Mother of reckless driver urges crash victims to stop condemning her family

[Ulic]

Lets see, kill nine people driving a car without a license. No remorse, even when given no jail time and just community service, appeal the community service sentence as grossly unfair and overly punitive, not pay the court ordered settlements. Now Mum is out crying about life and the public being unfair. I shake my head.

[nahkit]

2 hours ago, seajae said:

parents bought her the car and allowed her to drive it, they should be in jail for allowing it to happen, being rich or having a good name does not mean you can do as you please. Courts should seize their bank accounts, home(s) and land and sell them to pay the victims, shows how pathetic thai law is when we see this happen only when it involves well to do families

" On May 8th, the Supreme Court ordered three defendants, namely the father of Ms. Praewa Thephasadin na Ayudhya who has adopted a new name, Ms. Rawinpirom Arunwong, the owner of the car involved in the tragedy and driver Ms. Praewa, to pay 26.8 million baht in compensation. "

 

Sounds very much like she borrowed the car from a friend.

[connda]

Reassigning "Victim-hood."  Very Thai.  

I can only hope that Thai social media keeps their collective feet on the neck of this issue until there is actual justice.  Mom keeps apologizing for the daughter?  Might be because the spoiled kid has never shown remorse and makes a mockery of her non-sentence of community service by -- ignoring it.  Then this family,  poor "victims" of their daughter's arrogance one and all, go on the offensive and claim they are the actual, rightful victims. 
Is arrogance hereditary?  I'm thinking it is.

[ukrules]

I'm struggling to see how the mother owes any money, it wasn't her who crashed the car.

 

The daughter crashed the car, shouldnt she pay any compensation herself?

 

Are parents held civilly and legally responsible for the actions of their idiot kids?

 

I doubt the daughter has any money at all.

[Yinn]

14 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

Typcial Thainess. 

 

When they can't squirm out of responsibility, or bullly those weaker into backing down, the only tactic left is to appeal to Thais' sappy emotional side. 

 

We all feel so sad and sorry for you all, and we understand that 9 years later you have still not paid even a single Baht. 

 

"susu na" 

 

13 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

There was a time when I was convinced that sociopathy was the default psychology of Thai society.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

In Thailand they are known as "the good people", the most Thai of Thai, of high birth owing to good deeds in previous lives. 

 

They are better than others and therefore can do whatever they want. 

 

Wrong, 99.9% know this is wrong. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Juan B Tong said:

It would be nice if someone would translate these comments here on TV and post for the mother and the Thai social media to read.

These comments kind of reflect world opinion from people who generally don't care a bit about the esteemed "na" in your name.

Why you think thai can not think/ do themself? You think Thai don’t know thai news?

 

Here is one site thai talk about this. Have 700+ comment. Have many more. Thousand of comment already. 

 

https://today.line.me/th/article/jrlPgx?utm_source=otp

 

A lot more information than the thaivisa. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Yinn

[geoffbezoz]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

I'm struggling to see how the mother owes any money, it wasn't her who crashed the car.

 

The daughter crashed the car, shouldnt she pay any compensation herself?

 

Are parents held civilly and legally responsible for the actions of their idiot kids?

 

I doubt the daughter has any money at all.

She didn't have a driving license yet her parents allowed her to drive the car. That is criminal irresponsibility by the parents in the real world. Of course they are culpable, they allowed their daughter to illegally drive and the results she killed people so by association they are as guilty as hell and should pay up. Actually they should still be in the slammer as should the daughter IMO but this is Thailand and the daughter's Father is or was a high ranking army officer, so there you have it - Thailand where death matters not a jot if you have influence.

Edited July 19, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[Yinn]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

Actually she was 16 when the photo was taken 9 years ago. Now she is 25.

 

They talk about OP photo.

 

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

If the family becomes homeless they can always send the daughter to work somewhere in Pattaya.

Why Pattaya?

[billd766]

Just now, Yinn said:

They talk about OP photo.

 

Why Pattaya?

Why not?

[Fex Bluse]

1 hour ago, Yinn said:

Wrong, 99.9% know this is wrong. 

So, they know it is wrong? 

And do anyway? 

That is worse.

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

She didn't have a driving license yet her parents allowed her to drive the car. That is criminal irresponsibility by the parents in the real world. Of course they are culpable, they allowed their daughter to illegally drive and the results she killed people so by association they are as guilty as hell and should pay up. Actually they should still be in the slammer as should the daughter IMO but this is Thailand and the daughter's Father is or was a high ranking army officer, so there you have it - Thailand where death matters not a jot if you have influence.

I've read a little more about this. It's because of her age - that's the only reason why the parents are being held accountable here.

 

Had their daughter been a little bit older then it would be nothing to do with the parents.

 

 

[scorecard]

3 minutes ago, ukrules said:

I've read a little more about this. It's because of her age - that's the only reason why the parents are being held accountable here.

 

Had their daughter been a little bit older then it would be nothing to do with the parents.

 

 

Plus, when the accident happened she was driving the car of an aunt or similar, which she had taken without permission. Parental control, parents teaching right and wrong somewhere in this picture.

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

She didn't have a driving license yet her parents allowed her to drive the car. That is criminal irresponsibility by the parents in the real world. Of course they are culpable, they allowed their daughter to illegally drive and the results she killed people so by association they are as guilty as hell and should pay up. Actually they should still be in the slammer as should the daughter IMO but this is Thailand and the daughter's Father is or was a high ranking army officer, so there you have it - Thailand where death matters not a jot if you have influence.

 

Plus, when the accident happened she was driving the car of an aunt or similar, which she had taken without permission. Parental control, parents teaching right and wrong somewhere in this picture.

[anchadian]

Justice Ministry cannot advance money to compensate Praewa’s crash victims

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/justice-ministry-cannot-advance-money-to-compensate-praewas-crash-victims/

[billd766]

58 minutes ago, anchadian said:

Justice Ministry cannot advance money to compensate Praewa’s crash victims

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/justice-ministry-cannot-advance-money-to-compensate-praewas-crash-victims/

Whether the car was hers, her parents or her "aunts" doesn't matter, as they all must have known that she was under age and therefore driving without insurance or a licence and are equally complicit in the accident and the aftermath.

 

She must have got the car keys somehow with their knowledge, unless she stole the car, which is doubtful.

 

The whole family should share the guilt and the punishment.

 

[Ctkong]

15 hours ago, a977 said:

This poor excuse for a mother should think herself lucky that her family had the money to keep her way wood daughter out of jail. 16 years and 6 months old no driving licence, any other country the mother would be visiting her daughter in the slammer every other week for 20-30 years, why was she not charged with 9 counts of manslaughter Oh that's right mommy have money to buy police & judges you hypocritical bitch pay up and SHUT UP.

The mother thought she had already paid up.... to the right people like the RTP and the judiciary. The victims’ and their relatives ? Tough luck. No more money in the piggy bank. 

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

Plus, when the accident happened she was driving the car of an aunt or similar, which she had taken without permission. Parental control, parents teaching right and wrong somewhere in this picture.

I add, none of that changed anything, she's still culpable and the parents are too. 

[ukrules]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

Whether the car was hers, her parents or her "aunts" doesn't matter, as they all must have known that she was under age and therefore driving without insurance or a licence and are equally complicit in the accident and the aftermath. 

 

She must have got the car keys somehow with their knowledge, unless she stole the car, which is doubtful.

 

The whole family should share the guilt and the punishment.

 

Lets examine that statement a little. If someone (my son for example) steals my car, doesn't have a license and crashes it then somehow I am liable for his actions?

 

What's the difference if some stranger steals my car? Suddenly I'm not liable for damage caused by a third party, or am I always liable because it's my car and I should have been in control of it or am I never liable for the actions of others because what someone else does is not my responsibility?

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

19 hours ago, ukrules said:

I'm struggling to see how the mother owes any money, it wasn't her who crashed the car.

 

The daughter crashed the car, shouldnt she pay any compensation herself?

 

Are parents held civilly and legally responsible for the actions of their idiot kids?

According to the law professors at Thammasat University, who lodged the original complaint on behalf of all 13 victims, yes, the parents are legally responsible.
 

Quote

Associate Professor Narong Jaiharn, who filed the complaint, said the parents [...] were automatically liable under the 2003 Child Protection Act, as were those whose children were arrested for street racing.

 

He said the parents could also possibly be held responsible under the Criminal Code, as deaths and injuries resulted from their alleged negligence under the 2003 law.

 

[billd766]

10 hours ago, ukrules said:

Lets examine that statement a little. If someone (my son for example) steals my car, doesn't have a license and crashes it then somehow I am liable for his actions?

 

What's the difference if some stranger steals my car? Suddenly I'm not liable for damage caused by a third party, or am I always liable because it's my car and I should have been in control of it or am I never liable for the actions of others because what someone else does is not my responsibility?

 

 

I am just making a guess here but I suspect that her parents must have known that she was out driving a (the) car because it couldn't have been the first time. If the car she was using was a family car given to her perhaps or it belonged to a relative makes no difference as she was under the legal age for a licence anyway, therefore the owner of the car had the responsibility to ensure that she was of an age to drive and had a licence to do so. The owners are still culpable.

 

If in your case somebody stole your car in theory you are not culpable because the car was stolen and not given freely as the other one was. It would be interesting to get a legal opinion on it though.

[Fex Bluse]

Typcial CryBully tactics used in China and its derivative countries like Thailand. 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

16 hours ago, ukrules said:

Lets examine that statement a little. If someone (my son for example) steals my car, doesn't have a license and crashes it then somehow I am liable for his actions?

 

What's the difference if some stranger steals my car? Suddenly I'm not liable for damage caused by a third party, or am I always liable because it's my car and I should have been in control of it or am I never liable for the actions of others because what someone else does is not my responsibility?

I think you're misunderstanding the law that's in force here. The original complaint against the parents from the lawyers at Thammasat University was under the provisions of the Child Protection Act (2003). The parents were basically being held liable for endangering their child by allowing her to drive without a license.

 

Section 23 of the act says that guardians of a child (which includes the parents if the child is under their care):

 

Quote

shall also safeguard the child under care against potentially harmful circumstances

So no, it wouldn't apply if some stranger stole your car.

[ukrules]

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I think you're misunderstanding the law that's in force here. The original complaint against the parents from the lawyers at Thammasat University was under the provisions of the Child Protection Act (2003). The parents were basically being held liable for endangering their child by allowing her to drive without a license.

 

Section 23 of the act says that guardians of a child (which includes the parents if the child is under their care):

 

So no, it wouldn't apply if some stranger stole your car.

Interesting, so it's all about the age of the child.

 

I guess at some point they're no longer regarded as being children and the liability shifts from the parent to the child.

 

[giddyup]

5 hours ago, Fex Bluse said:

Typcial CryBully tactics used in China and its derivative countries like Thailand.

 

God, this guy is painful. Couldn't he at least have rehearsed what he was going to say, or even better, read from an idiot card.

Edited July 20, 2019 by giddyup

[GroveHillWanderer]

13 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Interesting, so it's all about the age of the child.

 

I guess at some point they're no longer regarded as being children and the liability shifts from the parent to the child.

 

The Child Protection Act applies to children up till the age of 18.

[geoffbezoz]

15 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The Child Protection Act applies to children up till the age of 18.

nonsense post.

 

Obligations and responsibilities

In Thailand, "Children are bound to maintain their parents" (Clause 1563 CCCT) and "parents are bound to maintain their children and to provide proper education during their minority.” (Clause 1564 CCCT).

Parental obligations or responsibilities can continue even after their children become adults: " When children are sui juris (adult), parents are bound to maintain them only when they are infirm and unable to earn their living (Clause 1564 CCCT in fine).

Do note that the majority in Thailand is reached at 20 years of age. (Section 19 CCCT).

 

 

But in any event  this person was only 16 years old when she was allowed to take a vehicle that resulted in the manslaughter of 11 people. Or perhaps you will find another reason to absolve her family of that atrocity due to allowing little girls to illegally drive on the highway..

Edited July 20, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, geoffbezoz said:

nonsense post.

 

Obligations and responsibilities

In Thailand, "Children are bound to maintain their parents" (Clause 1563 CCCT) and "parents are bound to maintain their children and to provide proper education during their minority.” (Clause 1564 CCCT).

Parental obligations or responsibilities can continue even after their children become adults: " When children are sui juris (adult), parents are bound to maintain them only when they are infirm and unable to earn their living (Clause 1564 CCCT in fine).

Do note that the majority in Thailand is reached at 20 years of age. (Section 19 CCCT).

 

 

But in any event  this person was only 16 years old when she was allowed to take a vehicle that resulted in the manslaughter of 11 people. Or perhaps you will find another reason to absolve her family of that atrocity due to allowing little girls to illegally drive on the highway..

I have no idea what you're taking about. I'm pointing out that under the terms of the Child Protection Act, her parents are deemed responsible - and the Act defines children as up till the age of 18. See below:

[SmartyMarty]

hideous people.

[khunPer]

On 7/19/2019 at 10:46 AM, ukrules said:

I'm struggling to see how the mother owes any money, it wasn't her who crashed the car.

 

The daughter crashed the car, shouldnt she pay any compensation herself?

 

Are parents held civilly and legally responsible for the actions of their idiot kids?

 

I doubt the daughter has any money at all.

The daughter was minor, 16 year old, i.e. parents responsibility.

[dcnx]

Awwwww, the family has suffered.

 

Talk about out of touch. I’d love to see Thai street justice carried out here.

[geoffbezoz]

11 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I have no idea what you're taking about. I'm pointing out that under the terms of the Child Protection Act, her parents are deemed responsible - and the Act defines children as up till the age of 18. See below:

As I said nonsense. If you can not undertsand what I was talking about, i.e direct English translations of extracts from Thai law, then stop commenting and posting third party articles.