"Stay away from my daughter!" - angry Thai father shoots man at Tesco Lotus

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, oldlakey said:

How do you know that

Because it says so in the article. 
That is what the quotation marks are all about.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Bill Miller
spelling

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It seems we have a veritable forum team of Inspector Clouseaus on this case.

Really?

 

And how am I investigating anything?

[Artisi]

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The article says "...SHE...". Do you think the father is a "she"?  Then you try to invent mysterious additional family members.
What is wrong with simply reading the  article as written?
Same to others who have trouble with just reading the darned thing, but must interject conspiracy theories that the cops are lying, etc.
Sometimes a news article is just that: news.

And sometimes news articles are so full of nonsense they are meaningless. 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

And sometimes news articles are so full of nonsense they are meaningless. 

WEll , it does stand to reason .

The situation had been going on for two years now .

Had the woman wanted to see the man, she would have , even without the fathers consent.

  She would have seen the guy without the father knowing .

Had that been the case , the guy would have just walked on by when he encountered the father and daughter .

   The fact that he caused a fuss , suggests that she didnt want to see him 

[Baerboxer]

On 10/4/2018 at 12:26 PM, Bluespunk said:

Erm...he shot and wounded an unarmed man.

 

Yes, but he was provoked - and all avenues must be investigated and explored ????

[Artisi]

55 minutes ago, sanemax said:

WEll , it does stand to reason .

The situation had been going on for two years now .

Had the woman wanted to see the man, she would have , even without the fathers consent.

  She would have seen the guy without the father knowing .

Had that been the case , the guy would have just walked on by when he encountered the father and daughter .

   The fact that he caused a fuss , suggests that she didnt want to see him 

Missed the point it seems, I was commenting on the fact that news articles aren't always and quite often not accurate, especially in LOS. 

[cleverman]

22 hours ago, ezzra said:

Ok.. that is scary now to know that people brings guns to shopping and god forbid anyone will be perceived looking at a child or young girl the wrong way, that is crap and i don't care how you look or come close to someone child...

IF you read the article you would know that he did not just look at the girl. Read it again. 

 

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes, but he was provoked - and all avenues must be investigated and explored ????

I agree, if what is said about the shot man is true, if, then sod him.

 

However the charges are quite simple to decide upon.

 

You're not allowed to shoot unarmed people.

[Artisi]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes, but he was provoked - and all avenues must be investigated and explored ????

No excuse, but at the end of the day - who has the fattest envolope wins. 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Missed the point it seems, I was commenting on the fact that news articles aren't always and quite often not accurate, especially in LOS. 

Yes, I agree .

Quite often in Thai news reports , the reporter just seems to make things up to join the dots and the truth is revealed later , but , my point still stands .

  Had the father been standing between the woman and man , forbidding their relationship , then they would have gotten together without his knowledge .

   My point was that the father was protecting his daughter from him harassing her

[Fat Prophet]

It is time for U-then to make a U-turn, quickly -- "do not pass Go, do not collect $200". 

[sanemax]

22 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 

You're not allowed to shoot unarmed people.

Are you sure about that ?

What does the actual law say ?

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Are you sure about that ?

What does the actual law say ?

He's been charged with attempted murder so I'd say I'm correct...

 

 

 

"Pol Capt Wasan Tangtham charged him with attempted murder and weapons offences. 

 

Police opposed bail at a first appearance in court on the grounds that the incident was serious, the defendant might flee and could be involved in witness tampering. "

 

Good to see decisions being made.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Bluespunk

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

He's been charged with attempted murder so I'd say I'm correct...

Simpy being charged with something doesnt prove anything .

He could get a "not guilty"

What does the actual law say though ?

If he could prove that he though his life was in danger , he could plead not guilty due to self defence .

   The usual law is that you can defend yourself , if you feel that you are in  danger .

Interesting that he got charged with attempted murder though .

It would be easy to get a not guilty with that charge .

Defense could be :  I shot him once in the leg to incapacitate him and if I wanted to kill him, I would have shot him numerous times .

    Not guilty of attempted murder

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Simpy being charged with something doesnt prove anything .

He could get a "not guilty"

What does the actual law say though ?

If he could prove that he though his life was in danger , he could plead not guilty due to self defence .

   The usual law is that you can defend yourself , if you feel that you are in  danger .

Interesting that he got charged with attempted murder though .

It would be easy to get a not guilty with that charge .

Defense could be :  I shot him once in the leg to incapacitate him and if I wanted to kill him, I would have shot him numerous times .

    Not guilty of attempted murder

My comments all along, as you know, have been aimed at the idea charges in this case should be fairly simple to decide.

 

At no point have I commented on guilt or not.

[AGareth2]

21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

He's been charged with attempted murder so I'd say I'm correct...

that is not what you said!!!!

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

My comments all along, as you know, have been aimed at the idea charges in this case should be fairly simple to decide.

At no point have I commented on guilt or not.

You made the stand along comment stating that its not allowed to shoot unarmed people(quote , unquote) and therefore this guy is guilty , because he shot an unarmed person .

   I was questioning that statement .

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

that is not what you said!!!!

Ah, the joys of partial quoting...

 

I didn't say {in that partially quoted post} I said that attempted murder would be the charge.

 

I said charges should be fairly easy to decide.

 

If I had hazarded a guess [though of course I wouldn't be so crass to do so] attempted murder would have been a fairly obvious choice.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

You made the stand along comment stating that its not allowed to shoot unarmed people(quote , unquote) and therefore this guy is guilty , because he shot an unarmed person .

   I was questioning that statement .

Yes I did say shooting unarmed people is not allowed.

 

It isn't.

 

Therefore charges should not be difficult to decide upon.

 

At no point did I comment on guilt.

 

No matter how you wish it so, the truth is, I didn't comment on anything but the ease of deciding charges.

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes I did say shooting unarmed people is not allowed.

It isn't.

Therefore charges should not be difficult to decide upon.

At no point did I comment on guilt.

No matter how you wish it so, the truth is, I didn't comment on anything but the ease of deciding charges.

   Although if he gets a not guilty verdict , that would show that it IS allowed to shoot unarmed people .

   The usual law is that you can protect yourself using reasonable force if you are being attacked , its irrelevant whether the other guy was armed or not    

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

   Although if he gets a not guilty verdict , that would show that it IS allowed to shoot unarmed people .

   The usual law is that you can protect yourself using reasonable force if you are being attacked , its irrelevant whether the other guy was armed or not    

That's quite a leap and I'm again fairly sure an incorrect one.

 

As I have said, shouldn't have been a difficult decision.

 

Shooting an unarmed man IS against the law.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Try it yourself in a crowded Thai bar, or in a traffic jam a few times and see.

Why would I act in that manner?

 

It is ignorant, arrogant and really unnecessary.

 

Still not a reason to shoot someone though.

[sanemax]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Deciding on charges after a shooting such as this should be fairly simple.

As to being threatened, raising a single digit and hitting a car while annoying are no reason to shoot an unarmed person.

Although this isnt a one-off situation .

There had been two years of animosity , this isnt a random one off event .

Randomly raising a finger and hitting a car are indeed no reason to shoot someone , but there are other things to consider .

   This isnt a random encounter

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Shooting an unarmed man IS against the law.

No it isnt .

Disagree ?

Post that law up then 

[Kadilo]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

 

   This isnt a random encounter

What were the other encounters?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Why would I act in that manner?

 

It is ignorant, arrogant and really unnecessary.

 

Still not a reason to shoot someone though.

I'm in no way defending violence, let alone shooting someone, but i imagine that a 71 y.o. man who is feeling threatened by a young arrogant 20 y.o. , could resort to extreme measures, just out of despair.

Again, not excusing his actions, just trying to understand his motives.

 

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although this isnt a one-off situation .

There had been two years of animosity , this isnt a random one off event .

Randomly raising a finger and hitting a car are indeed no reason to shoot someone , but there are other things to consider .

   This isnt a random encounter

Doesn't change the point I have been making.

 

The ins and outs of the case can be decided by a court.

 

The fact remains, it shouldn't have been difficult to decide on the charges.

 

You can't just go round shooting people.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

No it isnt .

Disagree ?

Post that law up then 

Read the link to the story I sent you earlier, where it shows he has been charged.

 

Or just read the quote below.

 

"Pol Capt Wasan Tangtham charged him with attempted murder and weapons offences. 

 

Police opposed bail at a first appearance in court on the grounds that the incident was serious, the defendant might flee and could be involved in witness tampering." 

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

What were the other encounters?

It was just reported that he has been annoying her for two years , it didnt go into detail , apart from on-line abuse from him to them

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm in no way defending violence, let alone shooting someone, but i imagine that a 71 y.o. man who is feeling threatened by a young arrogant 20 y.o. , could resort to extreme measures, just out of despair.

Again, not excusing his actions, just trying to understand his motives.

 

Despite sanemax's assertions, my point hasn't been about that.

 

I said that charges on a case of shooting an unarmed man shouldn't be difficult to decide upon.

 

Verdicts and sentencing are the courts remit.