Thaivisa exclusive: “Attempted murder" as "Australian" man punched by Thai in school says he is really British

[Darron]

Sorry double post.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Darron

[sambum]

4 minutes ago, greenchair said:

To me the video clearly shows the foreigner attempting to drive away and the Thai guy literally threw himself on the bonnet. Watch it carefully in slow motion. 

My neighbour too attacked me, then presented to the court the half of the video when I was defending myself. 

The video has clearly been cut. 

Why? ?

"My neighbour too attacked me" 

 

I wonder why that happened?  

Edited October 14, 2017 by sambum

[Darron]

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

To me the video clearly shows the foreigner attempting to drive away and the Thai guy literally threw himself on the bonnet. Watch it carefully in slow motion. 

My neighbour too attacked me, then presented to the court the half of the video when I was defending myself. 

The video has clearly been cut. 

Why? ?

Watched it frame by frame and it shows that if he didn't jump he would have suffered serious leg injuries from the impact. He jumped straight up at the moment of impact and the forward motion of the car caused him to roll over the hood and into the windscreen. It literally was a perfectly timed jump, as he was hit side on as he turned to face the vehicle. 10/10 for athletic ability and reflexes :-)

[tingtongtourist]

2 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

It's just "one those things"??

What, running down the road with a machete in broad daylight?

What, driving directly at someone and knocking them over the bonnet of a car?

 

That's not "one of those things".

Deport the tosser and blacklist him for life.

His family can come visit him in Oz..if they'll have him back

If you are from a nanny state country and used to wrapped in a cotton wool mentality then yea this look really bad. But I think these cops would see and deal with a lot worse.

 

Its a hot country. Anyone here can have the bad day when everythings go all to sh*te and next thing you know in no time things can get way out of control.

Think How you would react in the same?

 

I think the Thai coppers look at it like this

Number 1 nobody seriously hurt,

cars can be repaired

If both party says sorry,palms greased..end of

 

Jail isnt a place for this silly old farang,

he probably did what many here would do. (Great odds for me since i never would get a car and drive myself here anyway)

 

Because of that I had no trouble in 10 years  in Thailand but i like to know if i got in a silly one-time thing like this i aint gonna pay for it with a life sentance,deported, or worse ,like you guys are calling it

 

 

[Kieran00001]

26 minutes ago, Ron19 said:

Same here, I would like to see it too.

Sent from my iris 755 using Tapatalk
 

 

https://web.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/?_rdc=1&_rdr

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, Thai Ron said:

So only people who've done military service can credibly engaged in fisticuffs?

OK, got it.

You're Obviously not into sarcasm.

[bazza73]

34 minutes ago, nontabury said:

You're Obviously not into sarcasm.

Thai Ron actually is quite humorous, although he is totally unaware of it.

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Darron said:

I think he means this one:

 

https://web.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/?_rdc=1&_rdr

 

Clearly shows that the impact was hard enough to smash the Brit's windscreen.

It's dangerous for sure.  But the fact is he just pulled away at normal speed and the Thai was about 3-4 steps from the vehicle. The new video certainly shows that it was deliberate, yet attempted murder is far fetched to say the least.  It is still a serious assault however.

 

Quite a few people continue to embellish or use rather nuanced wording, although granted it is quite difficult to describe what happened without over or under stating, eg, ran over is a perfectly innocent term but surely implies much more than actually happened.  And I read the term 'accelerated in to'- well again it is quite accurate but conveys more than what happened, since the whole incident was at low speed.

 

In order to be attempted murder, it would need to be faster, have a definite run up, or show a manouvre such as a broadside, or crushing in to the wall, or in to the path of oncoming traffic.

 

 

[greenchair]

10 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's dangerous for sure.  But the fact is he just pulled away at normal speed and the Thai was about 3-4 steps from the vehicle. The new video certainly shows that it was deliberate, yet attempted murder is far fetched to say the least.  It is still a serious assault however.

 

Quite a few people continue to embellish or use rather nuanced wording, although granted it is quite difficult to describe what happened without over or under stating, eg, ran over is a perfectly innocent term but surely implies much more than actually happened.  And I read the term 'accelerated in to'- well again it is quite accurate but conveys more than what happened, since the whole incident was at low speed.

 

In order to be attempted murder, it would need to be faster, have a definite run up, or show a manouvre such as a broadside, or crushing in to the wall, or in to the path of oncoming traffic.

 

 

 

When my neighbour tried to run into me with his car, which was clearly showed on video. 

The judge said, we could not know what he was thinking at the time so we did not prove intention. 

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, sambum said:

"My neighbour too attacked me" 

 

I wonder why that happened?  

Probably because it's common to beat up on older foreigners in Thailand, as is the case here. 

The point is. 

Why was the video cut. 

[Peterw42]

I notice all the die hard farang defenders have stopped posting since the front view video has come out.

 

It clearly shows the Thai has not blocked the farang in ,he is parked about 30m up the road, and its a 2 lane road. The Thai guy is walking away not looking at the farang car when the farang accelerates straight at him. It would have been very serious injuries, broken legs, if the Thai guy didnt jump up at the last second, he still lands on the window with enough force to smash it in.

 

https://www.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, greenchair said:

 

When my neighbour tried to run into me with his car, which was clearly showed on video. 

The judge said, we could not know what he was thinking at the time so we did not prove intention. 

Well I think we can safely assume it wasn't to enhance your day

 

I think the judge was likely right as criminal law demands a verdict be beyond all reasonable.  When I first saw the poor quality video, I wasn't sure if the old nut was even aware that the Thai nutter was standing directly in front, but for me the newer, better quality video seems to confirm that he must have known as I think there may even have been a short exchange of words.

 

But I still think it is far fetched to assume that this was attempted murder, surely that would have involved more acceleration.  The fact that old nut slammed on his brakes leaves me with a slight doubt. It is plausible that despite everything that he had become so deranged that he wasn't paying attention to the view ahead, and climbed in the car, and pulled away, before actually looking.

[Tony125]

4 hours ago, Media1 said:

Thairon do you like the Thai soapies by any chance. The crime is a serious assault. The Thai knew exactly what he was doing. He chose to be a hero. There's many Thai just like him. He could have moved. His a goose. And KARMA will catch him. As we say " you can run but you can't hide "

Check video from front of Thai car---the Thai guy was walking away from the Brit  ( has his back to the Brit) when the crazy Brit drove his car into him. If he did jump up it was to save himself from being run over.

https://web.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/?_rdc=1&_rdr

[Kieran00001]

19 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's dangerous for sure.  But the fact is he just pulled away at normal speed and the Thai was about 3-4 steps from the vehicle. The new video certainly shows that it was deliberate, yet attempted murder is far fetched to say the least.  It is still a serious assault however.

 

Quite a few people continue to embellish or use rather nuanced wording, although granted it is quite difficult to describe what happened without over or under stating, eg, ran over is a perfectly innocent term but surely implies much more than actually happened.  And I read the term 'accelerated in to'- well again it is quite accurate but conveys more than what happened, since the whole incident was at low speed.

 

In order to be attempted murder, it would need to be faster, have a definite run up, or show a manouvre such as a broadside, or crushing in to the wall, or in to the path of oncoming traffic.

 

 

 

You don't actually define what attempted murder means, I know that hitting someone with my car even at low speed could potentially kill them, therefore if I purposely hit them with my car it would be attempted murder even if at the speed I hit them the chance would be very low.  That is actually how it works, you don't have to have made a move that makes it very likely to kill, just a move that you are aware could kill.

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Probably because it's common to beat up on older foreigners in Thailand, as is the case here. 

The point is. 

Why was the video cut. 

 

The video has been made into an entertaining clip for YouTube, the bit at the beginning you were on about earlier being evidence of it being cut is a photo that has been edited in, there are words pasted on top and there are pauses and circles drawn to draw attention, how could you possibly mistake all this for someone trying to edit the video to hide something?

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I notice all the die hard farang defenders have stopped posting since the front view video has come out.

 

It clearly shows the Thai has not blocked the farang in ,he is parked about 30m up the road, and its a 2 lane road. The Thai guy is walking away not looking at the farang car when the farang accelerates straight at him. It would have been very serious injuries, broken legs, if the Thai guy didnt jump up at the last second, he still lands on the window with enough force to smash it in.

 

https://www.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/

This kind of proves what I was saying that it is difficult to describe the severity of what happened accurately.  Your account has been some what enlivened.  But I do agree it would be something of an understatement to merely say the old nut pulled away and flipped the Thai at low speed. 

 

It was a serious assault, no more, no less. 

[sambum]

22 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Probably because it's common to beat up on older foreigners in Thailand, as is the case here. 

The point is. 

Why was the video cut. 

I wouldn't say that it is common, but it does happen, and certainly more frequently here than most other countries that I have frequented.

 

As for your question, it all depends which video you are talking about - yours or the "attempted murder" under discussion on this thread.

 

I haven't seen yours, but I would say that the reason for it being cut is rather obvious!

[mommysboy]

41 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You don't actually define what attempted murder means, I know that hitting someone with my car even at low speed could potentially kill them, therefore if I purposely hit them with my car it would be attempted murder even if at the speed I hit them the chance would be very low.  That is actually how it works, you don't have to have made a move that makes it very likely to kill, just a move that you are aware could kill.

 

An act with the intention to kill, eg, firing a gun at someone's chest.  That, of course, is more obvious, and it is not a direct analogue.

 

I just think it is common sense to assume that most people are aware that a high speed collision will likely kill, whereas a low speed one probably won't.  From this it is logical to assume that there was no intent to kill, or he surely would have waited for a greater distance and driven at higher speed. I don't think there was premeditation.  You say it is enough to know that it could kill- well it sounds like you know the exact law better than I, but the argument then would be that so could any number of things, including the punch that felled the old nut, but you would agree that to think of that as attempted murder would be somewhat wrong.

 

I'd be interested to know what the letter of the law says.  I don't know- I must admit that.  But the contention that the law merely states could kill, seems rather vague for the reasons I cited.

 

I think you have to also look at the event in totality, because the nutter had actually taken his temper out on the car, and then walked away.  It is plausible that he was so exhausted (we see him stagger a bit), and so disorientated that he didn't actually know what has happening anymore.  It is just possible, only possible note, that he wasn't aware the Thai bloke was standing in front of him.

 

But what I mean in totality is just to look at the incident again with a dispassionate eye- is this an action where murder was the motive?  If you can't say yes with a high degree of certainty then he is not guilty, because the criteria is beyond all reasonable doubt. "Could' is not enough (I assume anyway).

 

However, I still say that speed and distance to impact is a simple common sense reason why it can't even be considered as attempted murder.  By my count the Thai had taken 3 or 4 ambling strides away from the car- 2-3 metres maybe! and the speed was so slow that he actually had time to check, turn and initiate evasion.

 

You posed a very intelligent question with reasoning.  I don't say I am right.  I just offer a reply that may be right.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by mommysboy

[tropo]

49 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I notice all the die hard farang defenders have stopped posting since the front view video has come out.

 

It clearly shows the Thai has not blocked the farang in ,he is parked about 30m up the road, and its a 2 lane road. The Thai guy is walking away not looking at the farang car when the farang accelerates straight at him. It would have been very serious injuries, broken legs, if the Thai guy didnt jump up at the last second, he still lands on the window with enough force to smash it in.

 

https://www.facebook.com/100006583920021/videos/2205727692990007/

3

I haven't changed my opinion after watching the new video. It clearly shows that many die-hard Thai supporters exaggerated the severity of the "run over" incident. It was a low-speed nudge followed by a theatrical leap back onto the hood, with probable intentions to smash the windscreen. The car moved a few meters at most before coming to a complete standstill. "very serious injuries, broken legs" if he hadn't have jumped LOL. He wouldn't have been hurt even if he didn't jump. "Attempted murder"? That's absurd.

[anto]

Just now, tropo said:

I haven't changed my opinion after watching the new video. It clearly shows that many die-hard Thai supporters exaggerated the severity of the "run over" incident. It was a low-speed nudge followed by a theatrical leap back onto the hood, with probable intentions to smash the windscreen. The car moved a few meters at most before coming to a complete standstill. "very serious injuries, broken legs" if he hadn't have jumped LOL. He wouldn't have been hurt even if he didn't jump. "Attempted murder"? That's absurd.

Tropo ,you've gone Tropo .You see something the polar opposite to what i saw .Watch out for Dementia if you are over 60 . 

[tropo]

3 minutes ago, anto said:

Tropo ,you've gone Tropo .You see something the polar opposite to what i saw .Watch out for Dementia if you are over 60 . 

LOL> You interpret a video differently and then suggest the person with a different opinion has dementia. With logic like that you're probably much further down the road than I am, even if you're under 60. If you saw the polar opposite of me, then you need glasses.

Edited October 14, 2017 by tropo

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, tropo said:

I haven't changed my opinion after watching the new video. It clearly shows that many die-hard Thai supporters exaggerated the severity of the "run over" incident. It was a low-speed nudge followed by a theatrical leap back onto the hood, with probable intentions to smash the windscreen. The car moved a few meters at most before coming to a complete standstill. "very serious injuries, broken legs" if he hadn't have jumped LOL. He wouldn't have been hurt even if he didn't jump. "Attempted murder"? That's absurd.

I pretty much agree with the basic contention that it was at such low impact that it can't possibly be considered as attempted murder, because it could not reasonably lead to mortality.  Yes, absurd is about right.

 

I don't agree that it was a theatrical leap.  Clearly, you do what you can to get out the way.  But the very fact that he was able to take any sort of evasive action tells us something.  This was not a deliberate leap to feign- the point at which his feet left the ground and his body began to move forward was the point at which all bodily control would have been lost.

[Kieran00001]

45 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

An act with the intention to kill, eg, firing a gun at someone's chest.  That, of course, is more obvious, and it is not a direct analogue.

 

I just think it is common sense to assume that most people are aware that a high speed collision will likely kill, whereas a low speed one probably won't.  From this it is logical to assume that there was no intent to kill, or he surely would have waited for a greater distance and driven at higher speed. I don't think there was premeditation.  You say it is enough to know that it could kill- well it sounds like you know the exact law better than I, but the argument then would be that so could any number of things, including the punch that felled the old nut, but you would agree that to think of that as attempted murder would be somewhat wrong.

 

I'd be interested to know what the letter of the law says.  I don't know- I must admit that.  But the contention that the law merely states could kill, seems rather vague for the reasons I cited.

 

I think you have to also look at the event in totality, because the nutter had actually taken his temper out on the car, and then walked away.  It is plausible that he was so exhausted (we see him stagger a bit), and so disorientated that he didn't actually know what has happening anymore.  It is just possible, only possible note, that he wasn't aware the Thai bloke was standing in front of him.

 

But what I mean in totality is just to look at the incident again with a dispassionate eye- is this an action where murder was the motive?  If you can't say yes with a high degree of certainty then he is not guilty, because the criteria is beyond all reasonable doubt. "Could' is not enough (I assume anyway).

 

However, I still say that speed and distance to impact is a simple common sense reason why it can't even be considered as attempted murder.  By my count the Thai had taken 3 or 4 ambling strides away from the car- 2-3 metres maybe! and the speed was so slow that he actually had time to check, turn and initiate evasion.

 

You posed a very intelligent question with reasoning.  I don't say I am right.  I just offer a reply that may be right.

 

 

 

It depends on the country, in England and Wales it would be very hard to get a conviction for attempted murder for this as it has to be proven beyond all doubt that his intention was to kill, but in Scotland it would just have to be shown that he acted with a wicked recklessness and disregard for whether he lived or died, quite different, and possibly this would meet that definition, not sure about Thailand, attempted murder doesn't even appear to be in the criminal code to be honest.

[isitworthit]

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:08 PM, robblok said:

Yes my points of view are harsh because I hate people like this. (irrelevant of age). People who use cars as weapons and carry machetes with them are not normal people. They are the type who get into trouble like this with their sense of entitlement to self defense with weapons. 

 

If you start attacking people then you should not be surprised if they attack you back irrelevant of your age. You seem to think he has some mental problem, if that is the case he should be behind locked doors (mental care), these people are a danger to themselves and others. 

 

I don't believe their right should outweigh other rights to safety. Maybe if you encounter an idiot like that you will change your mind too. Dangerous violent people should be either locked up or cared for if they have mental problems behind locked doors. Not carrying weapons in a car and driving a car. 

So the Thai man using his car as a weapon to run the man down then using his fist and punching and knocking him to the ground are actions of a normal man.

you say the man if has issues mentally or age related sould be locked up and cared fo.

The young mans responses are not a response of someone of sound mind either maybe he needs to be cared for or locked away.

 

[tropo]

6 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

well the moral of the tale is

 

dont take you eyes off a thai adversary even when a cop is present....cos they will do f'all.

That's absolutely the most important takeaway from this. I had a Thai male try to attack me directly in front of 2 policemen, twice. He was given a stern warning the first time, and soon after that, he tried again. 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, isitworthit said:

So the Thai man using his car as a weapon to run the man down then using his fist and punching and knocking him to the ground are actions of a normal man.

you say the man if has issues mentally or age related sould be locked up and cared fo.

The young mans responses are not a response of someone of sound mind either maybe he needs to be cared for or locked away.

 

 

Did the Thai man run someone down?

[isitworthit]

Question If British /Australian guy had of King Hit the other Guy infront of Police 

Would he have been allowed to just walk away too 

Or taken away for questioning? 

[Kieran00001]

24 minutes ago, tropo said:

I haven't changed my opinion after watching the new video. It clearly shows that many die-hard Thai supporters exaggerated the severity of the "run over" incident. It was a low-speed nudge followed by a theatrical leap back onto the hood, with probable intentions to smash the windscreen. The car moved a few meters at most before coming to a complete standstill. "very serious injuries, broken legs" if he hadn't have jumped LOL. He wouldn't have been hurt even if he didn't jump. "Attempted murder"? That's absurd.

 

A leap onto a car does not project you though the air as he was, he was clearly hit at some speed and he clearly only jumps at the last second to avoid the car hitting his legs, it is you who feels the need to exaggerate and it is you who is the die hard, a die hard Thai basher. 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, isitworthit said:

Question If British /Australian guy had of King Hit the other Guy infront of Police 

Would he have been allowed to just walk away too 

Or taken away for questioning? 

 

The Thai man was arrested, what are you on about?

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It depends on the country, in England and Wales it would be very hard to get a conviction for attempted murder for this as it has to be proven beyond all doubt that his intention was to kill, but in Scotland it would just have to be shown that he acted with a wicked recklessness and disregard for whether he lived or died, quite different, and possibly this would meet that definition, not sure about Thailand, attempted murder doesn't even appear to be in the criminal code to be honest.

Yes, I see your point.  I don't know either.

 

But surely, in order to be convicted we have to be sure that the actual event can lead to death, and I don't by way of some statistical freak chance.  I am contending that death was never going to be the outcome, it shouldn't even be considered as so.  What happened is what would happen at least a thousand, perhaps 10,000 times or even a million times again if repeated.  I just had a ciggie break on the street outside my house, and stood in front of a parked car, about 2.5 metres away.  Just supposing the car had been occupied and someone had driven away routinely, then I would say there is no way except by freakish accident that I could have been killed.  Let's be reasonable here.