see them coming IF you're paying attention. And if they didn't see it 7 minutes in advance, there's no way on earth that they couldn't have seen it 3 minutes in advance, giving them enough time to turn around and high tail it back to shore. TOTALLY unbelievable. Just completely oblivious, irresponsible, and negligent operators. They should all lose their businesses and be brought to criminal court for negligence. A life was lost! This same Ms. Petchaluck Ruchirawarat also claims they were all wearing life jackets.... Yeah, ok... and I'm assuming Ms. Petchaluck also checked to be sure each individual was wearing them properly, since it's her responsibility to be sure her customers are kept safe, especially when dealing with elderly, who, not uncommonly, may not be paying attention to the details around them. When is the last time someone wearing a life jacket drowned? She's doing some CYA here. Why don't they interview somebody else who can give more reliable testimony than someone who has a livelihood to lose? I wouldn't believe her as far as I could throw her, and I'm assuming she's morbidly obese.

A smarter move by them would be to have known he was carrying it, having been alerted by dogs or other technology, and letting him go back to his home country so as to avoid wasting money prosecuting and jailing him. Contact his home country and let them know he's on his way and let them deal with all the financial burden he's gonna cause the legal system/taxpayers.

A 2 second Google search would have prevented you from looking like a moron. What on earth do political leanings have to do with knowing what a blank gun is? Apparently your politics didn't help any. Exercising some humility by realizing that you might not know everything and checking Google to educate yourself would be much more helpful.

Don't forget your flip-flops....

Good question, except we know how insane the defamation laws are. Otherwise, it would seem that any legal accusation is a public matter and should be able to be published. I would sure hope they'll publish it if there is a conviction!

I was thinking the same thing. "Transwomen", "Transgender", & "Ladyboy" all used in the same article to refer to mentally whacked men. I guess some people are just as confused as they are about themselves!

Exactly what it is, is a generalization. Of course, every generalization has exceptions. That is the nature of such! That doesn't make it a poor generalization with a LOT of truth to it.

Use your own 10 seconds.

I could be wrong, but I think that since the contact is claimed to have been unintentional, then it wouldn't be considered assault/battery. And there is no clear evidence to show one way or the other, so..... a "he said, she said" argument won't gain traction. But, as I mentioned in my comment a moment ago, I believe he could still be convicted of simple assault. There is no need for physical contact to be guilty of assault. And from everything I read about it, he appears to be as guilty as ever for that charge.