Split opinions on whether helpers of Yingluck’s escape are criminally liable

[webfact]

Split opinions on whether helpers of Yingluck’s escape are criminally liable

By Chalarntorn Yothasmutra

 

 

BANGKOK: -- With former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s judgement day due tomorrow (Wednesday), the question about whether the policemen who helped arrange for her escape are criminally liable or not remains hotly debated with opinions split into two camps.

 

On one side, several policemen, including Pol Gen Srivara Rangsipramanakul, the national deputy police chief, have insisted that Yingluck’s helpers did not do anything against the law because she has not been found guilty by the court and also there was no warrant for her arrest when she failed to show up on August 25 when the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions was scheduled to read its verdict.   An arrest warrant was issued after August 25 when she was already gone.

 

They also claimed that the police officers who helped in the escape bid did not help her to escape out of the country but merely took her to the border with Cambodia. However, they said the officers could face disciplinary action if it was proven that they were on duty when they spirited Ms Yingluck from Bangkok to the border with Cambodia.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/opinion-investigating-yinglucks-escape/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2017-09-27

[ezzra]

They should be indicted, they knew they're doing something wrong when

everything was done under cloak of darkness, switching cars wearing

dark clothing and running unusual border crossing, moves that honest

people don't do unless the're in cahoot to break the laws of the land...

all that implies pre-mediated plans to circumvent and evade authorities and

possible unfavorable court judgement and jail times sentencing....

 

[rkidlad]

What a s*** show. All children playing at being adults. 

 

It’s all about intent. The coppers helping knew what they were doing. But it’s all moot anyway. The government wanted her gone so they let her slide out. If they really didn’t know, they should all step down as they’re completely useless. Heaven forbid anyone ever invades Thailand with people like this in control of the army. 

 

All just a horrible show.This country needs help. Many people wanna be in control or take power forcibly, but as usual, no one wants to take responsibility for anything when it goes wrong. All the hallmarks of zero leadership skills on either side. 

[Samui Bodoh]

 

It was nothing but a show trial.

 

Stop pretending that the law had anything to do with this...

[LannaGuy]

Millions of Thais respect Yingluck and even the detractors I happen to know personally were relieved she escaped the clutches of the Junta jail cells where anything can happen and CCTV never seems to work.

 

The Junta did a 'Nelson' and turned a blind eye. All this subsequent 'outrage' is just for 'face' and we should add an 'R' for FARCE.

Edited September 27, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Mickmouse1]

Is it not simple to say " if she left the country without following the proper immigration procedures such as passport being chopped and cross through the legal immigration and custom controlled border then she has committed an offence" All those who helped her through are also liable . Imagine Mr Smith leaving Thailand to Laos  at 2am with the help of another individuals using a boat to cross the river. What would the Thai Authority do except going after everyone particularly if they were all FOREIGN NATIONALS!?

[yellowboat]

They are not liable yet as no charges have been filed.  After today, that may change. 

[DoctorG]

This may be the one and only time that I agree with a police general. If she was not under arrest or on bail, then nobody broke the law. I also agree that the police who transported her to the border should be disciplined for allowing police resources to be used. Anybody who helped her to cross the border could be charged with abetting an illegal crossing however.

[klauskunkel]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by klauskunkel
self censored

[LannaGuy]

29 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

This may be the one and only time that I agree with a police general. If she was not under arrest or on bail, then nobody broke the law. I also agree that the police who transported her to the border should be disciplined for allowing police resources to be used. Anybody who helped her to cross the border could be charged with abetting an illegal crossing however.

 

Should be given a medal and probably will at some future date

[Eric Loh]

Is it criminally liable for someone who knows the whereabout of Yingluck but withhold the disclosure. 

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Is it criminally liable for someone who knows the whereabout of Yingluck but withhold the disclosure. 

 

Of course it is Eric. Don't you know there are arrest warrants out for you, me all TVF posters and 58 million Thais who know that Thaksin is in Dubai?

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

 

Of course it is Eric. Don't you know there are arrest warrants out for you, me all TVF posters and 58 million Thais who know that Thaksin is in Dubai?

But but you and I and all TVF posters doesn't know where Yingluck is but someone came out and stupidly boasted he knows and refused to disclose. That's a criminal offence for withholding information of a fugitive. But fear not; he is Prayut and has amnesty. The untouchable crook. 

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

But but you and I and all TVF posters doesn't know where Yingluck is but someone came out and stupidly boasted he knows and refused to disclose. That's a criminal offence for withholding information of a fugitive. But fear not; he is Prayut and has amnesty. The untouchable crook. 

55555, off in red fantasyland again. Which law says it is a criminal offence not to volunteer information to the police?

[greenchair]

26 minutes ago, halloween said:

55555, off in red fantasyland again. Which law says it is a criminal offence not to volunteer information to the police?

I'll find it, I guess it would come under a similar law of harbouring a fugitive. 

[Eric Loh]

42 minutes ago, halloween said:

55555, off in red fantasyland again. Which law says it is a criminal offence not to volunteer information to the police?

You say this not long ago "Deliberately refusing to act is Criminal negligence, and it IS illegal". What ever suit your narrative Halloween? 

[halloween]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You say this not long ago "Deliberately refusing to act is Criminal negligence, and it IS illegal". What ever suit your narrative Halloween? 

It certainly is, where there is a duty of care. But you forgot to answer, which law says it is a criminal offence to not volunteer information to the police?

Edited September 27, 2017 by halloween

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

It certainly is, where there is a duty of care. But you forgot to answer, which law says it is a criminal offence to volunteer information to the police?

It is withholding and not volunteering information as you try to deflect. Back pedaling will not help you fortify your flimsy argument. 

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It is withholding and not volunteering information as you try to deflect. Back pedaling will not help you fortify your flimsy argument. 

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

 

Do those rights, or some equivalent, not extend to somebody NOT being questioned?

[worgeordie]

54 minutes ago, halloween said:

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

 

Do those rights, or some equivalent, not extend to somebody NOT being questioned?

Halloween,are you an ex copper,or have you been read your rights

so many times you know it by heart.

regards worgeordie

[Eric Loh]

55 minutes ago, halloween said:

Do those rights, or some equivalent, not extend to somebody NOT being questioned?

Now I know why Thaksin, family and party leaders are keeping silence on her whereabouts. The police looking for her and she has an arrest warrant and thus a fugitive. If they know where she is, the junta will be using the law (again) to find cause for abetment. Those rights are not for political enemies. 

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Halloween,are you an ex copper,or have you been read your rights

so many times you know it by heart.

regards worgeordie

The 3rd alternative is, can I use google?

[seajae]

on thai reasoning when you shoot someone you are not guilty because the bullet killed them and not the shooter, they only pulled the trigger, what more could you expect from these idiots

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Millions of Thais respect Yingluck and even the detractors I happen to know personally were relieved she escaped the clutches of the Junta jail cells where anything can happen and CCTV never seems to work.

 

The Junta did a 'Nelson' and turned a blind eye. All this subsequent 'outrage' is just for 'face' and we should add an 'R' for FARCE.

 

That would be the millions of Thais you know personally then, the ones who confide in you, would it?

 

Millions - like the "millions' who turned up to support her, the 'millions" who turned up to the "war drum summons" - yeah right.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

It certainly is, where there is a duty of care. But you forgot to answer, which law says it is a criminal offence to not volunteer information to the police?

 

Not sure about Thailand but in some countries you could be charged with withholding evidence, conspiracy, etc for keeping quiet if it became obvious at some later time that you had deliberately kept stum.

[Jonmarleesco]

Start at the top, with the criminally inept.