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

 

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. 

 

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

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2018-12-05

6 minutes ago, webfact said:

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

 

What !! Its 2018 Thailand.... ????

10 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

What !! Its 2018 Thailand.... ????

So because of the year this crime is no longer considered worthy by your standards. 

Think about it......

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?

If what the man in the frame for murder says is true, then fair dinkum, he didn't shoot and it sounds like he choked the victim out to what he thought was only unconsciousness (and actually not to death).

 

I personally would have broken the intruder's legs (blaming it on the stairway fall), but in the heat of the moment when you feel your life could actually be in danger I think he was more than entitled to do what he did (if that was what in fact hapened)

 

 

31 minutes ago, webfact said:

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

sounds more like something from a kindergarden story book, the intellect of a 7 year old - truly shocking

 

 

 

39 minutes 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".

The wife doesn't 'belong' to the husband. Why shoot the man who obviously was invited to bed by a horny wife? I'd shoot the wife instead.

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.

Quite complex,and i get the gist of what the cop is saying,but burgling a house and falling asleep in there,come on it's like a bad sit com.

Rightful killing? Right or wrong has nothing to do with this. It's either legal or illegal.

I, of course, am not an expert in Thai law and in fact know no one who claims to be. However, according to the descriptions above, I'd say this incident will be not be considered a crime for three reasons:

1. If the homeowner thought the intruder was trying to kill him with the knife and feared for his life, that should be considered self-defense. That might be a stretch since the homeowner has already said the intruder was fleeing. 

2. If the homeowner was not intending to kill the intruder with the headlock but only subdue him, that should be considered manslaughter with no criminal charges. This could only be considered a homicide if the homeowner knew the headlock might kill him. Then, it could be negligent homicide.

3. The biggest reason there will probably be no criminal charges is there can now be only one side to this story.

I particularly liked the bit about shooting the wife's lover ???? but not for a moment do I consider that this "legal expert" is correct in his interpretation. That is even too weird for TH.

All one needs to know: There is no "Castle Doctrine" in Thailand.  If you protect yourself and your family from an intruder, you can be charged with a crime.  That's the bottom line.

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.

Just now, car720 said:

Why doesn't he own her.  God knows he has paid for her over and over.  

That's renting, not owning!

Stealing buffaloes... of all crimes to quote. And shooting the thief (and killing) is acceptable??? How more third-world can these people get? Geez... at the rate things are going, Thailand will become a big joke all on its own.

You can see they never name the Tom, Dick and Harry if a Thai committed a crime.

Owner can tell any story my friend, because dead body cannot speak!

Keep telling...

Edited December 5, 20187 yr by NextStationBangkok

hmmm.... the key word is “intruder”.... end of discussion

It happened in the UK with Tony Martin.protecting his house.he went to goal but was let out after a short time.the man was protecting his house he must have  rights.in America you have that right to protect your belongings and shot the intruder without fear

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... ????

There is no right or wrong but the legal professionals have to base on circumstantial facts to determine if a crime had been committed in this case. This is how I look at it.

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

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

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 !! 

6 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

What !! Its 2018 Thailand.... ????

Well actually it's 2561 here. 

Edited December 5, 20187 yr by 300sd

6 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

What !! Its 2018 Thailand.... ????

with buffaloes it's different

1 hour ago, bbbbooboo said:

hmmm.... the key word is “intruder”.... end of discussion

I think if you kill someone in your own house you are refusing them permission to remain.

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 December 5, 20187 yr by randy723

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 

No one has the right to shoot anyone unless his life is threatened. If you find an intruder in your home you make an house arrest if the Intruder has a weapon you then can restrain the guy with reasonable force.

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!!