CorpusChristie

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I understood it as meaning that he just wanted to see the violent Norwegian bully in a fair fight, rather than attacking a substantially smaller, lighter and weaker woman than himself, from behind.

.

  And who do you think that he would like to win that fight , what do you think he would prefer the outcome to be ?

Do you think that he would prefer the Norwegian guy or his opponent to get beat ?

7 minutes ago, polpott said:

No he didn't that was his fiction to an acquaintance who questioned him as to why he paid the 30k baht, no truth in it whatsoever.

  You wasnt there , you have no way of knowing whether it was true or not .

You are categorially stating that something isnt true , when you yourself cannot and doesnt know whether its actually true or not .

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Have you now lost the ability to read. The poster you are replying to makes no mention whatsoever of wanting to see him beaten up. Those are your words, and you are trying to attribute them incorrectly, to somebody else. He simply suggested that he should find out if he would be as brave with somebody of his own size. I also agree with the poster, I hate and despise bullies.

 

And that is the second time in comments that you have accused the police of extortion, I think you should exercise more caution.

  What was he hoping would happen when he spent "10 minutes in  a back yard with someone his own size"?

Was he hoping for them to play a nice game of leap-frog?

No, he was calling for violence with the hope the Norwegian guy came off second best 

 ( Extortion : the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.)

He got threatened with jail time if he didnt pay the money

6 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Why the sudden interest in the full facts, when you have been completely ignoring them thus far, while basing every one of your arguments on uncorroborated hearsay ?

 

Oh, and you now even try to alter the substantiated fact that he kicked her, into pushing her over ……. you seem to be rapidly losing touch with reality.

 

Any man that kicks a woman the way that he did is a violent bully, there are enough credible facts available in this story to establish that.

No one knows whether he kicked her in order to push her over to stop her escaping, or whether he kicked her just to hurt her .

  The only facts we are sure of is that She walked off with His shopping trolley and he had to pay her 30 000 Baht.

Those are the only things that we can be sure about 

8 minutes ago, Glorfindal said:

Walking away with his trolley? Surely that was more amusing than an excuse to assault someone?

 

He is neither "silly" nor "stupid" - he was almost 1 foot taller (30 cm) and much bigger in every way.

Bet your life he has never tried that with decent sized blokes.

 

Now, I'm not one of these guys that says "there is never any reason to hit a women" - but in situations like this, he surely does deserve 10 minutes in a back yard with someone his size.

I effin hate bullies ...

  So, someone who got their groceries stolen and who then got extorted for 30 000 Baht after being threatened with three years in jail , you would now like to see him beaten up ?

7 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

What complete and utter nonsense. So he got close enough to her to viciously kick her, but not close enough to grab the trolly that she was pushing in front of her ….. how do you make this stuff up, seriously, how ?

 

 

  If you hadn't noticed or weren't paying attention, we had moved onto generally, rather than this particular story

8 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Fallacious would be a far better adjective to use; everything you say in defense of this nasty bully is based on uncorroborated hearsay. You have fallen into the classic trap of trying to defend the indefensible, and now you don't know how to stop.

 

With every comment you post in his defense, your credibility fades further, like shadows into the night.

 

You were obviously out of the office when the “put the shovel down” memo was sent.

  I would need to have the full facts BEFORE I label other people as being violent bullies .

I am not defending his actions at all, I have stated its wrong to hit/kick people , but I can understand someone pushing a thief over to stop them escaping 

6 hours ago, kingofthemountain said:

yes. and even in the embellished story this norwegian idiot was still unable to explain why 

he prefered to hit the girl rather than to grab the trolley. that's just show using violence is 

something ''normal'' for him

  No one has asked him as to why he did it .

Would need to hear his explanation , before coming to a conclusion 

4 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Scum like him give all farang a bad image, no surprise Thais DO NOT want us here.

Is it  people like him that make it harder for us all to get visas ? 

6 minutes ago, polpott said:

That's not what happened though, is it? She mistakenly started wheeling his trolley away. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary. And don't quote the words of a violent moron who caused injuries to both of her thighs. The front of her thighs that is.

  Only SHE knows what her intentions were .

1 minute ago, Victornoir said:

 

No.

When you are a strong and robust man, you are forbidden to kick a small woman in any circumstance. This is not debatable.

And to spend so much time trying to justify the indefensible, one is entitled to express serious doubts about your moral capacities and your education.

   So, if a female grabbed your phone and ran off with it , would you just let her run off with it ?

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

Either way its no excuse for kicking a woman. Foul creature. If someone gives you a reasonable excuse for their actions, you accept it and move on. Well, a man does at least. Scumbag who likes hitting women may take a different view,

  It can be justifiable, if you were trying to knock a thief off balance and trying to stop them from escaping with your belongings 

10 minutes ago, polpott said:

Its only stated in the perp's story,

Its from the original news report .

"After the purchase, he was carted into the mall's famous fried chicken shop with his mother." 

1 minute ago, polpott said:

But that's not what happened, is it? 

 

"Just your imagination

Running away with you"

   No one knows whether this was deliberate theft or a genuine case of mistaken identity .

She said it wasnt , he thought it was .

On 12/31/2020 at 9:41 PM, kingofthemountain said:

Total rubbish

so you take a random trolley and you have by miracle all the stuff you wanted?

Even if a Thai gives me his trolley, i don't want it.i have no use of 5 liters of palm oil

24 eggs and a box of mama noddles.

So she has the money to buy a car and to pay all the stuff in her trolley

but she wants more, she has no more money and when she is in the mall she thinks

''what about to take this trolley in front of  KFC, maybe i could find some juicy loot in here?''

And of course when she is caught, the first thing she does is going to file a report to the police

because it's what all the thiefs do, particularly the ones working in a family mafia trolley robber style

specialised in a thai mall ?

seriously mate...

  Yes, but if you had a trolley full of palm oil, eggs and mama noodles and you noticed someone else had a trolley with lots of nice expensive food , chicken, fish and cheese and maybe some bottles of wine , you may be temped to walk off with his trolley whilst he was distracted .

  Knowing that if you get caught, you could just claim mistaken trolley .

Just now, polpott said:

Who says he was in KFC? No one but the perp. Also, there is CCTV footage (still shown in the OP) of him going through the checkout.

  Please read the story , its stated in either this story or the original story .

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

 

More basic comprehension issues?

  He was in the KFC , which would mean he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries (if he went back and then paid) .

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

Quote it. "Muppet" refered to the Norwegian's absurd defence, but if you want to own it up to you.

 

If you want to converse with anyone you need to stop posting blatant lies. There is no accusation of him leaving without paying in the OP, quote it.

  From the original report 

"She left to get her mother but by the time she returned the foreigner had paid up and left the store as if nothing had happened."

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

There you go. 2 blatant lies in defence of the Norwegian.

 

1. The OP does not say that he left the supermarket without paying. It even shows a CCTV still of him going through the checkout.

 

2. He did not "boot her up the backside" the bruising, treated in hospital, states that the bruising was on her legs. Oh no I forgot, "maybe the bruise was from something else unrelated." Yea right. Muppet.

  I will not converse with you, if you are going to call me a "muppet" and a liar

BTW , what I said was posted in the original report .

If you want to converse with me, you need to stop the abuse , OK ?

1 hour ago, polpott said:

I don't believe it because it sounds implausible and the OP sounds much more plausible.

   I don't trust the O.P , they incorrectly stated he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries .

4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

No, It is simply unsubstantiated hearsay. You don’t know that he said that, or if his anonymous friend just decided to say it; and even if he did say it, that doesn’t automatically make it true. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because you have a shred of evidence of its validity. More likely to be the archetypal behavior of a bully, get caught bang to rights, and then try and play the victim.

 

His friend would also do well to be very careful about posting comments accusing the Police of coercion.

 

  I believe it , because it sounds plausible 

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

I read both. 

  Rather odd that you accused me of reposting the same post twice .

Had you read them, you would have realised they were two different posts 

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Is that a thai thing?

Its common in western countries to do it.

 

After an indictment is filed in court its called nolle prosequi. Before indictment is filed its called no true bill.

 

Dont even need a lawyer.

  Two people can come to an agreement and the Police will not file any charges .

No Court case , but once the Police have filled charges , on computer and a Court case set, its then to late for people to reach an agreement .

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

Thats the second time you've reposted it in the last 20 minutes. You can repost it as many times as you like but it doesn't change the fact that it's a third hand account from an acquaintance of an excuse given by the moron to try to justify his unjustifiable actions. Its a BS account given by a moron and is also full of holes. Not worth the paper its written on.

  They were two different posts that I reposted  , as you thought they were the same , that means you didnt even bother to read the original posts or the reposts .

  As you dont read posts , you have no understanding of what happened and seem to just call other people "morons" .

  I believe the guy and his version of events , you didnt even read what he had to say and still label him as a "moron who writes BS"

  Try reading

On 12/31/2020 at 1:22 PM, cvs04 said:

Whilst I don't agree he handled the situation well and shouldn't have used force however slight.  I would say that if she hadn't have been running off with his trolley, 6000 baht of goods and keys to his truck in the first place then she wouldn't have been kicked. 

 

If he had grabbed the trolley instead and reported her to security then maybe it would be her facing charges, however the media have made her out to be a helpless innocent victim of an unprovoked vicious attack by a farang, this is not correct either.  Also I believe that if he were a Thai man there would probably not have been charges for him to face nor would it have made the news!

   Worth a repost ^