traveller101

They don't need a job, they own the company.

The one and only proof is the fact,that they subdued a police officer in order to get hold of his gun. Every other aspect is based on the account of Somrak, supported by the organisation he is a member of - starting with the alleged speeding, disobeying his command, being aggressive and attacking him for no other reason than him recording them on his phone. The recording that has up to today not been made publicly available for unknown reasons. Extenuating circumstances, also called mitigating factors form an important part to fully understand a situation in criminal law of the developed world. Maybe these terms are unknown in the Thai criminal justice system. It would explain, that usually a raft of charges are laid - doesn’t matter if they are true and proven beyond reasonable doubt - and the general advice given states: plead guilty and get the sentence halved. Do not try to fight, it will make matters far worse.

And you are an accredited criminal lawyer judging from your statements? I give you a made-up story "speeding and not keep far enough to the left" in front of Chalong Police station which is exactly 75m away from the chaotic Chalong circle clogged with vehicles, where speeds are between 0 and 5km/h. From the picture published they rode garden variety scooters and not Ducatis, which actually would reach illegal speeds within a distance of 75m under full acceleration. I passed by chalong police station weekly over the past 6 years.

" 2 wasters were speeding, no helmets ....." I for 1 hope you open your eyes and watch the video (both wore helmets) before blurting BS. No evidence for speeding whatsoever apart from the cop's conjecture.

"You want western style law enforcements ...." Yesss please! Why? ■ Checkpoints would have to cordon off kilometres of road to accommodate all helmet less riders, no license, under-age, 3/4 on a scooter and 20 on the back of pick-up trucks, speeding motorists ....... ■ Road traffic would be at least halved in a week - no gridlocks, plenty of parking space, and more importantly far less carnage on the road.

No, they are not poor little boys, both Top Managers (CEO, Chairman of an IT-related Education company), their parents millionaire business an property owners.

Unfortunately - some rules leave quite a bit of room for interpretation.

The go-ahead will be a near certinty with the Chairman of the special committee emphasizing the "extensive nature of the study, which could lead to substantial revenue generation for the country." Or more to the point .... will lead to big $$$ generation for the government and elites associated with it. IMHO other considerations mentioned by members of this forum either were not considered at all or overridden by the prospect of big money raining down on a select few.

Dissolving MF and ban its Leaders at least might give the people a real reason to voice their disapproval and outrage instead of flooding social media with videoclips showing 'farangs misbehaving' and local media comprehensively regurgitating these stories of national importance.

Can we stop omitting vital information - either intentionally or due to a lack of knowledge - surrounding the subject - repeated ad nauseam - of foreigners are not allowed to own a firearm. Please? This clause applies from October 2017, there is no provision in the law clarifying whether licenses issued to foreigners prior to that date deemed to be invalid. These owners licenses were never revoked, they were never approached by authorities and asked to hand in their firearms. One member of this forum specifically pointed out, that he has 2 firearms in his home, both lawfully registered in his name prior to 2017. Let that Sink in!

Guilty as charged on all accounts seems to be the prevailing opinion, followed by all sort of suggestions about the just punishment - from sending him to years in prison to transporting him back to Switzerland inside the wheel well. Would it be too much to ask awaiting the outcome of the upcoming trial before rendering judgement?

Or sounding the car horn, giving the middle finger, disputing/refusing to pay the bar bill or taxi fare or engaging in any activity that could be construed as working ....

The inner workings of the legal system on public display. The Governor stating that anyone, foreigner or thai, who violated Thai laws would be held accountable without exception. The Governor can set an example to validate above statement and hold Anutin accountable - who said it was in his authority to override present laws - such as veto any appeal as prescribed and allowed under present legislation.

As you bery well know, foreigners were permitted to own firearms and registering/licensing them was possible prior to the amendmends of the gun laws in October 2017. Furthermore, these licensences were never revoked since there is no clause in the law stating that licenses issued before October 2017 (prior to the amendment becoming law) are invalid. BTW - you are very well aware of this important fact.

My comment referred to your statement of 'no gray area existing' within the current gun law legislation. Correct in the sense that After 2017 no foreigner can apply for a license, without exclusions. But also without a further qualification as to the validity of already registered firearms by foreigners before 2017. From my understanding, the foreign owners of registered firearms have not been contacted - their registrations have not been revoked. This seems to be a quite substantial 'gray area', open to interpretation by the Authorities, a good example Anutin, on record requesting the Swiss being charged with illegally owning a firearm regardless of the latter apparently holding a valid license to own a firearm issued prior to 2017., which has never been revoked.

Sorry - you are wrong re legally own a gun. See my comment 15 hours ago

There is an obvious grey area as follows: The Amendment to the Gun laws 1947, gazettet in October 2017, states that only Thais can register guns with Authorities. It remains silent on the question whether previous registrations by foreigners remain valid or otherwise. In other words does this law apply in retrospect or not. An answer to this obvious 'grey area' has been published by a reliable not to be named source. Quote: "Gen Ood Buengbon, head of the NLA's committee scrutinising the amendments, said the new laws would not have any impact on those already having permit before its promulgation in the Royal Gazette within 90 days" end Quote

"Foreigners are not permitted to own firearms" - this particular clause was introduced in the year 2017. Prior to 2017 foreigners were permitted to own firearms

Thailand Gun laws were amended in 2017. This amendment outlawed the possesion of firearms by foreigners. Before 2017, foreigners could legally acquire a firearm.

I'm certain that I have completely misread the story Please correct if I'm wrong. The Swiss has been issued a gun license by the corresponding government department. Note: Amendment to thai Gun Laws took effect in 2017. Before that date, foreigners could apply for a gun license and if the application was successful, were allowed to hold firearms. It would appear the legal, logical and straightforward way were to simply revoke such license. But he will now be charged with illegal possession of a firearm despite holding a license. Something doesn’t add up to put it mildly.

True - convictions based on the verdict of a judge and not on public opinion

A member of this forum comprehensively summed up the majority opinion of this board (32 emojs of approval vs 4 of the opposite) regarding the swiss guy's persona. Based on two facts: Verbal assault and a kick (unintentional or otherwise to be determined by a judge overseeing his trial based on available evidence). Cutting in front of an Ambulance on non-urgent business (no lights and sirens) and verbally assaulting the driver accompanied by rude hand gestures. It is not known what exactly triggered this vile behaviour. Also worthy of a mention are lots of unsubstantiated posts without providing evidence circulating on social media describing alleged wrongdoing by the swiss guy. The all-encompassing character analyses based on the above states: ● He is unhinged and mad at the world. ● He is a perennial troublemaker ● He is a tiny moron living beachfront. What is wrong with him? ● He is a complete butthead and proved that over and over again. ● What mental disease does this idiot have? ● It is 'likely' that his mother was thankful when he left Switzerland. Seriously???

You might want to engage in some research about this subject before commenting. A straightforward admission of guilt and promising to repent (apology) would in the vast majority of cases result in a pilgrimage, a whipping and/or a financial penalty. In other words, you walk away. Which is measured by the standards of punishment at the time - lenient to say the least.

This alleged offence of 'blocking an ambulance' has been mentioned a zillion times - with a minor detail left out! This ambulance did not have their siren deployed and was not racing to an accident scene or to the hospital - apart from the Driver there was nobody in the van. Accordingly, the only one ever charged was the driver of the Ambulance for telling porkies on social media.

Seems to me it is perfectly acceptable for some members of this board having the guy charged and found guilty by majority public opinion. With suggestions of being put in jail and/or deported. I think one element is missing, the actual trial by a judge based on available evidence followed by the verdict of guilt/innocence/and the exact severity of the crime specified. What is being played out here, reminds me of the dark ages - and more specifically the Spanish Inquisition.