Italian expat faces recklessness causing death charge over fatal boat collision

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

We really have no way of knowing the Italian was/is a fisherman do we? As far as l know, those jobs and businesses are protected.

Should we not wait to see what the official investigation concludes, rather making presumptions?

 

 

You misunderstood my post... The fishermen (not man) reference was to the two Italians (just coincidentally) who were recently arrested for illegal fishing and have been cooling their heels in jail for weeks without bail, as the article I linked to on their case explains.

 

I wasn't talking about the Italian boat operator who was involved in the collision, in that particular part of my comment. Both Italians, but two separate, different cases. I thought the wording of my post and the link to the related article made that pretty clear.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Kieran00001]

56 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

What's your source for that account? Also, in your description above, you're assuming the farang guy was in control of his boat at the time, which may or may not have been the case.

 

Meanwhile, the farang guy isn't facing any charges under maritime law... He's facing criminal charge(s) under Thai criminal law, which I'm pretty sure has its own definition or context for what constitutes "reckless" that probably doesn't hinge on right vs left.

 

 

Yes, that assumes he was in control, if not then its a different maritime law he breached but its much the same, you must keep watch, all the time.

 

As for the charge, where did you get that it was under Thai penal code rather than maritime law?  There isn't one mention of the word reckless within the Thai penal code, its not a Thai legal term, while it is the term used in maritime law to describe these kinds of breach, so I think you are wrong.

 

"under Thai criminal law, which I'm pretty sure has its own definition or context for what constitutes "reckless" "

 

And I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

As for the charge, where did you get that it was under Thai penal code rather than maritime law?  There isn't one mention of the word reckless within the Thai penal code, its not a Thai legal term, while it is the term used in maritime law to describe these kinds of breach, so I think you are wrong.

 

"under Thai criminal law, which I'm pretty sure has its own definition or context for what constitutes "reckless" "

 

And I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

 

 

Actually, no, I did not...

 

This case below was not a maritime case, yet Thai police somehow managed to file the criminal charge:
 

Quote

 

He faces up to ten years in prison or a fine of 200,000 Thai baht on a charge of causing death by negligent or reckless behaviour.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/haunting-cctv-shows-thai-prostitutes-11821208

 

So I'd say, it's pretty apparent that such a charge is part of Thai criminal law.

 

I'm just guessing, because we're talking about translating Thai legal code into English terms. But they're probably looking at filing under Section 291:

 

Quote

 

Section 291 Whoever, doing the act by negligence and that act causing the other person to death, shall be imprisoned not out of ten years or fined not out of twenty thousand Baht.

 

Same Thai criminal code section was used to prosecute this past local offense:

 

 

Quote

PHUKET: More than than a year after a fatal blaze killed four people at Patong’s famous Tiger Disco nightclub on August 17 last year, the nightclub’s operators will be called to Phuket Court to enter a plea to charges of negligence causing death.

“Tiger Group CEO Piya Isaramalai and Sara Entertainment Co Ltd each face a charge under Section 291 of the Thai Criminal Code: Causing Death through Negligence.

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Kieran00001]

9 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Actually, no, I did not...

 

This case below was not a maritime case, yet Thai police somehow managed to file the criminal charge:
 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/haunting-cctv-shows-thai-prostitutes-11821208

 

So I'd say, it's pretty apparent that such a charge is part of Thai criminal law.

 

I'm just guessing, because we're talking about translating Thai legal code into English terms. But they're probably looking at filing under Section 291:

 

 

Same Thai criminal code section was used to prosecute this past local offense:

 

 

 

 

Negligence is within the Thai penal code, but recklessness is not, they are seperate legal terms defined by degree of foresight of risk, negligence doesn't apply to those in charge of a boat because there is an assumed foresight of risk.  As for, "we're talking about translating Thai legal code into English terms", actually that was done when it was written, its always been bilingual.  Perhaps the journalist who wrote this article translated it themself, and poorly, or just perhaps, this being a maritime offense they are being tried under the maritime offense of recklessness.  It would actually make a lot more sense.

 

A similar incident in Phuket:

"Phuket Governor Norapat Plodthong on Wednesday said the collision of two speedboats the previous day offshore Phuket stemmed from recklessness and urged the Marine Department to enforce laws and regulations strictly"

 

[Kieran00001]

9 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Yes, unlike you apparently, I'd wait to hear and evaluate the actual evidence and details in the case.... instead of presuming someone guilty pretty much on the basis of nothing other than the outcome.

 

 

Next time you're rear ended lets hear you call for an investigation rather than put automatic blame on the one who rear ended you, its not like the world over the one who hits from behind is held acountable, is it?  No, lets wait to hear and evaluate the actual evidence and details in the case.

 

In truth, they may not get a charge of recklessness under maritime law to stick, the offense being based on awareness and foresight of risk and so may only be able to be determined if he has a boat operators licence, so perhaps they will try him for negligence, which would be based on unknowingly taking a risk which they should have been aware of.

[Kieran00001]

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Actually, no, I did not...

 

This case below was not a maritime case, yet Thai police somehow managed to file the criminal charge:
 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/haunting-cctv-shows-thai-prostitutes-11821208

 

I just read the article and found this little gem.

"Police claim that the reckless and negligent behaviour"

and?  Two directly contradictory legal terms and the Mirror thinks it could be both, hillarious, I suggest you change your reading material!

[Old Croc]

18 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

No one "needs" to be driving a boat for "pleasure".

 

He wasn't fishing for food.

 

He wasn't going from Point A to Point B for transportation.

 

Another rich idiot who thinks he's superior to locals.

 

LOOK AT ME!  I'M ON A BOAT!  I'M RICHER THAN YOU.

I've owned boats for a large part of my adult life, gained great pleasure from driving them and catching fish for my food.

I am richer, smarter and superior to you.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Old Croc

[Huckenfell]

On 5/9/2019 at 8:44 PM, Aussieroaming said:

I wonder who was actually at fault and whether either had their maritime licence. One thing guaranteed is that the Italian is guilty unless he was squeaky clean and can prove it.

 

 

The Thai boat does not look like a "Longtail" to me. Where is the motor and prop shaft. All i see is a wooden paddle.

[sambum]

20 hours ago, Benroon said:

errrr that's how forums work - if you want to keep it private PM

 

 

Errr - you were the one who asked "why I was putting in my 2 pennies worth" (or words to that effect) so I could refer you to your own statement above!  

[Enki]

On 5/10/2019 at 11:41 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Yep, that's the prior article I also had read from the same news outlet, making a total of two from them on this incident that I'm aware of... And neither of them has any meaningful, specific details about when, where, or how the collision occurred that would in any way help determine guilt/responsibility/recklessness.

 

And why would they? Such information is in a sane country usually not disclosed. Thailand is not USA.

[Enki]

On 5/10/2019 at 5:06 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Yes, let's start with a dead person.

 

So if your wife wakes up from bed some night while you're sleeping, goes out to the balcony and jumps to her death, are you automatically a murderer???  Just because she's dead and you're there?

 

In my book, the answer would be no... But perhaps your view is you would automatically be a murderer, just as you assume the farang boat guy is recklessly responsible for a death -- without absolutely no details of just how that death occurred and under what circumstances.

 

Just because the Thai guy is dead doesn't automatically mean the farang guy is recklessly responsible...  He may well be.... But I'd kinda like to see some proof or evidence first.

 

 

First of all: if your wife jumps to her death and you are in the house (confirmed by witnesses) you are most likely the first suspect.

 

Now the case above: which part after nearly 100 posts don't you grasp? 

Victim was a rowing boat.

Culprits boat was under power.

 

Now ... lets open marine law book number one (there is only one, so that is easy): who is at fault? There is a reason why I wrote "victim" and "culprit".

The power boat is at FAULT BY DEFINITION OF THE LAW. So the captain now goes to court. AND THE COURT DECIDES IF THERE ARE REASONS FOR NOT BEING GUILTY or for REDUCING THE GUILT ...

 

Can't really be so hard to grasp.

 

And next rule:

Which ships boats have "the right of way" even if other rules say otherwise?

The term is "ships with reduced maneuverability" and that are:

• carrier under maneuver
• mine clearer or mine layer
• ships involved in a rescue operation
• ships in distress, engine fault or sitting on ground
• a fire ship
• ships with high draft inside of a shipping lane they can not leave
• ships doing marine work, as e.g. 
  • Dredgers
  • cable layers
  • pipeline layers
  • etc.
• and last but not least: a fishing vessel, with its nets out

 

So: if you run with a powered (speeding?) boat over a fishing boat that has its nets out, then: YOU ARE AT FAULT. 

 

No idea why you want to dispute that and think YOU need more information from Thai media to be rest assured that the captain of the _culprit_ boat is treated fairly. 

 

And then comes RULE NUMBER ONE on the water: stay <deleted> clear from everything! If you god damn THINK you have the "hold course obligation" (that is how right of way is called, loosely translated - to lazy to look up the perfect english translation), then you blow your horn: five or more short blows with the horn, to inform the "opponent" that you suppose him to change course.

 

AND IF HE DOES NOT CHANGE COURSE FOR WHAT EVER REASON: YOU CHANGE COURSE. Do you get it? Having "the right of way" does not give you the right to cause a collision and then walk away and say: IT WAS HIS FAULT. No: it still was your fault. You have to handle your boat/ship in a way: THAT NOTHING CAN HAPPEN.

 

So, regardless how you want to turn it: that guy belongs into court. And then we can talk how plausible his defenses are. Perhaps he had a heat stroke and ran half unconcious over the poor Thai in his tiny boat ... that would be an excuse. Perhaps he was drunk. Perhaps he thought that "long tail" had an engine and actually "would yield passage" .... 

 

Sorry, your attitude, is simply wrong. Mentally, Morally and Legally.

[Enki]

On 5/11/2019 at 7:35 PM, Isaanbiker said:

[.....] radars these days are pretty good. But only if you look at them. 

I really wonder ... which part of: a wooden boat is made from ... tata tata tata "Wood" do people not grasp in this forum?

Again: a wooden boat is made from ... price question ... you win if you guess it right ... made from? Please tell me: from what material is a wooden boat made?

 

And now please check what a RADAR is ... can't be so hard to grasp that RADAR can only pick up METAL!!! Well, not 100% true. There are a few other things it can pick up, but: NOT WOOD. NOT PLASTIC. 

[grollies]

Well,  thanks for brightening my day guys.  This topic has been hilarious what with all the Collision Regs experts, TV Marine Accident  Investigation Branch  and radar techies (forward-looking surface sonar? Sounds good), hilarious, really,  very entertaining.

[megamind]

I wanna try to guess, listening the voices going around in Rawai area, how the story is putting all the various pieces together:

1. The long tail was not rowing: how could it have been off Ko Bon? in fact, as you can see from the photos, at the stern there is the engine housing (the hole). Engine that in the accident fell into the water.
2. The long tail was trolling probably at about 4-5 knots on parallel route of the Robalo fishing boat. The old pilot (listening to gossip) is almost totally deaf and sees little: that's why the boat captain's driving license has expired and never renewed and the boat (which at the origin was equipped with the classic engine) is not even registered, so even not insured.
3. Robalo boat was going on straight route from Chalong to Racha at about 18 knots. The captain has a regular Thai boat driving license and also as a shipboard engineer. The boat is regularly registered and insured.
4. It seems that suddenly the long tail turns crossing the path of the Robalo that slows down instantly and turns to starboard.
5. Following the clash that was not strong, given the minimum damage reported by the two boats, the long tail engine and the pilot fall into the water. Probably the head of the long tail pilot was hit by some parts of the motor.
6. The pilot of the Robalo immediately throws itself into the water to recover the body of the long tail pilot that, despite not having obvious wounds, does not regain consciousness
7. The Captain of the Robalo repeatedly calls the MayDay by radio without receiving any response and then decides to immediately return the long tail pilot to Chalong while alerting the ambulance by mobile.
8. People say that Chalong police, however not competent, has never questioned the pilot of the Robalo
9. The competent maritime police of Chalong has already questioned the pilot of the Robalo, putting everything on record
10. Someone says that the scientific (forensic) police have already inspected the boats, reporting that the impact, given the minimum damage, was not violent, so the Robalo had already visibly slowed down.
11. It seems that the family of the deceased, with the police mediation, had initially agreed for 1.2 million of bath (no one can feel good about his conscience even if death is accidental) . Later, in the face of a higher demand (voices say that family raised the amount to 1.3 mln) despite the agreement reached, the matter passed to the lawyers on the advice (it seems) of the police itself .

Edited May 15, 2019 by LeungKen
Reduce font size

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[megamind]

Forgot something:

1. About 2 hours after the accident the maritime police with the pilot of Robalo and his boat went to recover the long tail that had drifted for about 1 mile then towing it to the Rawai jetty
2. Size of the boats are nearly the same: both are over 7 meter and less than 8. Robalo is about 15 years old but with new engine. The long tail is just built and has no more than 1 month of life.
3. The pilot of the Robalo was never arrested and never realized on bail.