4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"In relation to Thai law, I don't think even Thai lawyers know t half of the time".

 

It sounds as though the same applies to you and your attempted interpretation of Thai law using your "blurred and outdated" (and irrelevant to specific Thai laws) knowledge of English common law.

Oh look, its my favourite forum stalker, where have you been, I missed you 

 

So there is an investigation, probably to find intent based on previous bad blood rather than just charged due to his recklessness. It would appear the laws are similar unless you can enlighten us rather than just snipe.

 

I am waiting oh wise one.

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by kingkenny

1 minute ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

No he's not 'out of his mind' he obviously understands law which, alas, you do not.

I think you must mean that he obviously once understood English law, before his knowledge of it became "blurred and outdated".   I'm pretty sure, though, that he still understands that although Thai law is loosely based on English common law, the latter does not apply in a Thai court or prosecutor's office.  

at least the trees themselves can be left to their own resources,

to grow more rings,

all without his interference for the next couple of decades

 

 

maybe he'll end up on a prison chain gang, as a logger

Just now, Just Weird said:

I think you must mean that he obviously once understood English law, before his knowledge of it became "blurred and outdated".   I'm pretty sure, though, that he still understands that although Thai law is loosely based on English common law, the latter does not apply in a Thai court or prosecutor's office.  

 

All law is just argument and interpretation. This is a technical point only but without intent etc. 'murder' is not the term used. Let's wait and see what he's actually charged with?  maybe there is more here than we yet know.

11 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

My degree is based on UK law, others differ and mine was some time ago now, as was my police service so I could be blurred or even outdated. No need to resort to a petty comment.

 

There is an act of recklessness in relation to a 'reasonable' man test as to whether a reasonable man would forsee the outcome of his actions, but I believe murder is still not covered by recklessness, only manslaughter. Someone may correct me if I am wrong but the Mens Rea for murder must be an intention to kill or cause previous bodily harm, and the Actus Reus is the unlawful killing of another human being, the two must be together for murder, guilty mind and guilty act.

 

So no, I am not out of my mind.

 

In relation to Thai law, I don't think even Thai lawyers know it half of the time.

 

Manslaughter is defined in Thailand as killing by inflicting injury on a person without the intention to kill.  In Thai law murder does not have to premeditated; premeditation is listed as an extenuating circumstance.

 

The Mens Rea required for it to be murder would be the knowledge that shooting bullets into a car could kill the occupant, it would take a better lawyer than you to get someone off a murder charge who had just shot up someones car knowing that there was someone inside it.

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

It would appear the laws are similar unless you can enlighten us rather than just snipe.

"It would appear the laws are similar..."

A similarity between the two does not mean that the principles of one can be transposed with and used in the legal system of the other. 

 

Discussing the finer aspects of English common law and then applying them emphatically to a legal situation in Thailand where Thai law applies really doesn't make a lot of sense.

14 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

No he's not 'out of his mind' he obviously understands law which, alas, you do not.

 

Unfortunately he has demonstrated nothing at all except how easily impressed you are.

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I think you must mean that he obviously once understood English law, before his knowledge of it became "blurred and outdated".   I'm pretty sure, though, that he still understands that although Thai law is loosely based on English common law, the latter does not apply in a Thai court or prosecutor's office.  

Actually I still do understand English law, I was being coy when I said my knowledge could be blurred and outdated due to not keeping up with recent changes, some things however don't change although stated cases can change interpretation. I am also aware English law does not apply in a Thai court but I am aware of the similarities between the two. My comment about Thai lawyers is based on the law here having an air of being ad hoc depending on what or who is flavour of the month.

 

As I mentioned earlier, would you like to tell us the relevant Thai law and how it differs from my interpretation in this case, or do you want to continue sniping?

14 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

Oh look, its my favourite forum stalker, where have you been, I missed you 

 

So there is an investigation, probably to find intent based on previous bad blood rather than just charged due to his recklessness. It would appear the laws are similar unless you can enlighten us rather than just snipe.

 

I am waiting oh wise one.

 

Not that similar actually, and what exactly had "appeared" to make you assume they were?

6 hours ago, PattayaAngel said:

Murder?  manslaughter surely?  anyway killing someone for wood?  madness

At least he had the balls to surrender himself .

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Manslaughter is defined in Thailand as killing by inflicting injury on a person without the intention to kill.  In Thai law murder does not have to premeditated; premeditation is listed as an extenuating circumstance.

 

The Mens Rea required for it to be murder would be the knowledge that shooting bullets into a car could kill the occupant, it would take a better lawyer than you to get someone off a murder charge who had just shot up someones car knowing that there was someone inside it.

 

 

 

 

 

So Thailand accepts recklessness in murder cases, whoop de doo.

 

I am sure this could be mentioned without the pettiness, but each to their own I guess.

 

Now you are here and giving us your wisdom, can you point me towards the relevant legislation for checking?

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Not that similar actually, and what exactly had "appeared" to make you assume they were?

Again, would you like to provide a source for the Thai law rather than snipe?

A flame has been removed

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You have been wrong all along but behaving rather arrogantly, whoop de doofus.

 

Try the Criminal Code sections 288-294

 

 

Homicide in the Penal Code of Thailand is defined as an act of putting an end to another human being's life. Homicide is divided into three subcategories: murder, negligent murder, and manslaughter. Murder is defined as causing death to another person purposely. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 288). A person acts purposely when he conducts with consciousness to cause a result or he is aware that his conduct will practically cause such a result. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 59 paragraph 2). Negligent murder is putting an end to another person's life by negligence. (The Penal Code of Thailand, §, 291). A person acts negligently when he conducts with a failure to exercise sufficient standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 59 paragraph 4). A person is guilty of Manslaughter if he, without purpose of causing death, causes bodily injury to another person leading to the death of such person. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 290).

 

So there is a reasonable man test as in English law, which is what I said. So shooting into the car he would need to forsee and understand that a likelihood of death would occur, as per English law. 

I think the test of reasonable person will ensure he is charged with manslaughter at most.

 

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Classic Ray

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Unfortunately he has demonstrated nothing at all except how easily impressed you are.

You are arguing, with nothing to back to up, for the sake of it. It is obvious you have no understanding of law, English nor Thai, but probably your knowledge of law stretches to the rules of Darts or some such undertaking.  Why not reel your kneck in and let's see what happens?

1 minute ago, Classic Ray said:

Murder here has to be premeditated to show intent and is unlike the UK, where the intent can be shown by recklessness. 

 

At the most this guy will be charged with manslaughter, and in this system, may even be found not guilty as he was doing his duty, crazy.

 

Tis what I said in the first post but a few lower deck lawyers are arguing for the sake of it.

18 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

Homicide in the Penal Code of Thailand is defined as an act of putting an end to another human being's life. Homicide is divided into three subcategories: murder, negligent murder, and manslaughter. Murder is defined as causing death to another person purposely. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 288). A person acts purposely when he conducts with consciousness to cause a result or he is aware that his conduct will practically cause such a result. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 59 paragraph 2). Negligent murder is putting an end to another person's life by negligence. (The Penal Code of Thailand, §, 291). A person acts negligently when he conducts with a failure to exercise sufficient standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 59 paragraph 4). A person is guilty of Manslaughter if he, without purpose of causing death, causes bodily injury to another person leading to the death of such person. (The Penal Code of Thailand, § 290).

 

So there is a reasonable man test as in English law, which is what I said. So shooting into the car he would need to forsee and understand that a likelihood of death would occur, as per English law. 

 

He shot at a car with an assault rifle, everybody doing that would forsee the likelihood of killing the occupant, therefore murder.

15 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

You are arguing, with nothing to back to up, for the sake of it. It is obvious you have no understanding of law, English nor Thai, but probably your knowledge of law stretches to the rules of Darts or some such undertaking.  Why not reel your kneck in and let's see what happens?

 

I have given the reason that it is murder more than once, if you failed to understand the reason I have given then it is you who needs to reel your neck in.

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Kieran00001

5 hours ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

Funny... the defense will be... he did not mean to kill, was undertaking his lawful duty and felt under threat. No prosecutor, that I know of, would think of a murder charge as it was NOT premeditated but I do understand that people who have no understanding of the law might think ;'murder'.

You do understand the word 'premeditated'?  I know it's a bit long but it means 'pre-planned' bit like 'I'm planning to go have a beer' ok?  I don't think the guy 'planned' to go kill a logger. 

he fired 2 shots, be interesting to see where both bullets hit the car, that would tell if he wanted to stop the car or the driver, it would also tell how good or bad a shot he is

Current TV reporting after interrogation he indicated reason was victim had fallen for his wife - but police do not seem to believe that reason either

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

He shot at a car with an assault rifle, everybody doing that would forsee the likelihood of killing the occupant, therefore murder.

Not at all, does every person shot in a car die? 

 

This is simply your opinion and not necessarily what a judge or jury would conclude. 

18 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

Not at all, does every person shot in a car die? 

 

This is simply your opinion and not necessarily what a judge or jury would conclude. 

 

He has to have foreseen the likelihood not the certainty, and we are not arguing whether he could potentially win or not but what charge should be set, and it's looking pretty clear it should be murder.

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

He has to have foreseen the likelihood not the certainty, and we are not arguing whether he could potentially win or not but what charge should be set, and it's looking pretty clear it should be murder.

It probably should be based on motive if what I have read is correct as there were reasons other than illegal logging. 

 

But based on what we have discussing, as he is trained in firearms and probably aware of damage caused when shot he will be aware that not all shots into a vehicle are fatal, also the death needs to be unlawful so rules related to when he can shoot would need to come into play.

 

By the way, nice to see you being civil, it wasn't hard was it?

That sort of would presuppose the vehicle being fired at was carrying wood?  Yeah?

10 hours ago, evadgib said:

Who authorized this pillock's presence and what were his rules of engagement?

 

This post is not about the current PM, please move on, nothing to see here.

Another one been watching too many American cop dramas . Lock him up and throw away the key . Fool .

I know I get accused of smuggling wood many times...

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Ruffian Dick

15 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I have given the reason that it is murder more than once, if you failed to understand the reason I have given then it is you who needs to reel your neck in.

 

You have given a reason that YOU think it was murder M'Lud now let's see how it pans out.

8 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

You have given a reason that YOU think it was murder M'Lud now let's see how it pans out.

 

I have given the reasons I think he can be charged with murder.  Are you still holding on to the most he should be charged with is manslaughter?  Even after he changed his story and said that the doctor was after his girlfriend?