Foreign Woman Trashes Shop Goods in Thai Store

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"How is this not theft?"

She didn't steal anything that's how... it's as simple as that. She did not remove anything from the premises which the Thai Criminal Code requires for theft to have occurred.

This is not true. The relevant section of Thai law is Penal Code Title XII, Chapter 1, Section 334. The first part reads

ผู้ใดเอาทรัพย์ของผู้อื่น

This means "a person taking someone else's property...", and uses the word เอา for "take". That word is broad in scope and doesn't carry a connotation of taking away. Basically this does not say anything about taking the property off-premises in order for theft to have occurred.

So under Thai law there's a pretty good case to be made for theft. It would be the same if she had popped the bottles open and drank them right there in the store, or removed them from the premises.

World is going mad and a lot of it brought on by phones! She needs to be locked in a cell separated from her phone. but able to hear incoming messages alerts, unable to see them!

It's a brain rot TikTok trend.

Just a whack job thinking she's the female Johnny Somali. Put her in the Bangkok Hilton for 1 year, then deport her ass and add a lifetime ban on ever returning to Thailand.

That is one ugly women, should have been stopped at the border

11 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Pouring milk on the floor isn't theft.

Law of Thailand -

Section 334 – Basic Theft

The foundation of theft law in Thailand is established under Section 334 of the Criminal Code:

“Anyone who dishonestly takes another person’s property, or property they share, commits theft. They will be imprisoned for up to three years and fined no more than sixty thousand Baht.”

This basic rule includes the main parts of theft. It is the dishonest taking of someone else’s property. The intent is to keep it from the owner forever. The penalty for basic theft is quite lenient. This shows that lawmakers want to separate simple property crimes from more serious ones that have added factors.

Thai Law is very similar to the legal definition in many other countries.

She commits the act of theft when she assumes the rights of ownership. This was done when she decided to pour the milk on the floor, not having paid for it. She took the value of the milk from the shop forever as it can no longer be used.

Drugs?

Alcohol?

Mental illness?

Or all together?

4 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

Would she have done this in say Dubai, Singapore or even a Chinese city ?

Why did she feel it was okay to do this in Thailand. That there lies the answer what is going wrong with Thailand at the moment. Law enforcement is not catching up with todays world.

It gives guys on here something else to complain about. Good news story.

4 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

Law of Thailand -

Section 334 – Basic Theft

The foundation of theft law in Thailand is established under Section 334 of the Criminal Code:

“Anyone who dishonestly takes another person’s property, or property they share, commits theft. They will be imprisoned for up to three years and fined no more than sixty thousand Baht.”

This basic rule includes the main parts of theft. It is the dishonest taking of someone else’s property. The intent is to keep it from the owner forever. The penalty for basic theft is quite lenient. This shows that lawmakers want to separate simple property crimes from more serious ones that have added factors.

Thai Law is very similar to the legal definition in many other countries.

She commits the act of theft when she assumes the rights of ownership. This was done when she decided to pour the milk on the floor, not having paid for it. She took the value of the milk from the shop forever as it can no longer be used.

If she then pays for it no theft. Kids eat lollies before payment.

1 minute ago, Rockyroad said:

If she then pays for it no theft. Kids eat lollies before payment.

Doesn't work like that. Remorse when faced with legal punishment for one's actions does not constitute a defence. When the kid ate the lolly there was an intention by the parent to pay at check out. The case in question is not similar. Legally she did commit the offence of theft however it is not worth the effort to charge her for theft in this instance.

1 minute ago, animalmagic said:

Doesn't work like that. Remorse when faced with legal punishment for one's actions does not constitute a defence. When the kid ate the lolly there was an intention by the parent to pay at check out. The case in question is not similar. Legally she did commit the offence of theft however it is not worth the effort to charge her for theft in this instance.

I've eaten chocolate before payment.

1 minute ago, Rockyroad said:

I've eaten chocolate before payment.

If you paid for it before leaving, and were not trying to hide anything, then you commit no offence. Some pay the night before, some pay the morning after.

What terrible behavior. Would she do the same in her home country? What makes these people think that they can do whatever they want in Thailand? Of course, she should be punished and deported and never be allowed to return here. Naturally, she should be forced to compensate the 7/11 store and publicly apologize to the staff.
But most of all, I feel sorry for those who were forced to clean up after her.
Why do so many tourists behave so badly in Thailand? I think it is getting worse every year. How can the authorities change that without affecting tourism?
There is a lot to think about for the future.

Stiff fine, damages paid, 30 days in jail, banned for life, deported.

4 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

If you paid for it before leaving, and were not trying to hide anything, then you commit no offence. Some pay the night before, some pay the morning after.

Not in the 7-11 you don't!

Doesn't go down well in a lot of bars too!

13 hours ago, BusyB said:

Bring back the stocks.

Cane miscreants while they're in the stocks, twice a day every day at fixed times with public viewing for a minimum 7 days sentence.

Set up barrels of pigswill for spectators to buy and pelt them with.

Bread and water diet.

Confiscate all possessions and auction off to pay costs, damages and restitution.

Deport in the clothes on their backs.

That would make a good tiktok video

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"How is this not theft?"

She didn't steal anything that's how... it's as simple as that. She did not remove anything from the premises which the Thai Criminal Code requires for theft to have occurred.

Thank you for clarifying.

20 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The act was reportedly carried out as part of a social media stunt intended to attract views and engagement.

Six months in the pokey to find some new friends...

Yes. We all enjoy watching another idiot who should be deported and banned from Thailand. RTP (Royal Thai Police) please post the video we will all get a good laugh and enjoyment seeing another idiot receiving what they deserve.

19 hours ago, smedly said:

what a clown

While others discuss the definition of "theft" , I'd like to continue the "clown" discussion please

19 hours ago, VBer said:

She is from Kazakhstan

Surprised she isn't also working a street corner too.

Did she clean it all up and pay for the inconvenience herself or did she just walk out ?

Utter idiot obviously !!

13 minutes ago, ronster said:

Did she clean it all up and pay for the inconvenience herself or did she just walk out ?

She cleaned it by herself. She also claims that the 'performance' was agreed upon with 7/11 staff, done at night when there were no customers, and that the wasted products were paid for in advance

Ugliest lips I saw in a long time. Reminds me of those fish used to keep aquariums clean🤮

22 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

foreign woman has sparked outrage after filming herself pouring milk and scattering food products inside a convenience store

Crikey, she's missing a few marbles.

I'd say a fitting wife for one of our AN members.

What's with these non quality Tik Tok clowns Thailand is encouraging to come to Thailand

Then they trash the image of Thai shops like 7/11

Wasting food when there are people people going hungry

The Thai authorities need to hand out severe penalties to people like this maybe ban them once a crime has been committed like this one

Set a example

35 minutes ago, VBer said:

She cleaned it by herself. She also claims that the 'performance' was agreed upon with 7/11 staff, done at night when there were no customers, and that the wasted products were paid for in advance

Fair enough if she also paid them something for letting her do it , although I'm sure 7-11 and the shop owner wouldn't want this behaviour attached to their shop or brand.

Prison. Fine. Deport. Blacklist this lunatic

3 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Law of Thailand -

Section 334 – Basic Theft

The foundation of theft law in Thailand is established under Section 334 of the Criminal Code:

“Anyone who dishonestly takes another person’s property, or property they share, commits theft. They will be imprisoned for up to three years and fined no more than sixty thousand Baht.”

This basic rule includes the main parts of theft. It is the dishonest taking of someone else’s property. The intent is to keep it from the owner forever. The penalty for basic theft is quite lenient. This shows that lawmakers want to separate simple property crimes from more serious ones that have added factors.

Thai Law is very similar to the legal definition in many other countries.

She commits the act of theft when she assumes the rights of ownership. This was done when she decided to pour the milk on the floor, not having paid for it. She took the value of the milk from the shop forever as it can no longer be used.

7 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

This is not true. The relevant section of Thai law is Penal Code Title XII, Chapter 1, Section 334. The first part reads

ผู้ใดเอาทรัพย์ของผู้อื่น

This means "a person taking someone else's property...", and uses the word เอา for "take". That word is broad in scope and doesn't carry a connotation of taking away. Basically this does not say anything about taking the property off-premises in order for theft to have occurred.

So under Thai law there's a pretty good case to be made for theft. It would be the same if she had popped the bottles open and drank them right there in the store, or removed them from the premises.

That must be why she wasn't charged with theft!

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That must be why she wasn't charged with theft!

The reasons why someone is not charged for an offence are varied and dependent on the agreement between the victim, police and perpetrator.

In this instance she DID commit the offence of Theft by assuming the rights of the owner and pouring the milk on her head.

Police may decide not to charge for Theft as a judge may deem it an excessive punishment as she would be charged for several other offences all based on the same basic facts. It is not normal practice to charge with every offence related to the initial criminal act, but with the most appropriate one/ones.