Man who gunned down teen driver gets 10 years

[sstuff3]

52 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

And even more to the point in 99% / 100% of those countries the public want laws that very strongly limit gun ownership.

 

As an American I have to say ???? to your 99%/100% comment.  I must only know the 1% ????

[Kittycat66]

14 hours ago, The manic said:

The USA? 

It's sad people have to result to violence. Poor child 

[Kittycat66]

14 hours ago, The manic said:

The USA? 

I really wish they did not show video its upsetting 

[Kittycat66]

14 hours ago, The manic said:

The usa

[KKBrian]

2 hours ago, alant said:

how do you come to that conclusion?

many police carry guns and ride in cars, are they fitting your criteria? If you take a gun in the car to go to a shooting range and practice are you intent on shooting to kill en route?

No but you do not  take the gun out loaded that was a silly mistake.

Obviously he did not go out with the intention to kill he did not know there was going to be a road rage incident.

Had he not had the gun loaded this could have had a very different outcome.

he obviously was not responsible enough to be carrying a gun.

 

[Kittycat66]

This is a very sad story. Violence is so wrong 

[cardinalblue]

I know many Thai men carry fire arms in their car....

 

i doubt you are aware of how many Thais carry guns....most do....

[wheelin]

3 hours ago, wirat69 said:

Ridiculous??? Anyone who puts a gun in their car premeditates using it to kill someone.....

The engineer was aware that driving on Thai road is dangerous, and he needed some security.  He pleaded to the teenager to stop harassing his mother.  If the court ruled that the engineer voluntarily engaged in the dispute, then same should apply to the deceased.  That is each party bear the damage.  Therefore, the engineer needs not pay compensation to the deceased's mother.

[Top Chef]

The question is, If the shooter didn't have the gun in the car would the incident have escalated to such a degree? I think not!! Too many mindless dweebs with guns and knives out there. Thai people are too high strung and emotional to be carrying weapons. Not to mention the fact that they are an extremely irresponsible lot and prone to fits of rage. Having a loaded firearm in ones possession is a tremendous responsibility one that 'civilian' Thai men (or women for that matter) should not be burdened with.

I don't see the matter as a self-defense issue. Ergo I don't believe that the murderer should have been granted bail. 

By granting bail, after sentencing, gives credence to anyone wanting to take the law into there own hands.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Top Chef

[wheelin]

2 minutes ago, Top Chef said:

The question is, If the shooter didn't have the gun in the car would the incident have escalated to such a degree? I think not!! Too many mindless dweebs with guns and knives out there. Thai people are too high strung and emotional to be carrying weapons. Not to mention the fact that they are an extremely irresponsible lot.

 

The deceased open the car door and started harassing the elderly woman, despite plea from the enginjeer. If the engineer did not shoot, violence could have escalated. the engineer only fired once. That immediately stop the aggression. Strong medecine, but justified and effective.

[Top Chef]

25 minutes ago, wheelin said:

The deceased open the car door and started harassing the elderly woman, despite plea from the enginjeer. If the engineer did not shoot, violence could have escalated. the engineer only fired once. That immediately stop the aggression. Strong medecine, but justified and effective.

So what if the violence had escalated. At least nobody would have been killed if there wasn't a gun involved!! There was no justification in using a firearm. Unless the teenager had a gun as well. And there was no reason to stop the car to have a confrontation.

Another stupid face-saving incident.

A "Macho-man" with a gun, a bad recipe!!!!

Also the elderly woman instigated the whole incident by handing the gun to the shooter. She is complicit by aiding and abetting the crime and should receive a similar punishment to that of the shooter. Thai Law....a bigger joke!

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Top Chef

[MarleyMarl]

Everyone going to ignore the fact that several of them stormed out of the van, yelling, and one started punching the guy in the face while he was sitting in his car?

[BobBKK]

Absurdly low sentence but he made a stupid decision over a stupid activity. He'll be out in less than half 10 years his career ruined.

[Zack61]

3 hours ago, fullcave said:

He was baiting them and felt brave because he had a gun. They were wrong to block the road, however. Why do these transport vans always think they own the whole goddamn road? 

It's okay to park where ever you want IF you turn on your hazard lights. It makes it right..... or so it seems.

[tweedledee2]

1 hour ago, Kittycat66 said:

I really wish they did not show video its upsetting 

The video was only posted. You didn't have to watch it. If you are upset after viewing it that's your fault. 

[marqus12]

I had an argument with Thai teenagers for a trifle, but they would

not let go ,fortunately, there were only two of them so when they

went for support I stopped a taxi.

 

In my opinion, the punishment is too high. He should get two years

and when it comes to compensation for the mother ...

hmmm, was her son well-mannered???

[lvr181]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Just a minor aside, why the mention of "engineer?"

His profession plays no role in the incident nor lends any connection between the arguing parties. Nowhere in the report is there any tie made to Suthep's actions and his profession.

I could see mentioning if Suthep was someone connected with the government (ie., minister), medical profession or law enforcement such as a policeman, judge or prosecutor as that might have some ethical connection with the arguing parties.

I don't see the article having any different value than if Suthep was identified as a trash collector, an agricultural laborer or power plant operator.

 

Ummmm....perhaps an "engineer" may have a higher IQ than most and be able to think of ways of avoiding the confrontation, in the first instance, rather than being a person who is spoiling for a fight or is overcome by the red mist in his eyes? AKA short temper! ????

 

But, then again, he may have been a taxi driver before becoming an "engineer". 

Edited September 28, 2018 by lvr181
Spelling correction

[Dogmatix]

I agree with others who say this did not meet the criteria for a premeditated murder, at least in Anglo-Saxon law jurisdictions, because the engineer did not have the intent to kill someone.  His thinking was that he needed a loaded gun in the car for self defence and defence of his family, despite having no Por 12 concealed carry permit and knowing this was illegal, and that when he fired the shot he had already been assaulted by the youth and thought he was acting in self defence and in defence of his family.  He was definitely guilty of a lesser form of homicide, such as manslaughter in English law, and the firearms offences and definitely deserves to go to prison but with a less than 10 year sentence in my opinion.

 

The whole thing is a tragedy created by the engineer, himself.  His way was blocked by the van for less than 2 minutes - admittedly an annoyance but these things are quite commonplace in Thailand and he should have just tried to relax and waited a few minutes to see if they would just drive off.  Instead there was talk about the gun in the car from the very start when it was still only the engineer initiating the altercation before any response from the youths.  Clearly when the van pulled out about 1.8 minutes after parking the engineer could have just driven off and enjoyed the rest of his evening with his family without the need to kill anyone.  Instead he choose to prolong the altercation that he himself had initiated.  Then when the the van pulled in front of him for a second time, he had a full 50 seconds time to drive off without even having to hit any of the youths because they avoided standing in front of his car, probably out of his fear he might drive off and run them over.  Finally he decides to open his window to welcome the altercation with the youth he was soon to kill, thereby facilitating the punches he received and that were the ostensible reason for the shooting. The engineer irresponsibly took multiple decisions to escalate the threat to his family throughout the incident when he could easily have ended it each time.  Probably, if the court has to err in its judgment, erring on the side of harshness towards the engineer on account of his deliberate choices to escalate what started as a mild irritation into a homicide is better than letting him off the hook, although that might happen in the appellate or supreme court.  There is little room for doubt that the engineer indulged himself in this stupid, provocative behaviour because he felt emboldened by the fact that he was illegally carrying a loaded gun. 
 

[Dogmatix]

Nothing is mentioned about the ballistics or forensics in the article but the engineer used a Ruger LCP (Lightweight Compact Pistol) .380 calibre pistol which is a small pocket sized semi-automatic pistol with a 2.75 inch barrel, presumably purchased by him with the overt intent to carry it illegally.  The .380 round is also known as a 9mm short and is a truncated 9mm round with a much lighter bullet and a milder powder load.  Many people regard this calibre as somewhat borderline for self defence due to its limited stopping power, compared to its full sized 9mm big brother.  There are many videos on YouTube showing people shot several times with .380 bullets and either continuing the assault or simply running away.  So the engineer must have got a lucky shot and pierced a vital organ with one shot, or, as it turns out now, an unlucky shot.  

 

My sense is that he was doubly stupid for feeling emboldened, despite his engineering knowledge by the illegal carry of a pocket .380 mouse calibre pistol.  He could easily have just enraged the youth by shooting him and ended up dragged out of the car, disarmed and killed with his own gun.  In any event he was heavily outnumbered and, if the other youths had been more motivated and armed themselves, he could easily have been overpowered and killed after the first shot.  A .380 is only useful for self defence as a back-up gun or a last resort.  It is not a weapon that anyone should voluntarily take to a gun fight.       

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

28 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

 

Ummmm....perhaps an "engineer" may have a higher IQ than most and be able to think of ways of avoiding the confrontation, in the first instance, rather than being a person who is spoiling for a fight or is overcome by the red mist in his eyes? AKA short temper! ????

 

But, then again, he may have been a taxi driver before becoming an "engineer". 

 

555.  Red mist in his eyes.  Reminds me of one our dogs who always got bloodshot eyes during a fight with another of our dogs before we decided to separate them permanently.

 

[connda]

5 hours ago, Old Croc said:

I counted something like 15 people who exited the van to confront the man and his wife. Not justifying the use of the gun, but they were probably terrified. Can't see how the charge was considered premeditated.

The larger picture that most are missing is that in Thailand it is impossible to protect yourself from a group of people who are intent on harming you.  If a group of people come after you, it seems that according to Thai law, your only option is to be beaten, possibly to death, and then let the Thai 'justice' system assign blame and sanctions against those who beat you.  You yourself are not allowed to protect your life, limb, and property with anything but your fists, and then you'll not doubt be charged with fighting and handed a 500 THB while lying in your hospital bed.

 

In countries like the US, you are allowed to use lethal force against multiple attackers who seek to harm you and your family.  This case exemplifies that here in Thailand you are not legally allow to defend yourself against multiple attackers who seek to harm you and your family.  Your only option is to allow the attack to take place and then hope you survive.

That is simply terrifying. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by connda

[connda]

4 hours ago, terminatorchiangmai said:

Thainess at his best.

If he kept his cool for 2 minutes nothing would have happened in the first place.

Chai jen jen is wat they all say , but not practice.

2 hours ago, Top Chef said:

So what if the violence had escalated. At least nobody would have been killed if there wasn't a gun involved!!

 

I've seen videos taken here in Thailand of people in cars and trucks being attacked by mobs, the glass being shattered, and the victims pulled out of the vehicles and then beat so badly that they are either hospitalize or killed.  That's what happens when Thai mobs attack.  That is probably the outcome had this man not acted.  I pity this man: damned if didn't act, damned that he did act.  He protected not only his life but the life of his wife from an engaged mob. 
Do all you TV members who are jumping on the bandwagon to criticize and denounce this man live in such a 'progressive' bubble as to have no idea how dangerous mob violence is in Thailand?  And yet you all say that he should not have protected himself?  What planet are you people from? 

Edited September 28, 2018 by connda

[Formaleins]

4 hours ago, fullcave said:

He was baiting them and felt brave because he had a gun. They were wrong to block the road, however. Why do these transport vans always think they own the whole goddamn road? 

Probably has something to do with the size of his penis too, they should have measured it in court and printed the results in The Nation.

[hotchilli]

Suthep pleaded guilty to the gun charge but claimed he pulled the trigger in self-defence, not with the intent to kill. 

 

Guilty as charged and lucky he didn't get longer... he started the altercation by following the van "honking" then overtaking and cutting back in closely in front... he antagonised the occupants of the van into stopping and confronting him for his behaviour!!

When they got out to challenge him he got out his gun and shot one of them... dead !!

You don't point... fire a gun at someone to injure them, his intent was to kill !

[Galactus]

so if you are a high heeled engineer, you get 10 years (and go out after 5 years).

If you are poor, you get 20 years. 

such a justice!

[The Theory]

6 hours ago, wirat69 said:

Ridiculous??? Anyone who puts a gun in their car premeditates using it to kill someone.....

You are absolutely right.

why do anyone needs guns, swords, knives to carry. Safe, no gangs in numbers. Everything is safe and beautiful.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Theory

[chang1]

26 minutes ago, connda said:

 

I've seen videos taken here in Thailand of people in cars and trucks being attacked by mobs, the glass being shattered, and the victims pulled out of the vehicles and then beat so badly that they are either hospitalize or killed.  That's what happens when Thai mobs attack.  That is probably the outcome had this man not acted.  I pity this man: damned if didn't act, damned that he did act.  He protected not only his life but the life of his wife from an engaged mob. 
Do all you TV members who are jumping on the bandwagon to criticize and denounce this man live in such a 'progressive' bubble as to have no idea how dangerous mob violence is in Thailand?  And yet you all say that he should not have protected himself?  What planet are you people from? 

Unbelievable, you really think if this mob had guns the situation would have been better? By your logic they had just as much right to carry guns. 

The only reason he needed protection was due to him escalating the situation. If he did not have the gun maybe he would have been more cautious. Civilians should never have guns outside proper ranges except in rare exceptional cases.

Just look at the death rate in the USA - proof that guns are bad for everyone and certainly useless for self defense but great for offense.

This jerk provoked the mob and deliberately killed a teenager.

[dunroaming]

8 hours ago, wirat69 said:

Ridiculous??? Anyone who puts a gun in their car premeditates using it to kill someone.....

In that case there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in trouble!  More likely carrying a gun makes him feel like a real macho man.  Pathetic I know but...

[wvavin]

Let’s consider this. What if this group of boys continued attacking Suthep? 

[xtrnuno41]

Murder? i see at least 10 people coming out the van. I can imagine you feel threatened.

Then if you have gun in your car (maybe then illegal) wouldnt you use it in self defense.?

The ones in the van, they had bad intentions, they maybe wanted to kill the guy.

Should you wait till they bash you up (kill you)? I think court is wrong for sentencing for murder.

This was self defense.