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

[tropo]

25 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

 Mr Paul look at your words- and your generalizations- you have some type of ageism stereotyping in your mind that people of a certain age are prone to fits of anger; that those who are elderly cannot be trusted to make proper decisions etc.  When you stereotype a persons because of a certain characteristic that you see- it is called prejudice and bigotry.  This board is filled with statements that it must be the Brit's age; he must be senile etc etc.  Wouldn't it just be that both of these people lost their temper and broke the law- no allusion to age or the fact that many consider Thais poor drivers or tht some people simply cannot adjust to Thailand.

 

You may want to think before you type and make general statements about people because of what you think . The World is awash in generalities none of which should apply to people because they are a certain religion; a certain race; a certain age; a certain skin color. Let's stop this kind of crap because it has nothing to do with anything that occurs. It's called bias.

You couldn't be more wrong. No one was suggesting he is senile and suffering from mental health issues. They were suggesting that, at his age, it's highly likely, and it is.

 

This is not prejudice, bigotry or bias That's an absurd suggestion. It's a statistical fact that the mind deteriorates with age. A certain percentage of the 77-year-old population have dementia or are on their way. For example, In America 10% of the population over 65 have dementia and the number increases with age.

 

He's right at the life expectancy age for Australia and UK. Statistically, he should have died 6 years ago in Thailand. He's no spring chicken, that's for sure.

[ThaiWai]

555 And you guys all laughed when I asked for the video before the video before the video and now here it is!  I KNEW IT!

Oh and what a surprise, turns out the Thai guy started it with the illegal turn and then acting like Mad Max.  Whatta shocker there.   

[tropo]

16 minutes ago, DurianBreath said:

Do you bash your wife, tropo? I can have a guess if you like, because it is "quite possible"...

 

 The fact that you reacted to a logical comment with such a ridiculous reply and made it personal indicates to me that you could be a wife-basher. Why be so defensive?

 

Having said that, yes, anyone of us could be a wife basher.

Edited October 17, 2017 by tropo

[DurianBreath]

Just now, tropo said:

 

 That fact that you reacted to a logical comment with such a ridiculous reply and made it personal indicates to me that you could be a wife-basher. Why be so defensive?

 

Having said that, yes, anyone of us could be a wife basher.

"Having said that, yes, anyone of us could be a wife basher."  So why did you say it in the first place if it's that obvious? It wasn't the first thing I thought when I saw the video. I like the way that you've introduced pure conjecture ("quite possible") into logical commenting. 

 

Sorry about my "ridiculous reply". I can see that you're king of the ridiculous replies judging from the way you implied that the 77 year old farang was a wife basher with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

 

And can you please explain why you think I was being defensive? I keep reading it and I just can't see it...

[Thaidream]

Anytime a person points out another person as having committed an action because of religion, age, ethnic background; race or any other personal characteristic- it indicates some bias.  Your argument that 10% of Americans may have dementia proves my point- as 90% do not.  In this case- simply because the Brit is elderly does not mean he lost his temper because of that.

 

This thread and others are filled with generalizations that mean nothing and have no bearing on what happened-

- At first the foreigner was described as Australia- then we had to listed to everyone who thought Australians were generally dangerous and caused trouble.

-The the foreigner was described as British- then we had to listen to posts running down the Brits.

-Then it was the Thai- well, we know how angry they are all the time and lose their temper quickly.

-Then the age issue- well you know how older people are senile; refuse to compromise and are always irritated.

 

The fact is none of the above is true and none of it applies to this case. Two people from different backgrounds lost their temper and committed road rage- It doesn't matter what age they are; nor does it matter their nationalities; or anything personal about them. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be settled without bias coming into it.

 

[chrisinth]

4 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Anytime a person points out another person as having committed an action because of religion, age, ethnic background; race or any other personal characteristic- it indicates some bias.  Your argument that 10% of Americans may have dementia proves my point- as 90% do not.  In this case- simply because the Brit is elderly does not mean he lost his temper because of that.

 

This thread and others are filled with generalizations that mean nothing and have no bearing on what happened-

- At first the foreigner was described as Australia- then we had to listed to everyone who thought Australians were generally dangerous and caused trouble.

-The the foreigner was described as British- then we had to listen to posts running down the Brits.

-Then it was the Thai- well, we know how angry they are all the time and lose their temper quickly.

-Then the age issue- well you know how older people are senile; refuse to compromise and are always irritated.

 

The fact is none of the above is true and none of it applies to this case. Two people from different backgrounds lost their temper and committed road rage- It doesn't matter what age they are; nor does it matter their nationalities; or anything personal about them. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be settled without bias coming into it.

 

^^^^^^^

Absolutely spot on...............

[Khun Paul]

54 minutes ago, DurianBreath said:

What has upbringing and education got to do with bigotry? I've met quite a few well-educated bigots...

Generalising about folk as they get older , is based on factual evidence , that older people MAY get more confused and certainly so in stressful situations, by no means ALL older folk , but SOME. The lack of cognitive logical thought may never appear on a daily basis, just when stress is introduced into any situation.

 

As for no longer driving , that statement was made as a way of protecting people especially the older person concerned who really does not want to be on the end of another punch-up for whatever reason. 

 

I fail to see how a generalisation can be considered bias,bigotry or even racist in any sense of the words. Two people one considerably older than the other made errors of judgement and an altercation ensued, the errors were probably exacerbated by Culture and age and bloody-mindfulness.

 

The problem is here, so many are looking to score points off another by accusing them of this and that, personally I do not give a damn what anyone else thinks, my comments are based on over 30 years of Police-work and based on all those years of experience, which unless you served as a police officer many would never get !!!

[tropo]

 

29 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Anytime a person points out another person as having committed an action because of religion, age, ethnic background; race or any other personal characteristic- it indicates some bias.  Your argument that 10% of Americans may have dementia proves my point- as 90% do not.  In this case- simply because the Brit is elderly does not mean he lost his temper because of that.

 

 

 

You're confused as you're reading what other confused people said.

 

The 10% argument, as you called it had nothing to do with the incident. It was in reply to another person, who like you, thinks that indicating that older people have a higher probability of suffering from mental health problems is bias or prejudice.

 

Also, you misread the statistic. It's 10% of Americans over age 65 suffer from dementia. Obviously, the number would be much higher in people close to 80. Of course, that's only dementia. There are plenty of other mental health issues that deteriorate with age.

 

Let's take, for example, a group of machete-wielding 77-year-olds and determine how many of those are suffering from mental health issues. That's what you need to look at, not just any person in a crowd.

 

Please don't take it personally - we're all getting old. 

 

 

 

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, DurianBreath said:

 

 

Sorry about my "ridiculous reply". I can see that you're king of the ridiculous replies judging from the way you implied that the 77 year old farang was a wife basher with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

 

And can you please explain why you think I was being defensive? I keep reading it and I just can't see it...

 

I'd say you take first prize as "king of the ridiculous replies"... and you're gaining points in the competition each time you post.

 

 

[Thaidream]

No one is accusing anyone of anything and that is the actual point- one cannot make generalized statements when investigating any type of potential criminal activity. It may or may not fit.  Some older people may become confused in stressful situations- yet some young people can also become confused in stressful situations.  Actually, most people of all ages become confused in stressful situations.  Under stress- eye witnesses pick out the wrong people in police lineups; they get the facts of what they think they see wrong.  

 

The point I am trying to make is any type of generalized statement based upon a personal characteristic such as age, race, religion, ethnic background and gender has to be dismissed as irrelevant  when a criminal case is being presented.  If not, the wrong person is often picked up; or they are convicted based upon  bias. Just the facts- only the facts-everything else is extraneous.

[tropo]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

No one is accusing anyone of anything and that is the actual point- one cannot make generalized statements when investigating any type of potential criminal activity. It may or may not fit.  Some older people may become confused in stressful situations- yet some young people can also become confused in stressful situations.  Actually, most people of all ages become confused in stressful situations.  Under stress- eye witnesses pick out the wrong people in police lineups; they get the facts of what they think they see wrong.  

 

The point I am trying to make is any type of generalized statement based upon a personal characteristic such as age, race, religion, ethnic background and gender has to be dismissed as irrelevant  when a criminal case is being presented.  If not, the wrong person is often picked up; or they are convicted based upon  bias. Just the facts- only the facts-everything else is extraneous.

3

 This is not a courtroom. This is a forum where people make opinions - good or bad. 

 

Having said that, the generalization that mental health deteriorates with age is sound and quite valid. I don't know how they tackle it in Thailand but in most developed countries a report from a psychiatrist would be quite on the cards and suggested by a good lawyer. 

 

Suggesting that any consideration of age as a factor in this incident is on the same level as bias toward race, religion and ethnic background is way off the mark. 

[DurianBreath]

35 minutes ago, tropo said:

I'd say you take first prize as "king of the ridiculous replies"... and you're gaining points in the competition each time you post.

 

 

But not as many points as you...

[Thaidream]

Sorry- have to disagree- if you do some research on mental health issues- you will find that the onset of mental illness takes place at a rather young age- about 21 and progresses through the years if untreated.  As someone ages- the actual statistics show a slight increase in mental illness due to the possibility of dementia but only with 2% of the actual total population. Most severe mental illness becomes prevalent at a young age.

 

My issue is with comments made by some posters that the Brit is probably 'guilty' because of his age. Ageism is a very real problem Worldwide. People are refused employment because of it and at times looked down upon and stereotyped because of it.  I am not placing it in the same category as racism but I saying that there is a bias and discriminatory element in comments related to the Brit being Age 77. Both of the parties in this case need to be judged solely upon their actions and in relation to the law.  Justice should be blind but unfortunately it is not.

 

In a Western  court of law- a lawyer would have both parties undergo psychiatric evaluations but not because of certain ages but because mental illness can affect anyone of any age. 

 

By the way, I don't take it personally but having been in the business World for many years- I am very aware of the fact that just as race; ethnic background and other bias- ageism exists and in most Western countries illegal. 

[tropo]

12 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Sorry- have to disagree- if you do some research on mental health issues- you will find that the onset of mental illness takes place at a rather young age- about 21 and progresses through the years if untreated.  As someone ages- the actual statistics show a slight increase in mental illness due to the possibility of dementia but only with 2% of the actual total population. Most severe mental illness becomes prevalent at a young age.

 

I don't think so. You made the comment, you show the research to back it up.

 

Or just leave it alone and save the bother, because it's taking some minor comments and making a federal case over them. I can see you're one of these people that like to see discrimination wherever you look, so like a dog with a bone, you don't let go. If you can't see that age is not a big factor in mental health, then fine - you're entitled to your opinion. 

 

[Thaidream]

I agree with your statement- age is not a big factor in mental illness- that has been my point all along.  I do not see discrimination in every circumstance- but when I see it- I know it.  The same way when a person is subject to discrimination- they know it immediately.

 

I will leave it at that-  but one thing that I have found in life- those that are biased and those that discriminate- never seem to see it for what it is- that's why Western countries have laws and courts to protect the rights of those who are subject to bias. And that's why those who are biased pay....because of it.

 

In regard to the case at hand- my take on it that it would be best to negotiate a settlement under the auspices of the police and any opinions on this thread will have no bearing on how it ends up. 'NUff said!

[tingtongtourist]

7 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

You obviously saw a different video to most of the rest of us! 

 

So, it was the Thai guy who ran to the back of his guy for a machete and attacked the foreigners car??? The Thai guy threatening with a machete, It was the Thai guy who drove like an idiot, sending him flying in the air and nearly causing very serious injury?

 

You come on! A sane person in charge of their faculties does not behave like this just because there is an <deleted> driver on the road. To totally avoid any issues and de escalate the situation, why didn't he just pull over until the guy had gone on his way. I have on the motorways - plenty of times!!!

 

 

However, if this old guy did this on British roads he would be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted murder, criminal damage, carrying an unlawful weapon and those are just for starters!

 

The pathetic attempted justification and argument that the Brit's actions could in any way be accepted by any sane person, let alone a court judge, because the other guy was ' driving like a prat ' is a misguided route trying to help a Brit at best, and pure stupidity at worst!

  

 

A lot of yes in reply thanks..which all does actually back up my opinion. 

If all Thais are like this than why would you dare NOT to go on the road without a weapon?

Thousands of Thais have a weapon, but you no want?

 

I stick by my opinion and it is quite obvious, you say why he dont stop? 

But the Thai WAS trying to make him stop by his actions..and if you stop then you expect to deal with the typical thai you describe.. if he catch you 

 

I bet, if you ask anyone been in this position,

They say

"I get in first, not wait to get shot or beaten by 7eral thais"

The Brits showing of a machette probably is the only thing that save him from the coward who can only punch when a guy aint lookin.

If he (thai) do this in front of a cop, then imagine what he do in a side soi where nobody around, the brit would be dead

 

 

[keithpa]

On 10/15/2017 at 12:23 PM, AGareth2 said:

video unavailable!

A lot of thai bashers and Ozzie bashers with egg all over their faces  . 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

If someone tortures and rapes your wife, or slaughters one of your children, by all means try to embed a machete into their skull, and/or try to end their life by mowing them down with your car; but to do this because of a road rage argy bargy, however provocative it is,  and irrespective of who initiated it, is sheer lunacy. 

 

This man has some serious anger problems, and without speculating as to whether or not they are caused by age, a medical condition, any prescription medications or simply a violent and unpredictable temper, he needs to be kept away from the rest of us (reasonably) sane people. 

 

He does this at 77 years of age on his way to collect his young daughter from school; age is obviously no barrier to suffering from arrested development, or to being extremely dangerous to the other members of any society in which this maniac chooses to live  ...... MAY YOU KNOW PEACE  ✌️✌️  ??  ??

[Eloquent pilgrim]

4 hours ago, tingtongtourist said:

  

 

A lot of yes in reply thanks..which all does actually back up my opinion. 

If all Thais are like this than why would you dare NOT to go on the road without a weapon?

Thousands of Thais have a weapon, but you no want?

 

I stick by my opinion and it is quite obvious, you say why he dont stop? 

But the Thai WAS trying to make him stop by his actions..and if you stop then you expect to deal with the typical thai you describe.. if he catch you 

 

I bet, if you ask anyone been in this position,

They say

"I get in first, not wait to get shot or beaten by 7eral thais"

The Brits showing of a machette probably is the only thing that save him from the coward who can only punch when a guy aint lookin.

If he (thai) do this in front of a cop, then imagine what he do in a side soi where nobody around, the brit would be dead

 

 

“If all Thais are like this than why would you dare NOT to go on the road without a weapon?”

 

 

But not all Thais are like this  …….. and if all farangs were like this educationally sub-normal homicidal maniac, nobody would ever leave their home again ……

Edited October 17, 2017 by Eloquent pilgrim
spelling error

[greenchair]

10 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

If someone tortures and rapes your wife, or slaughters one of your children, by all means try to embed a machete into their skull, and/or try to end their life by mowing them down with your car; but to do this because of a road rage argy bargy, however provocative it is,  and irrespective of who initiated it, is sheer lunacy. 

 

This man has some serious anger problems, and without speculating as to whether or not they are caused by age, a medical condition, any prescription medications or simply a violent and unpredictable temper, he needs to be kept away from the rest of us (reasonably) sane people. 

 

He does this at 77 years of age on his way to collect his young daughter from school; age is obviously no barrier to suffering from arrested development, or to being extremely dangerous to the other members of any society in which this maniac chooses to live  ...... MAY YOU KNOW PEACE  ✌️✌️  ??  ??

 

So what you are saying is in fact the Thai man was angry and in fact the Thai man initiated the whole thing by trying to detain the brit from continuing his journey  . 

But in your opinion the 77 year old foreigner overreacted whilst trying to defend himself. 

Being 77 years old,  being peacefully on his way to get his 9 year old daughter and being prevented from completing his goal by a thug, is exactly why it was necessary to show extreme strength in the face of danger. 

You can see clearly the Thai was attacking him when he got out of the car. The brit was backing up swinging it around trying to protect himself. He at no time did actually make any attempt to hit the Thai but instead smashed the car. 

According to section 310 of the criminal code it is illegal to detain someone of their against their will. 

And section 67 says you have the right to defend yourself . if injury is caused while trying to escape you will not be punished as long as you did not initiate the situation. 

So the law does not agree with you. ✌✌??????

Edited October 17, 2017 by greenchair

[gk10002000]

How do you see the video?  I don't see any links that point to anything.

[gk10002000]

i did just see the punch from the thai guy, I won't call him a man.  I found it on an internet search.  Wow. Right in front of the cop, but course that won't mean much. 

[catman20]

50 minutes ago, greenchair said:

 

So what you are saying is in fact the Thai man was angry and in fact the Thai man initiated the whole thing by trying to detain the brit from continuing his journey  . 

But in your opinion the 77 year old foreigner overreacted whilst trying to defend himself. 

Being 77 years old,  being peacefully on his way to get his 9 year old daughter and being prevented from completing his goal by a thug, is exactly why it was necessary to show extreme strength in the face of danger. 

You can see clearly the Thai was attacking him when he got out of the car. The brit was backing up swinging it around trying to protect himself. He at no time did actually make any attempt to hit the Thai but instead smashed the car. 

According to section 310 of the criminal code it is illegal to detain someone of their against their will. 

And section 67 says you have the right to defend yourself . if injury is caused while trying to escape you will not be punished as long as you did not initiate the situation. 

So the law does not agree with you. ✌✌??????

i dont think the police will agree with you. i bet it cost brit/ozzy a nice few baht, will run into several 100,000s

[gk10002000]

still lousy disgusting police work.  Handcuff the combatants so nothing else happens.  Call for backup and try to get the stories and evidence

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, catman20 said:

i dont think the police will agree with you. i bet it cost brit/ozzy a nice few baht, will run into several 100,000s

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. 

[bbi1]

Old fart deserves everything he gets for trying to kill someone. What's equally shocking in the article is it said the 77 yr old had a 9 yr old he was picking up from school.  Surely it was his grandkids he was picking up 

[Keesters]

On 10/17/2017 at 9:36 AM, maxpower said:

Read the Thai driving code. Lines on road for decoration only

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.

[Si Thea01]

59 minutes 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. 

 

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.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Si Thea01

[tingtongtourist]

21 hours ago, TunnelRat69 said:

Exactly, thats why he is the 'TingTing Touris't, I hope he doesn't drive a car, with people like him interpreting the driving regulations, its best we all stay home.  That road is a single lane both ways with SOLID yellow line - NO PASSING allowed, if it were broken yellow, pass with caution.

That would be tingTONG tourist.thanks!

 

And i do not see where i did comment about driving regulations.

 

But yes,we do agree that we must be watching different video.

The one i see (at the start) the Thai guy sees the Brit is doing a right turn but instead of queueing behind, the Thai moves up beside him on the right and this (i presume) is where the slight bump did happen.

Then for the next, the Thai guy repeatly tries to make Brit stop by slowing down in front of him.

Actually i dont think the Brit even cross the yellow line but Thai did many times and he was the danger.

 

Yes you can say the Brit could have handled it better, but i dont think you can blaim him for not thinking the Thai just want to stop him to have a nice chat and cup of tea

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

 

So what you are saying is in fact the Thai man was angry and in fact the Thai man initiated the whole thing by trying to detain the brit from continuing his journey  . 

But in your opinion the 77 year old foreigner overreacted whilst trying to defend himself. 

Being 77 years old,  being peacefully on his way to get his 9 year old daughter and being prevented from completing his goal by a thug, is exactly why it was necessary to show extreme strength in the face of danger. 

You can see clearly the Thai was attacking him when he got out of the car. The brit was backing up swinging it around trying to protect himself. He at no time did actually make any attempt to hit the Thai but instead smashed the car. 

According to section 310 of the criminal code it is illegal to detain someone of their against their will. 

And section 67 says you have the right to defend yourself . if injury is caused while trying to escape you will not be punished as long as you did not initiate the situation. 

So the law does not agree with you. ✌✌??????

“So what you are saying is in fact the Thai man was angry and in fact the Thai man initiated the whole thing by trying to detain the brit from continuing his journey”

 

I did not say that at all, can you not read ?? If you wish to repeat anything I have said, be accurate and don't claim that I said something that you wish I had said, rather than what I did say. 

“But in your opinion the 77 year old foreigner overreacted whilst trying to defend himself”

 

Absolutely, his reaction was completely and utterly disproportionate. He finally smashes into the other idiot with his car, an act that could easily have killed him. I don't need to know what any criminal code says about that, I know it to be the act of a complete lunatic, and if you do not understand how fundamentally wrong that is, then you must have as many issues as this 77 year old nut job  ?? ✌️✌️ ??