New unedited footage shows British pensioner taking machete swipe at Thai man

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

Unfortunately the advice to admit guilt and pay off the "victm" and the case will be finished is a myth.

This must happen at the police station, before the case is filed with the courts. Once the case is filed, it is a criminal case and the process of the law must be completed. If he pays now, it is a full admission of guilt , the judge will have no choice but to follow the legal prescription for premeditated murder , he would get a lower sentence because of his admission and compensation. A lot of thai people go to the mediation room thinking the case will finish if they pay. This is not the fact at all in a criminal case.

He absolutely should not pay. He has a good chance with the illegal confinement 310 by the Thai and self defense 67 (1) and and causing injury in effort to escape 67 (2).

This man should never never pay and admit guilt. Even if the Thai wants to drop the case, the prosecutor can file the case anyway. 

**the judge will have no choice but to follow the legal prescription for premeditated murder**

 

What on earth are you talking about ??

 

Let me explain something to you, in order to be charged with premeditated murder, you need firstly to have actually murdered someone. The act then has to be deemed to have been premeditated (planned in advance)

 

You may have noticed that he did not, in fact, murder anyone, even though he made a fairly good attempt at it with his car. The rightful charge in this instance would be attempted murder, which I for one hope he is charged with. He is a fully qualified nutter, and a danger to everyone.

[maxpower]

2 hours ago, Keesters said:

I have read the code thank you and they mean the same as anywhere else in the world. They may be ignored by some but that does not change their meaning.

You are a funny guy, I mean really funny. Take off your serious hat once in a while.

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I must disagree with you insofar as your allegation that in a criminal case, if compensation is paid, then the case will not finish.  Under Thai law, I charged, through a lawyer, an individual with a criminal offense and did not involve police.

 

As such, I became the Prosecutor but obviously needed the assistance of a lawyer.  Compensation was offered, and after negotiations, a higher amount was accepted and that terminated the case and the individual, after payment, was able to leave the court a free man.

 

In so far as the Sections you refer to, 67, self defense, I would say that the Pom  acted in excess of what was considered to be reasonable under the circumstances once he armed himself.  As for Section 310, which is Necessity,  can you explain how this would justify the actions of the Pom?  Also, one needs to look at the definition of confine and detain.  I would say hardly applicable given all the circumstances.

You are talking about a private criminal prosecution by the injured person section 28(procedure code). In the case you take the role of the prosecutor yourself, usually instigated when public prosecutors do not support your case.obviously if you drop the case there is no one to prosecute. Totally different scenario. In that case it is a good idea to settle.  

Section 69 says if the action is in excess of what is reasonable the judge can give a lower punishment  but if it is caused by fear or excitement or fright the court can decide not to give punishment as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe. Should have seen him run, it was hilarious ????

Section 67 68 69 criminal code his best option. I hope he is reading this. He fits all the boxes. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

**the judge will have no choice but to follow the legal prescription for premeditated murder**

 

What on earth are you talking about ??

 

Let me explain something to you, in order to be charged with premeditated murder, you need firstly to have actually murdered someone. The act then has to be deemed to have been premeditated (planned in advance)

 

You may have noticed that he did not, in fact, murder anyone, even though he made a fairly good attempt at it with his car. The rightful charge in this instance would be attempted murder, which I for one hope he is charged with. He is a fully qualified nutter, and a danger to everyone.

Sorry. Slip of the pen. Attempted murder. Anyway, since the Thai clearly cut in and bumped into him. Then clearly prevented him trying to escape the very imminent danger of the situation  "twice".

Clearly the 77 year old man than risked attack from a young thug, defended himself very effectively. 

The idea of young men threatening and intimidating old people, and women makes me sick. 

Bless the old man for fighting back. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

You are talking about a private criminal prosecution by the injured person section 28(procedure code). In the case you take the role of the prosecutor yourself, usually instigated when public prosecutors do not support your case.obviously if you drop the case there is no one to prosecute. Totally different scenario. In that case it is a good idea to settle.  

Section 69 says if the action is in excess of what is reasonable the judge can give a lower punishment  but if it is caused by fear or excitement or fright the court can decide not to give punishment as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe. Should have seen him run, it was hilarious ????

Section 67 68 69 criminal code his best option. I hope he is reading this. He fits all the boxes. 

***as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe***

Did you indeed …….. so you also have an uncontrollable violent temper; that goes a long way towards explaining why you are defending this 77 year old lunatic 

[greenchair]

24 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

***as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe***

Did you indeed …….. so you also have an uncontrollable violent temper; that goes a long way towards explaining why you are defending this 77 year old lunatic 

Well yes it does. 

Because I know very well the self defense law. 

I won my case and I am ever so grateful I did not listen to my lawyer that told me to plead guilty and pay the fine. 

Because I would have been deported before I could say but but I am really innocent, like the mushroom pickers. He can clearly show he was not the instigator and he was afraid. He hit the guy running away from the situation, he probably didn't even see him, at 77 he would have been so shaken and stressed. 

Never never plead guilty to finish a case quickly. You could end up in prison for years. 

And never forget you have the right to defend yourself. He was an incredibly brave man, as could be shown by the violence he was finally subjected to. Which was always the Thai man goal. 

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

You are talking about a private criminal prosecution by the injured person section 28(procedure code). In the case you take the role of the prosecutor yourself, usually instigated when public prosecutors do not support your case.obviously if you drop the case there is no one to prosecute. Totally different scenario. In that case it is a good idea to settle.  

Section 69 says if the action is in excess of what is reasonable the judge can give a lower punishment  but if it is caused by fear or excitement or fright the court can decide not to give punishment as happened in my case when I chased my neighbour with a steel pipe. Should have seen him run, it was hilarious ????

Section 67 68 69 criminal code his best option. I hope he is reading this. He fits all the boxes. 

 

Not quite correct.  It has nothing to do with the Public Prosecutor not supporting the case, they were never involved, nor did they sight the evidence.  In Thailand, if one does not want the police involved, for whatever reason, (obvious) than they can engage a lawyer and have the  case dealt with under the Thai Criminal Code.   In my instance, two hearings were run in conjuction, the first, a claim for compensation, the second a charge under the criminal code. 

 

The latter had to be proven as a wrongful act, with the defendant being released on bail.  Upon request of the judges it went to mediation but failed, so it was back to the court. Further negotiations took place and the matters was settled "out of court."  As such, both matters terminated and compensation paid the same day.

 

As far as Sections 67, 68 and/or 69  I have to disagree but Section 72, "Provocation",  may apply in any attempt to mitigate the charges brought against the Pom but that will be up t the court and lawyers.

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Not quite correct.  It has nothing to do with the Public Prosecutor not supporting the case, they were never involved, nor did they sight the evidence.  In Thailand, if one does not want the police involved, for whatever reason, (obvious) than they can engage a lawyer and have the  case dealt with under the Thai Criminal Code.   In my instance, two hearings were run in conjuction, the first, a claim for compensation, the second a charge under the criminal code. 

 

The latter had to be proven as a wrongful act, with the defendant being released on bail.  Upon request of the judges it went to mediation but failed, so it was back to the court. Further negotiations took place and the matters was settled "out of court."  As such, both matters terminated and compensation paid the same day.

 

As far as Sections 67, 68 and/or 69  I have to disagree but Section 72, "Provocation",  may apply in any attempt to mitigate the charges brought against the Pom but that will be up t the court and lawyers.

 

I fear paying off will be the old nuts only hope. 

 

Otherwise he could be locked up for 5,10, or even15 years.  And, worse for him, because he's British he won't be deported after a couple of years to serve his time in Blighty.  Whatever he gets would amount to a life sentence.  It would have terrible ramifications bor both him, and his family.  I don't believe provocation applies to either him, or the Thai. But a charge of attempted murder could stick on the one, whilst the Thai guy would likely only face a relatively small sentence for assault.

 

His other hope would be a royal pardon, which is not so rare as it might sound.

[greenchair]

5 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Not quite correct.  It has nothing to do with the Public Prosecutor not supporting the case, they were never involved, nor did they sight the evidence.  In Thailand, if one does not want the police involved, for whatever reason, (obvious) than they can engage a lawyer and have the  case dealt with under the Thai Criminal Code.   In my instance, two hearings were run in conjuction, the first, a claim for compensation, the second a charge under the criminal code. 

 

The latter had to be proven as a wrongful act, with the defendant being released on bail.  Upon request of the judges it went to mediation but failed, so it was back to the court. Further negotiations took place and the matters was settled "out of court."  As such, both matters terminated and compensation paid the same day.

 

As far as Sections 67, 68 and/or 69  I have to disagree but Section 72, "Provocation",  may apply in any attempt to mitigate the charges brought against the Pom but that will be up t the court and lawyers.

Not quite correct either. 

My case was declined by the prosecutor as he said there was not enough evidence. 

I had video of the whole thing. 

I won. However, I also lost because the prescription of time was finished. We will agree to disagree. 

If you accept he was maltreated seriously by unjust cause. 

Then 67, 68 69 quite obviously precede it and apply. 

I just don't understand why you say yes to 72 and not the self defense law. 

[greenchair]

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

I fear paying off will be the old nuts only hope. 

 

Otherwise he could be locked up for 5,10, or even15 years.  And, worse for him, because he's British he won't be deported after a couple of years to serve his time in Blighty.  Whatever he gets would amount to a life sentence.  It would have terrible ramifications bor both him, and his family.  I don't believe provocation applies to either him, or the Thai. But a charge of attempted murder could stick on the one, whilst the Thai guy would likely only face a relatively small sentence for assault.

 

His other hope would be a royal pardon, which is not so rare as it might sound.

Thank god you are not his lawyer. 

As I have explained earlier, paying the guy off and pleading guilty will garantee a prison sentence. 

It's criminal case, which is a crime against the state laws, nothing to do with the Thai guy now. You have to pay at the police station before it goes to the court. I also don't think 72 of provocation would help. 

His only hope is self defense 67.

I used it. I won. Almost identical situation to him. 

[mommysboy]

The other thing I would add is that when interpreting a law, the judge will be guided by case law.  This is likely very easily followed when determining the guilt or otherwise of the punching offence, whereas I don't know if there will be a case on the books regarding low speed driving.  If, one does exist and the result was a conviction for attampted murder, then that will be the outcome for this case too.

[Si Thea01]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Not quite correct either. 

My case was declined by the prosecutor as he said there was not enough evidence. 

I had video of the whole thing. 

I won. However, I also lost because the prescription of time was finished. We will agree to disagree. 

If you accept he was maltreated seriously by unjust cause. 

Then 67, 68 69 quite obviously precede it and apply. 

I just don't understand why you say yes to 72 and not the self defense law. 

Two unrelated cases.  My case, which related to medical malpractice was presented to the judges,who after looking at the brief of evidence, accepted to deal with the matters.  What do you mean by prescription of time.  Are you talking about Statute of Limitations.

 

It may well be that he was initially provoked, that is why I said it may apply in any attempt to mitigate but that would be up to the court and lawyers.  Why not self defense, because once he armed himself and later ran the guy down he has used excessive force.

[mommysboy]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Thank god you are not his lawyer. 

As I have explained earlier, paying the guy off and pleading guilty will garantee a prison sentence. 

It's criminal case, which is a crime against the state laws, nothing to do with the Thai guy now. You have to pay at the police station before it goes to the court. I also don't think 72 of provocation would help. 

His only hope is self defense 67.

I used it. I won. Almost identical situation to him. 

Read what I said: 'I fear paying off will be the old nuts only hope.'

I was only suggesting that if available, then this would be the best, and most effective way of avoiding prison.  If it is not possible, then yes he should avoid this route.  But I do think he is done for if the case goes to court.

[Si Thea01]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Thank god you are not his lawyer. 

As I have explained earlier, paying the guy off and pleading guilty will garantee a prison sentence. 

It's criminal case, which is a crime against the state laws, nothing to do with the Thai guy now. You have to pay at the police station before it goes to the court. I also don't think 72 of provocation would help. 

His only hope is self defense 67.

I used it. I won. Almost identical situation to him. 

I cannot follow your matter. You say it was declined by the prosecutor because of lack of evidence, yet you had video evidence but then you say you won but lost because the prescription of time was finished, which I am assuming you mean, "Statute of Limitations."  So how can you win and lose at the same time?  as I stated previously, I do not believe self defense would stand p but that is IMO.  Could well happen, we will just have to wait and see.

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Thank god you are not his lawyer. 

As I have explained earlier, paying the guy off and pleading guilty will garantee a prison sentence. 

It's criminal case, which is a crime against the state laws, nothing to do with the Thai guy now. You have to pay at the police station before it goes to the court. I also don't think 72 of provocation would help. 

His only hope is self defense 67.

I used it. I won. Almost identical situation to him. 

If you start a criminal case against someone through the court, without the police being directly involved, a paid settlement is on the cards. Both parties are invited into a mediation room to attempt to negotiate a settlement before the case is heard in front of a judge.  

 

I'm not sure how it works when the police are prosecuting.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

I cannot follow your matter. You say it was declined by the prosecutor because of lack of evidence, yet you had video evidence but then you say you won but lost because the prescription of time was finished, which I am assuming you mean, "Statute of Limitations."  So how can you win and lose at the same time?  as I stated previously, I do not believe self defense would stand p but that is IMO.  Could well happen, we will just have to wait and see.

 

Evidence has to be presented within 90 days. Even if the court case takes 6 months, it doesn't matter, as long as video evidence was submitted to the court within 90 days (for criminal cases it's longer for civil cases) of it being recorded. Unfortunately, a lawyer caused no end of trouble for me by submitting key video evidence 2 days late despite him having it on hand a month earlier. They struck it out as being inadmissible and it destroyed my case - and allowed the plaintiff to come back and sue me 6 months later in a criminal case for making false charges against her - because the evidence was submitted late.

[Si Thea01]

7 minutes ago, tropo said:

If you start a criminal case against someone through the court, without the police being directly involved, a paid settlement is on the cards. Both parties are invited into a mediation room to attempt to negotiate a settlement before the case is heard in front of a judge.  

 

I'm not sure how it works when the police are prosecuting.

Agreed with the mediation room bit, a waste of times, four attempts with me and it ended up in a hearing before the judge, who in the end told the defendant that they should think very seriously about settling the matter, which, in the end, after two years, he did.

[Si Thea01]

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

Evidence has to be presented within 90 days. Even if the court case takes 6 months, it doesn't matter, as long as video evidence was submitted to the court within 90 days (for criminal cases it's longer for civil cases) of it being recorded. Unfortunately, a lawyer caused no end of trouble for me by submitting key video evidence 2 days late despite him having it on hand a month earlier. They struck it out as being inadmissible and it destroyed my case - and allowed the plaintiff to come back and sue me 6 months later in a criminal case for making false charges against her - because the evidence was submitted late.

That sucks, another crap lawyer.  Mine wasn't much better but at least he got everything before the court, that is the brief, which had to be submitted shortly after the charges were laid.  I was then given plenty of time, longer than 90 days, in which to get witness' statements before the witnesses were required.

 

Then each witness, as they were specialist doctors, were given ample time to arrange their affairs in order for them to attend. After the second specialist gave his evidence, the defendant changed his view and then decided to negotiate but it took bloody two years of BS to get it finalised, fortunately, in my favour.

[tropo]

1 minute ago, Si Thea01 said:

Agreed with the mediation room bit, a waste of times, four attempts with me and it ended up in a hearing before the judge, who in the end told the defendant that they should think very seriously about settling the matter, which, in the end, after two years, he did.

It wasn't fun for us. We (my wife and I) were the defendants. If we didn't negotiate a settlement it would have resulted in us having to post bail and surrender our passports and our retirement visa canceled. Sure, it's likely we could have won in the end, but negotiation worked well for us. At that stage, we'd already spent more than 100k on lawyers and were happy to be done with it. A civil case had been brought against us at the same time. We had a civil hearing one day and a criminal hearing the very next day. It's their ploy, to use a criminal case to help loosen the wallet.

[Si Thea01]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

It wasn't fun for us. We (my wife and I) were the defendants. If we didn't negotiate a settlement it would have resulted in us having to post bail and surrender our passports and our retirement visa canceled. Sure, it's likely we could have won in the end, but negotiation worked well for us. At that stage, we'd already spent more than 100k on lawyers and were happy to be done with it. A civil case had been brought against us at the same time. We had a civil hearing one day and a criminal hearing the very next day. It's their ploy, to use a criminal case to help loosen the wallet.

Yeah, that is exactly what my lawyer told me about the criminal bit.  It loosened his wallet believe me. Sorry to hear that an A hole lawyer stuffed it.  At least with my lawyer, he only required 20k up front and then after negotiating, 20 percent of the compensation received.  Seeing that he didn't get what he said he would I paid him 15 percent, he wasn't happy but stiff, he took it. 

[tropo]

11 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Yeah, that is exactly what my lawyer told me about the criminal bit.  It loosened his wallet believe me. Sorry to hear that an A hole lawyer stuffed it.  At least with my lawyer, he only required 20k up front and then after negotiating, 20 percent of the compensation received.  Seeing that he didn't get what he said he would I paid him 15 percent, he wasn't happy but stiff, he took it. 

Good that it worked out. The 100k plus we paid was a very good deal. Our second lawyer agreed to handle both cases for a very good price. It could have cost us double that with a worse outcome. The lawyer that caused all the problems actually asked us big money to help defend us in the civil case that was brought against us due to his negligence and agreed to fight the criminal case for free. That wasn't going to happen and we switched lawyers. If he messed up so badly for a fee, how badly would he have done if he wasn't getting paid? For months it was hard to get any communication from him at all, but when he was after his fee he tried to contact us every day.

 

BTW, the lawyer that screwed us was recommended by the senior tourist police supervisor. We didn't go in blind. 

[Si Thea01]

7 minutes ago, tropo said:

Good that it worked out. The 100k plus we paid was a very good deal. Our second lawyer agreed to handle both cases for a very good price. It could have cost us double that with a worse outcome. The lawyer that caused all the problems actually asked us big money to help defend us in the civil case that was brought against us due to his negligence and agreed to fight the criminal case for free. That wasn't going to happen and we switched lawyers. If he messed up so badly for a fee, how badly would he have done if he wasn't getting paid? For months it was hard to get any communication from him at all, but when he was after his fee he tried to contact us every day.

 

BTW, the lawyer that screwed us was recommended by the senior tourist police supervisor. We didn't go in blind. 

Not good news.  I am very wary of Thais recommending anyone, especially if they're coppers.

[tropo]

13 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not good news.  I am very wary of Thais recommending anyone, especially if they're coppers.

I should have mentioned, the supervisor was Farang, from England. He was head of the team. He had glowing reports about the lawyer.  

 

Which means we have to be wary of any recommendations. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

I am puzzled by the suggestion of many people that he has mitigation in self defence. I don’t, without admittedly understanding all Thai laws, understand how self defence can be used in mitigation for this lunatic. 

 

I could perhaps countenance that it could be argued that when he is waving a machete around he was maybe feeling threatened; but how can it be termed as self defence, when from within the secure confines of his car, he deliberately smash into someone that is not aiming a rocket launcher at him and his car …… exactly what was he supposedly defending himself against, can someone with greater knowledge of Thai law please explain to me 

[greenchair]

33 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I am puzzled by the suggestion of many people that he has mitigation in self defence. I don’t, without admittedly understanding all Thai laws, understand how self defence can be used in mitigation for this lunatic. 

 

I could perhaps countenance that it could be argued that when he is waving a machete around he was maybe feeling threatened; but how can it be termed as self defence, when from within the secure confines of his car, he deliberately smash into someone that is not aiming a rocket launcher at him and his car …… exactly what was he supposedly defending himself against, can someone with greater knowledge of Thai law please explain to me 

People are of the mistaken belief that you must be hit or attacked in order to defend yourself. 

But in fact the law says there only needs to be a situation instigated by another that causes you to believe you are in danger and that situation caused you to react. 68 says if the person commits an act for defending his right to escape from danger that is imminent. 

67 says when a feels compulsion to react or acts in order to escape imminent danger which the person did not cause that situation to exist. 69 in the case of 67,68 the person used excessive force but it occurs out of excitement or fright or fear. 

So when the Thai slowed his car to make brit stop, but the brit tried to pass him, but the Thai prevented him from passing, he immediately instilled fear. Then he forced the brit to stop wedging him between 2 cars causing the feeling of imminent danger. The Thai stayed in his car so if the brit tried to leave he would have used his car to prevent him leaving. The brit of 77 was obviously frightened by the situation. There would have been no case if the Thai did not create the situation in the first place. He caused it. 

The Thai would not allow him to leave, that's what he was defending against. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

14 minutes ago, greenchair said:

People are of the mistaken belief that you must be hit or attacked in order to defend yourself. 

But in fact the law says there only needs to be a situation instigated by another that causes you to believe you are in danger and that situation caused you to react. 68 says if the person commits an act for defending his right to escape from danger that is imminent. 

67 says when a feels compulsion to react or acts in order to escape imminent danger which the person did not cause that situation to exist. 69 in the case of 67,68 the person used excessive force but it occurs out of excitement or fright or fear. 

So when the Thai slowed his car to make brit stop, but the brit tried to pass him, but the Thai prevented him from passing, he immediately instilled fear. Then he forced the brit to stop wedging him between 2 cars causing the feeling of imminent danger. The Thai stayed in his car so if the brit tried to leave he would have used his car to prevent him leaving. The brit of 77 was obviously frightened by the situation. There would have been no case if the Thai did not create the situation in the first place. He caused it. 

 

14 minutes ago, greenchair said:

People are of the mistaken belief that you must be hit or attacked in order to defend yourself. 

But in fact the law says there only needs to be a situation instigated by another that causes you to believe you are in danger and that situation caused you to react. 68 says if the person commits an act for defending his right to escape from danger that is imminent. 

67 says when a feels compulsion to react or acts in order to escape imminent danger which the person did not cause that situation to exist. 69 in the case of 67,68 the person used excessive force but it occurs out of excitement or fright or fear. 

So when the Thai slowed his car to make brit stop, but the brit tried to pass him, but the Thai prevented him from passing, he immediately instilled fear. Then he forced the brit to stop wedging him between 2 cars causing the feeling of imminent danger. The Thai stayed in his car so if the brit tried to leave he would have used his car to prevent him leaving. The brit of 77 was obviously frightened by the situation. There would have been no case if the Thai did not create the situation in the first place. He caused it. 

so deliberately smashing into a pedestrian from within the safety of your car is self defence is it ........ you are bonkers, stark raving mad, madder that mad Mick McMad, winner of the 2016 Maddest man in the world competition, you really are in need of help ....... so somebody looked at me menacingly in the coffee shop this morning,  I better slaughter them in self defence before they look menacingly at me again   ........ get outta here  

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not good news.  I am very wary of Thais recommending anyone, especially if they're coppers.

I find the small owner operator lawyers offices to be 5 or 6 thousand a case and they do a good job. Well as good as you'll get for thai ,but no different from the 50000 baht a case lawyers. 

[Peterw42]

18 minutes ago, greenchair said:

People are of the mistaken belief that you must be hit or attacked in order to defend yourself. 

But in fact the law says there only needs to be a situation instigated by another that causes you to believe you are in danger and that situation caused you to react. 68 says if the person commits an act for defending his right to escape from danger that is imminent. 

67 says when a feels compulsion to react or acts in order to escape imminent danger which the person did not cause that situation to exist. 69 in the case of 67,68 the person used excessive force but it occurs out of excitement or fright or fear. 

So when the Thai slowed his car to make brit stop, but the brit tried to pass him, but the Thai prevented him from passing, he immediately instilled fear. Then he forced the brit to stop wedging him between 2 cars causing the feeling of imminent danger. The Thai stayed in his car so if the brit tried to leave he would have used his car to prevent him leaving. The brit of 77 was obviously frightened by the situation. There would have been no case if the Thai did not create the situation in the first place. He caused it. 

The Thai would not allow him to leave, that's what he was defending against. 

At what point is the guy wedged between 2 cars ????

If he was so threatened why didn't he simply do a u-turn and drive away ? Stay in his safe car ?

What criminal law are your quotes from ? I would like to see what it says about not stopping after an accident.

[tropo]

53 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

so deliberately smashing into a pedestrian from within the safety of your car is self defence is it ........ you are bonkers, stark raving mad, madder that mad Mick McMad, winner of the 2016 Maddest man in the world competition, you really are in need of help ....... so somebody looked at me menacingly in the coffee shop this morning,  I better slaughter them in self defence before they look menacingly at me again   ........ get outta here  

You sound rather bonkers to me. The Farang was forced to drive slowly and then stop and couldn't leave the scene. He had no idea what the Thai would do and felt threatened. Some people consider offense the best defense. Some people just react when threatened as adrenaline takes over and makes it harder to think rationally. Do you have any idea what the Thai guy's plans were, after forcing the Brit to stop in the middle of the road? We can only guess, but considering his aggressive nature displayed at the school, and his total disregard for authority, he was quite dangerous.

 

I better stop now lest someone else accuses me of being a Thai-basher.

[greenchair]

55 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

At what point is the guy wedged between 2 cars ????

If he was so threatened why didn't he simply do a u-turn and drive away ? Stay in his safe car ?

What criminal law are your quotes from ? I would like to see what it says about not stopping after an accident.

He originally tried to pass and drive away, the Thai would not let him. Then did a manouvre that police and thugs use to make people stop and arrest /beat them up as the case may be. He would not have been able to u-turn the Thai would have stopped him, which is why he did not get out of the car. He could have sat like a sitting duck, he chose to attack. May have been the wrong choice but the Thai caused it. Read the law before you challenge my understanding of it. The Thai slightly tapped him trying to cut the line. The whole situation is caused by that thug