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

[tropo]

7 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

Slowly it must be dawning on the shameless supporters of this thug that he is no hero, swiping at someone with a machete for parking in front of you, they attempt to justify his actions due to what happened to him later, a ridiculous bias demonstrated by the few, born no doubt out of the same irrational fears that led this British thug to get out his machete and name first violent move.

Here you go again. Don't make a point, but insult everyone that disagrees with you, with descriptors such as "shameless", "ridiculous bias", "irrational fears". Of course, you have lots of shame, all your fears are rational and you have no bias.

 

Fail!

[tropo]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Oh, I don't know.  When you play football and are confronted with impending collision, you jump a little and then spin side ways in order to avert as much impact as possible.  It's an instinctive reaction. That's what I think happened here.

Either way, it was well executed. He could use that video as evidence of his skills if he ever wanted a job as a movie stuntman. It's hard to know what is instinctive in such a situation. I don't think I would have jumped up.

[tropo]

17 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

There's a lot to this incident, which is best described as a trilogy, and each part seems to have at least one aspect that is a bone of contention.  I just think a charge of attempted murder for the car incident is wrong, and hence post why it can't be considered as such.

 

One might ask why you are defending the Thai guy, after all the first video shows him to be a dangerous driver, who appears hell bent on confrontation, and the last shows sheer brutality, with a willingness to come back for more, and some say even a death threat.

 

It's not a question of one versus the other, both are in the wrong. 

You made a good point. Parking his car in order to stop the old guy in his tracks in the middle of the road definitely shows a desire for confrontation. In that case, he got a lot more than he expected.

[Kadilo]

The old bloke is completely innocent. He said so himself. Carrying a machete in a car on the way to a school is perfectly normal behaviour. Same as waving it about and bashing a guys car. Attempted murder?? It was self defence.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, tropo said:

Here you go again. Don't make a point, but insult everyone that disagrees with you, with descriptors such as "shameless", "ridiculous bias", "irrational fears". Of course, you have lots of shame, all your fears are rational and you have no bias.

 

Fail!

 

The support for him has been shameless, he has been called a hero for attacking someone with a machete.

The Thai man has been chastised for stopping someones car who had just attacked his family with a machete, if that isn't not bias then what is?

It is my opinion that the Brit most likely behaved the way he did out of an irrational fear that if he did not attack then he would be attacked, an irrational fear that a few posters have made clear they share.

 

So you see, my post was actually just factual, it is your claim that me stating these facts is an insult that is the fail.  

 

And of course I can be a little shameless, I don't think I have ever defended someone terrorising a child with a machete though and certainly never called someone like that a hero, I do have some bias, but not to the degree where I can overlook a machete attack in order to criticise a driving offence, and I do have irrational fears, but none so wild that I fear every male of a nationality, so actually I can make fun of those people, thanks.

[Kadilo]

 
The support for him has been shameless, he has been called a hero for attacking someone with a machete.
The Thai man has been chastised for stopping someones car who had just attacked his family with a machete, if that isn't not bias then what is?
It is my opinion that the Brit most likely behaved the way he did out of an irrational fear that if he did not attack then he would be attacked, an irrational fear that a few posters have made clear they share.
 
So you see, my post was actually just factual, it is your claim that me stating these facts is an insult that is the fail.  
 
And of course I can be a little shameless, I don't think I have ever defended someone terrorising a child with a machete though and certainly never called someone like that a hero, I do have some bias, but not to the degree where I can overlook a machete attack in order to criticise a driving offence, and I do have irrational fears, but none so wild that I fear every male of a nationality, so actually I can make fun of those people, thanks.

Leave the Anti Thai brigade to it. The Police have got it right. Attempted murder charge vs assault charge for the Thai. Spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[clashpie]

Put yourselves in the Thai mans shoes!

1)You are being followed (tail gating) to begin with for no reason at all it would seem other than a bit of poor driving etiquette shall we say? 

2)You stop to see what the guy behind you is upset about?(Mistake on his part too).

3)Then some dimwit climbs out of his car with a machete (or whatever it is).

4)Comes up to your car shouting his head off and no doubt a few expletives thrown in for good measure!

5)Uses his machete to smash your car in/windows/ no doubt scaring the cr.p out of the occupiers in the car (no doubt pedestrians too).

6)Then to add insult to injury not content with all of the above...this elderly 'gentleman' then runs you over with his car!

 

No wonder the Thai man decked him one!

He must have been livid to do it in front of the cops/cameras and who could blame him?

There might be more to this story than I am aware of but there is no getting away from the fact the Brit behaved pretty badly!

 

 

[NanLaew]

On 10/14/2017 at 5:38 PM, janclaes47 said:

 

I have a friend who has one in the car all the time.

 

He calls it his negotiator.

After changing to a stubby version and trying to avoid the risk of being seen carrying an offensive weapon in the truck, I keep the original, long, whippy car radio antenna under the seat.

 

I call it my original, long, whippy car radio antenna.

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, clashpie said:

Put yourselves in the Thai mans shoes!

1)You are being followed (tail gating) to begin with for no reason at all it would seem other than a bit of poor driving etiquette shall we say? 

2)You stop to see what the guy behind you is upset about?(Mistake on his part too).

3)Then some dimwit climbs out of his car with a machete (or whatever it is).

4)Comes up to your car shouting his head off and no doubt a few expletives thrown in for good measure!

5)Uses his machete to smash your car in/windows/ no doubt scaring the cr.p out of the occupiers in the car (no doubt pedestrians too).

6)Then to add insult to injury not content with all of the above...this elderly 'gentleman' then runs you over with his car!

 

No wonder the Thai man decked him one!

He must have been livid to do it in front of the cops/cameras and who could blame him?

There might be more to this story than I am aware of but there is no getting away from the fact the Brit behaved pretty badly!

 

 

Well done for putting yourself in the Thai's shoes so much that you forget all the things you did wrong. 

[Si Thea01]

11 hours ago, Kadilo said:

Leave the Anti Thai brigade to it. The Police have got it right. Attempted murder charge vs assault charge for the Thai. Spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

In a previous post I said that I was unaware of how he could be charged with "Attempted Murder" as I was not aware of  such a charge within the Thai Criminal Code.  I erred in this regard because additional research resulted in the following being noted under the Criminal Code section of Attempts.

 

Section 80. Attempt

 

Whoever commences to commit an offence, but does not carry it through, or carries it through, but does not achieve its end, is said to attempt to commit an offence.

 

Whoever attempts to commit an offence shall be liable to two-thirds of the punishment as provided by the law for such offence.

 

Section 81. Impossible Attempt

 

Whoever commences and commits the offence, but the result is impossible, such person in said to attempts and commits an offence.

 

The offence is attempted to commit by whomever, such person shall be punished two-thirds of punishment as prescribed by the law for such offence. If the act mentioned in the first paragraph is done on account of blind belief, the Court may not inflict the punishment.

 

 

Section 82. Attempt but Discontinued Attempt

 

Whoever attempts to commit an offence, but, on his own accord, desists from carrying it through, or changes his mind and prevents the act from achieving its end, shall not be punished for such attempt to commit the offence. But, if what he has already done comes under the provisions of law as an offence, he shall be punished for such offence.

 

Now given the Police would/should be aware of all the facts, of which we are not, then it appears they have acted within the law when laying the  charge of "Attempted Murder."

 

Whether or not it results in a conviction is for the court to decide, not the police or those on the forum who agree or disagree with the results so far. 

[tropo]

16 hours ago, Kadilo said:

The old bloke is completely innocent. He said so himself. Carrying a machete in a car on the way to a school is perfectly normal behaviour. Same as waving it about and bashing a guys car. Attempted murder?? It was self defence.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

A machete is a garden tool in Thailand. It's a very useful multi-functional tool. Carrying one in the boot is not highly irregular as many are suggesting.

[tropo]

16 hours ago, Darron said:

I think the biggest attempted murder thing, in the whole saga, is the clear swing of the Machete aimed at the Thai guy's head. There is no denying or sugarcoating that. If someone swings a mini sword square at your head there is only one intent and that is to kill.

 

This whole situation is going to cost the Brit severely. Either in deportation and blacklisting or a big brown envelope (or in this case a small briefcase).

Where is the clear evidence of a "machete aimed at the Thai Guy's head". I missed that video because all the ones I saw showing what happened in front of the car are very unclear.

[Kadilo]

A machete is a garden tool in Thailand. It's a very useful multi-functional tool. Carrying one in the boot is not highly irregular as many are suggesting.

Yeah you can use it as a car jack, rearrange people’s car paintwork and attempt to cut peoples heads off. Every car should carry one.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tropo]

16 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The support for him has been shameless, he has been called a hero for attacking someone with a machete.

The Thai man has been chastised for stopping someones car who had just attacked his family with a machete, if that isn't not bias then what is?

It is my opinion that the Brit most likely behaved the way he did out of an irrational fear that if he did not attack then he would be attacked, an irrational fear that a few posters have made clear they share.

 

So you see, my post was actually just factual, it is your claim that me stating these facts is an insult that is the fail.  

 

And of course I can be a little shameless, I don't think I have ever defended someone terrorising a child with a machete though and certainly never called someone like that a hero, I do have some bias, but not to the degree where I can overlook a machete attack in order to criticise a driving offence, and I do have irrational fears, but none so wild that I fear every male of a nationality, so actually I can make fun of those people, thanks.

Your fail is in attacking people who are trying to be balanced in this... and using your famous embellishments to justify your attack. I agree, if anyone is calling the foreigner a "hero", then that is way off base and shameless. I must have missed those posts because most members are giving an opinion on what they see in the videos. Must everyone add the qualifier "just an opinion" to everything they post here? It's assumed in most cases.

 

I have no irrational fears whatsoever. Suggesting caution when dealing with angry Thai people is entirely rational. 

 

I'm sure the foreigner will be punished severely for his actions, so there's no need to be concerned about that.

[tropo]

39 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Yeah you can use it as a car jack, rearrange people’s car paintwork and attempt to cut peoples heads off. Every car should carry one.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Yes, and you can use it to trim plants, dig up plants, cut branches, kill snakes and many other things. I'm sure many cars carry one.

Edited October 16, 2017 by tropo

[Rimmer]

Am off topic baiting troll post and two replies have been removed, some other troll posts also removed

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

Your fail is in attacking people who are trying to be balanced in this... and using your famous embellishments to justify your attack. I agree, if anyone is calling the foreigner a "hero", then that is way off base and shameless. I must have missed those posts because most members are giving an opinion on what they see in the videos. Must everyone add the qualifier "just an opinion" to everything they post here? It's assumed in most cases.

 

I have no irrational fears whatsoever. Suggesting caution when dealing with angry Thai people is entirely rational. 

 

I'm sure the foreigner will be punished severely for his actions, so there's no need to be concerned about that.

Here it is:

"A thug in your eyes Kieran but a hero to many."

owl sees all

 

 

[tropo]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Here it is:

"A thug in your eyes Kieran but a hero to many."

owl sees all

 

 

It was obviously a wind-up. Any others?

[greenchair]

6 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

In a previous post I said that I was unaware of how he could be charged with "Attempted Murder" as I was not aware of  such a charge within the Thai Criminal Code.  I erred in this regard because additional research resulted in the following being noted under the Criminal Code section of Attempts.

 

Section 80. Attempt

 

Whoever commences to commit an offence, but does not carry it through, or carries it through, but does not achieve its end, is said to attempt to commit an offence.

 

Whoever attempts to commit an offence shall be liable to two-thirds of the punishment as provided by the law for such offence.

 

Section 81. Impossible Attempt

 

Whoever commences and commits the offence, but the result is impossible, such person in said to attempts and commits an offence.

 

The offence is attempted to commit by whomever, such person shall be punished two-thirds of punishment as prescribed by the law for such offence. If the act mentioned in the first paragraph is done on account of blind belief, the Court may not inflict the punishment.

 

 

Section 82. Attempt but Discontinued Attempt

 

Whoever attempts to commit an offence, but, on his own accord, desists from carrying it through, or changes his mind and prevents the act from achieving its end, shall not be punished for such attempt to commit the offence. But, if what he has already done comes under the provisions of law as an offence, he shall be punished for such offence.

 

Now given the Police would/should be aware of all the facts, of which we are not, then it appears they have acted within the law when laying the  charge of "Attempted Murder."

 

Whether or not it results in a conviction is for the court to decide, not the police or those on the forum who agree or disagree with the results so far. 

And please add to that section 310 that says anyone that prevents a person from their right to freedom and liberty of movement  (or something like that ) is liable to 3 years imprisonment. 

And section 67 that says anyone that causes injury to another in the effort to escape imminent danger that he did not cause shall not be liable. 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

It was obviously a wind-up. Any others?

 

Do you think we should take every single thing 'owl sees all' said in support of the Brit as a wind up?  

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

And please add to that section 310 that says anyone that prevents a person from their right to freedom and liberty of movement  (or something like that ) is liable to 3 years imprisonment. 

And section 67 that says anyone that causes injury to another in the effort to escape imminent danger that he did not cause shall not be liable. 

 

 

Being in front of someone would not come under that law, he would have to have also have prevented him from moving in the opposite direction not just forwards, blocking someone's path is not kidnap, obviously.  Also, just because you suspect that he was in imminent danger because there was a Thai man in front of him does not mean that he actually was nor that it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he was, if the Thai man had of killed him while he was brandishing the machete then maybe, but the Brit attacking someone for parking in front of him, no way.

[tropo]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

Do you think we should take every single thing 'owl sees all' said in support of the Brit as a wind up?  

If it's a reply to you personally, it's highly likely that's it's a wind-up. The reason will be obvious to others but I'm not sure if you will get it.

[Si Thea01]

51 minutes ago, greenchair said:

And please add to that section 310 that says anyone that prevents a person from their right to freedom and liberty of movement  (or something like that ) is liable to 3 years imprisonment. 

And section 67 that says anyone that causes injury to another in the effort to escape imminent danger that he did not cause shall not be liable. 

 

Section 310 of the Thai Criminal Code refers to illegal detention.  Who and how was anyone illegally detained.

 

Section 67 of the Thai Criminal Code refers to Necessity.  Can you tell me how any of the actions of those involved fall under the need of Necessity.  Maybe you listed the incorrect section.  

 

 

[isitworthit]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

And please add to that section 310 that says anyone that prevents a person from their right to freedom and liberty of movement  (or something like that ) is liable to 3 years imprisonment. 

And section 67 that says anyone that causes injury to another in the effort to escape imminent danger that he did not cause shall not be liable. 

 

Then you could also say that attempt using your fist infront of Law Enforcement Officers also shows an attempt to injure or inflict a blow that could kill someone is also punishable under the law.

i think both parties are at fault.

I did see the video and it would be interesting to see who was with the Thai guy seems to me that they could answer lot of questions.

but alas to late for answers 

[i claudius]

So, the stupid old pxxk is a Brit eh, well another good reason for me to have left the UK. UK is full of them. 

Your right, but truth be told most of them originated in other countrys and only came to live in Britain

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Russell17au]

Darren, I have something for you to try and do, try and swing a machete at someone sitting in a car. You would have a lot of trouble trying to get it to go through the window opening. Yes, he did attack the car with the machete but he did not attack the Thai guy with it. The injuries on the Thai guys arms are not from the machete otherwise they would be very deep and he would be losing a lot of blood that he would have had to go to hospital instead of following the old guy to the school and he would not have been able to deliver that punch.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Russell17au
missed a couple of words

[greenchair]

37 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Darren, I have something for you to try and do, try and swing a machete at someone sitting in a car. You would have a lot of trouble trying to get it to go through the window opening. Yes, he did attack the car with the machete but he did not attack the Thai guy with it. The injuries on the Thai guys arms are not from the machete otherwise they would be very deep and he would be losing a lot of blood that he would have had to go to hospital instead of following the old guy to the school and he would not have been able to deliver that punch.

 

From what I saw the brit threatened thai to leave him alone. 

Thai got out car swinging punches as the foreigner backs off. Then the foreigner attacks the car. He then goes back to his car to try to escape that lunatic. 

[Russell17au]

I agree with you Greenchair that the Brit did not attack the Thai guy with the machete but he attacked the car with the machete and the injuries to the Thai guy's arms were not of the result of an attack with the machete

Edited October 16, 2017 by Russell17au
mispelling

[Darron]

1 hour ago, Russell17au said:

Darren, I have something for you to try and do, try and swing a machete at someone sitting in a car. You would have a lot of trouble trying to get it to go through the window opening. Yes, he did attack the car with the machete but he did not attack the Thai guy with it. The injuries on the Thai guys arms are not from the machete otherwise they would be very deep and he would be losing a lot of blood that he would have had to go to hospital instead of following the old guy to the school and he would not have been able to deliver that punch.

Have a look at this video: https://web.facebook.com/ThaiVisaNews/videos/10156732252913012/

 

At exactly 3:02 the Brit takes a direct swing at the Thai man's head with the machete. That in itself is attempted murder, as aiming for someones head with a weapon (gun, knife, sword, machete, club etc.) is always considered a threat to kill.

 

They were both idiots and I'm not taking anyone's side. They both escalated a minor incident into something far bigger than it should have been.

[Tony125]

38 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

I agree with you Greenchair that the Brit did not attack the Thai guy with the machete but he attacked the car with the machete and the injuries to the Thai guy's arms were not of the result of an attack with the machete

He got the scrapes on his arms from getting catapulted into the windshield after the Brit rammed into him. And for those that say he jumped up and landed on the hood I suggest they try running backwards fast enough to leap over the hood to hit windshield hard enough to break it. Its made to withstand impact even Arnold Swasenager couldn't punch thru a windshield. It was explained they used a hydraulic arm in the movie. Plus I have seen vids of guys doing the jump on hood scam they don;t get hit hard enough to break windshield or somersault over the roof of the car like the Thai guy did.