Foreign man sought after Bangla Road assault

1 hour ago, cdulaney said:

ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No need for that as the OP clearly explains why, being given false information, made him angry, resulting in his attacking that woman. Where was it reported that he "has a problem with Thai women"?

Look in the picture Lou and you will see where he has a problem. Maybe to you it is OK to man handle a woman but not me

No, the picture does not show how "he has a problem with Thai women", the picture shows his reaction against one particular Thai woman when the woman he was with told him that she had stolen something.

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Odd how the usual suspects so frequently seem to have men's genitals at the forefront of their mind.

You never thought that it can refer to brain as well. Might be you that are sexually focused. 😂

6 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Odd how the usual suspects so frequently seem to have men's genitals at the forefront of their mind.

You never thought that it can refer to brain as well

Absolutely never. You referred to his "thing", if you were meant his brain I'm sure you would have used the normal word, brain, instead you use the juvenile term "thing" which never, ever, means brain.

1 hour ago, Jim Waldron said:

Was this guy making a citizen's arrest, and did he use unnecessary force?

A lot has already been said about this story. But I think it's worth considering what might now happen given that the women has reported the matter to police.

What follows is Information I obtained from the Web. It advises that citizens' arrest is legal in Thailand, but it is strictly regulated.

Under the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, private citizens are permitted to arrest someone, but only under specific circumstances and without the use of excessive force.

Private citizens are legally authorized to detain an individual under Section 79 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code.

This allows citizens to act as the arresting party when a "flagrant offense" (a crime caught in the act or immediately after) is committed in their presence, or when the suspect is attempting to flee.

The crime must be a flagrant offense: The offense must be caught in the act or have just been committed with clear evidence, weapons, or witnesses.

The arrest can only be executed to prevent the suspect from escaping or to hand them over to the authorities.

If the offense is minor (usually punishable by a fine only) and the suspect refuses to provide their name or address, an arrest may be permissible until their identity is established.

If you make a citizens' arrest, Thai law requires that the suspect be handed over to a police officer or brought to the nearest police station immediately.

You must not hold the person indefinitely or take the law into your own hands.

Attempting a citizens' arrest comes with serious legal risks if the procedure is not followed perfectly.

If you use unnecessary force, or if the initial arrest does not meet the strict legal criteria of a flagrant offense, you can face criminal charges for unlawful confinement, assault, or kidnapping.

The detained individual can sue for damages if their rights are violated during an improper detention.

There is no right way to physically handle such a situation, especially when you are drunk, particularly in a place like Bangla Road, or anywhere similar in the world. Tourist police are present there, and my suggestion would be to call them.

2 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

Was this guy making a citizen's arrest, and did he use unnecessary force?

A lot has already been said about this story. But I think it's worth considering what might now happen given that the women has reported the matter to police.

What follows is Information I obtained from the Web. It advises that citizens' arrest is legal in Thailand, but it is strictly regulated.

Under the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, private citizens are permitted to arrest someone, but only under specific circumstances and without the use of excessive force.

Private citizens are legally authorized to detain an individual under Section 79 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code.

This allows citizens to act as the arresting party when a "flagrant offense" (a crime caught in the act or immediately after) is committed in their presence, or when the suspect is attempting to flee.

The crime must be a flagrant offense: The offense must be caught in the act or have just been committed with clear evidence, weapons, or witnesses.

The arrest can only be executed to prevent the suspect from escaping or to hand them over to the authorities.

If the offense is minor (usually punishable by a fine only) and the suspect refuses to provide their name or address, an arrest may be permissible until their identity is established.

If you make a citizens' arrest, Thai law requires that the suspect be handed over to a police officer or brought to the nearest police station immediately.

You must not hold the person indefinitely or take the law into your own hands.

Attempting a citizens' arrest comes with serious legal risks if the procedure is not followed perfectly.

If you use unnecessary force, or if the initial arrest does not meet the strict legal criteria of a flagrant offense, you can face criminal charges for unlawful confinement, assault, or kidnapping.

The detained individual can sue for damages if their rights are violated during an improper detention.

All very theoretical and all well and good, but the info you found will more than likely be about Thais making citizens arrests on Thais, Whilst strictly speaking ,this should apply to everybody , it won't , and if a foreigner tries to make a citizens arrest on a Thai they may well find out that they get treated a little differently in practice. Plus attacking somebody in the street, like he did, based , on the word of a prostitute is not really a citizen's arrest

She was clearly not caught in the act of committing any offence , unlike him

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

You never thought that it can refer to brain as well. Might be you that are sexually focused. 😂

That's the most pathetic attempt of a denial I have ever heard, you were obviously referring to his genitalia, just admit it, you might retain some credibility, but I doubt it

14 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

That's the most pathetic attempt of a denial I have ever heard, you were obviously referring to his genitalia, just admit it, you might retain some credibility, but I doubt it

How do you retain something that was never there ?

1 minute ago, blaze master said:

How do you retain something that was never there ?

Now that, is a very good point, one that I should have thought about before commenting ,

5 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

When things get that far, you leave, so no one's hurt. Trading blows with a woman doesn't make a man a better man but less. restraint wins every time. Unless you are preventing another from being harmed, especially a child, where even then you can push a woman away and leave. If it's someone like Ronda Rousey you might have some trouble, but a women like that usually isn't going to pick fights in this manner. My ex was a violent hitter, and I never hit her back, as that makes you the bad guy. I just left. Watching that video, what we do see is manhandling where it wasn't necessary, even if she did steal something, which wasn't the case.

I agree with what you are saying, however when the B does not let up and the front door is locked and your trying to get out, you have to respond in whatever way you can to try and defuse the situation, e.g. grabbing her by the hair and placing her on the floor gently only to receive kick after kick, scratches, biting, more punches etc etc, than you will lose it and give them an open hander, I have no regrets and like you say, should have left, because years later she tried to kill me, that's when I knew, there was something wrong with her, and she hasn't re-partnered since 1999, not that I care, but goes to show, no one can handle her.

If you say you saw the video and he is the perpetrator all and good, he will get what's coming to him, I would imagine.

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Throwing glass ashtrays at ones wife or girlfriend is not acceptable behaviour whatever provocation one has received same goes for throwing a woman to the ground in the way that he did,

Whether she was aggressive or not there is no excuse for his behaviour

There is no report of her being a "skitszoid" she was wrongly accused and attacked by the fat ginger lump ,

Clearly this has gone way beyond an apology , he should do time for this , 12 months minimum, its time for a zero tolerance approach to policing

Phuket once the jewel of the Andaman, an archetypal tropical paradise , and now look at it , its reputation in tatters, just a cess pit catering to the world's detritus . which is fine just as long as everybody knows what to expect along with the sand and the sea

For the record it was me being hit with the B throwing glass ashtrays at me, later trying to kill me, that's when I left, read my reply post reply above if you like.

Like I said, didn't see the video, but if you say he is guilty, then hopefully the law will catch up with him and not let him off with paying her compensation and he can do ail time, but remember where we are.

The money is gone. Learn and move on. 😂

Typical day in sin city.

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Absolutely never. You referred to his "thing", if you were meant his brain I'm sure you would have used the normal word, brain, instead you use the juvenile term "thing" which never, ever, means brain.

So, thing for you is a dick, right? Thing for you is sexual, right? Do you realize your focus now? Probably not! You will just present another stupid comment. 😂

3 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

That's the most pathetic attempt of a denial I have ever heard, you were obviously referring to his genitalia, just admit it, you might retain some credibility, but I doubt it

You see her now!

3 hours ago, blaze master said:

How do you retain something that was never there ?

Ok, there we see, then thing could not be that, as I would never speak about invisible things.

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Absolutely never. You referred to his "thing", if you were meant his brain I'm sure you would have used the normal word, brain, instead you use the juvenile term "thing" which never, ever, means brain.

25 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

You see her now!

Ok, there we see, then thing could not be that, as I would never speak about invisible things.

Keep digging my man. Keep digging.