Jump to content

A rightful killing or murder? Nonthaburi house owner who killed intruder sparks debate


webfact

Recommended Posts

A rightful killing or murder? Nonthaburi house owner who killed intruder sparks debate

 

4pm.jpg

Picture: Thai Rath

 

Thai society is in the midst of a huge debate after a thief was killed by a house owner while in his property.

 

The issue resolves around the reasonable force to protect oneself and one's property - and taking the law into your own hands and committing murder. 

 

A case at the end of last week in Nonthaburi was the subject of a Thai Rath investigation published today. 

 

A 23 year old man could be charged with murder. But so far the police have not moved to prosecute him as further evidence is gathered. 

 

4pm1.jpg

Picture: Thai Rath

 

Here is what happened:

 

The house owner, aged 23, went to his property in Soi Ngam Wong Wan 18. It was always left empty during the week and the owner just stayed there on weekends. 

 

On entering the property he found it in a state of disarray and believed he had been robbed. He locked the front door fearing that the thief was still in the neighborhood. 

 

But worse was to follow. 

 

He went upstairs and found a man asleep in his bed. There was a meat cleaver next to the man.

 

The house owner moved to pick up the cleaver and as he did so the sleeping man awoke and a melee ensued. 

 

The intruder fled down the stairs and as he did so fell to the ground. The house owner got him in a head lock fearing he was going to the kitchen to arm himself..

 

As a result of being in the head lock the intruder died. 

 

Former senior policeman Wisut Wanitbutr attempted to explain the complex law regarding self-defense, rights to defend one's property and right to defend one's own basic rights. 

 

He said it may be considered self-defense to shoot a man dead who was coming at you with a knife with the intent of killing you. 

 

It may be acceptable to shoot a man who had stolen your buffalo and was taking it abroad to a neighboring country.

 

But what about crimes of passion? This could fall into the realm of "protecting your rights".

 

The ex cop gave an example of how the law might be interpreted.

 

Wisut said: "Say, a man went out to do a job in another province but forgot something at home. He returned to find another man in bed with his wife. He could get away with shooting that man dead. 

 

"But if the man had already slept with his wife but was fleeing the scene on a motorbike when the husband returned and he was then shot dead it would be different.

 

"The man was then no longer protecting what is rightfully his. That could be murder".

 

Wisut said much of the present case depends on the evidence surrounding the meat cleaver and what role this would play in the analysis of the crime scene.

 

The intruder was clearly trespassing. But was he fleeing at the time of his death? What was in his mind?

 

The question is: Did the home owner have a right to kill him, was this self defense and/or was he protecting his property?

 

Pol Col Ariya Pantufak, station chief in Nonthaburi, said that an investigation team was still studying all the evidence. 

 

The home owner has yet to be charged but could still be charged with murder. 

 

The case is likely to be referred to the public prosecutor for a decision when all evidence is gathered. 

 

Source: Thai Rath

 
thai+visa_news.jpg
-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2018-12-05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Wisut said: "Say, a man went out to do a job in another province but forgot something at home. He returned to find another man in bed with his wife. He could get away with shooting that man dead. 

 

"But if the man had already slept with his wife but was fleeing the scene on a motorbike when the husband returned and he was then shot dead it would be different.

 

"The man was then no longer protecting what is rightfully his. That could be murder".

Although the logic behind this is somehow understandable, it is entirely medieval and un-buddhist to me. The fact that such stuff is seriously stated in mass media by a law-enforcement-related person featured as an expert of sorts is, well, amazing to say the least. And I'm what some people here dub as Thai apologist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

So is this retired policeman a legal expert at the level of making serious statements  / legal interpretations of the law, to newspapers, to the public?

Not so very different to many of the barstool lawyers on this forum... ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be acceptable to shoot a man who had stolen your buffalo and was taking it abroad to a neighboring country.
 
Hell of a job getting it a visa for the UK though and as for a settlement visa, probably impossible without the required language skills. Two legs are hard enough four legs would require divine intervention.


More like 'bovine ' intervention.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Former senior policeman Wisut Wanitbutr attempted to explain the complex law regarding self-defense, rights to defend one's property and right to defend one's own basic rights. 
 

It may be acceptable to shoot a man who had stolen your buffalo and was taking it abroad to a neighboring country.


Wisut said: "Say, a man went out to do a job in another province but forgot something at home. He returned to find another man in bed with his wife. He could get away with shooting that man dead. 


"The man was then no longer protecting what is rightfully his. That could be murder".

Thailand 4.0 in action folks !! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner said he was afraid that the man was going into the kitchen to get another Knife or weapon and was afraid for his life when he grabbed them and put him in a head lock The most it could be is man slaughter but a good attorney could prove the owner was afraid for his life and no charges would be made against him.

Edited by randy723
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wait the answer with baited breath.

This subject it being debated all over the world as to exactly  what

amount of force you can use on an intruder.

There are hundreds of people around the world in jail

who the magistrate or jury felt that the mark (wherever that is ) was

overstepped 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MaksimMislavsky said:

Although the logic behind this is somehow understandable, it is entirely medieval and un-buddhist to me. The fact that such stuff is seriously stated in mass media by a law-enforcement-related person featured as an expert of sorts is, well, amazing to say the least. And I'm what some people here dub as Thai apologist.

"Say, a man went out to do a job in another province but forgot something at home. He returned to find another man in bed with his wife. He could get away with shooting that man dead." In the real world he couldn't, the guy isn't even trespassing...another BiB talking through his fundamental passage!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...