4 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

No, It is simply unsubstantiated hearsay. You don’t know that he said that, or if his anonymous friend just decided to say it; and even if he did say it, that doesn’t automatically make it true. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because you have a shred of evidence of its validity. More likely to be the archetypal behavior of a bully, get caught bang to rights, and then try and play the victim.

 

His friend would also do well to be very careful about posting comments accusing the Police of coercion.

 

 

  I believe it , because it sounds plausible 

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  You could yourself in trouble for speaking like that .

Give me 30 000 Baht or I will report your post .

(BTW , this is not a serious attempt at extortion, just making a point ) 

Bit rich you telling someone to be careful what they say, when you have openly accused the Police in a comment of colluding with the victim in an act of extortion

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  I believe it , because it sounds plausible 

I don't believe it because it sounds implausible and the OP sounds much more plausible.

1 hour ago, polpott said:

I don't believe it because it sounds implausible and the OP sounds much more plausible.

 

   I don't trust the O.P , they incorrectly stated he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries .

9 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   I don't trust the O.P , they incorrectly stated he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries .

On 12/31/2020 at 3:30 AM, cvs04 said:

He gave chase and booted her up the backside to stop her. Maybe she turned and he caught her hip instead or maybe the bruise was from something else unrelated.

There you go. 2 blatant lies in defence of the Norwegian.

 

1. The OP does not say that he left the supermarket without paying. It even shows a CCTV still of him going through the checkout.

 

2. He did not "boot her up the backside" the bruising, treated in hospital, states that the bruising was on her legs. Oh no I forgot, "maybe the bruise was from something else unrelated." Yea right. Muppet.

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

There you go. 2 blatant lies in defence of the Norwegian.

 

1. The OP does not say that he left the supermarket without paying. It even shows a CCTV still of him going through the checkout.

 

2. He did not "boot her up the backside" the bruising, treated in hospital, states that the bruising was on her legs. Oh no I forgot, "maybe the bruise was from something else unrelated." Yea right. Muppet.

 

  I will not converse with you, if you are going to call me a "muppet" and a liar

BTW , what I said was posted in the original report .

If you want to converse with me, you need to stop the abuse , OK ?

He should have been locked up for a couple of nights and then paid his 30,000.

He's a very lucky man that she accepted the money.

Another idiot in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  I will not converse with you, if you are going to call me a "muppet" and a liar

BTW , what I said was posted in the original report .

If you want to converse with me, you need to stop the abuse , OK ?

Quote it. "Muppet" refered to the Norwegian's absurd defence, but if you want to own it up to you.

 

If you want to converse with anyone you need to stop posting blatant lies. There is no accusation of him leaving without paying in the OP, quote it.

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

Quote it. "Muppet" refered to the Norwegian's absurd defence, but if you want to own it up to you.

 

If you want to converse with anyone you need to stop posting blatant lies. There is no accusation of him leaving without paying in the OP, quote it.

 

  From the original report 

 

"She left to get her mother but by the time she returned the foreigner had paid up and left the store as if nothing had happened."

43 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   I don't trust the O.P , they incorrectly stated he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries .

 

10 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  From the original report 

 

"She left to get her mother but by the time she returned the foreigner had paid up and left the store as if nothing had happened."

More basic comprehension issues?

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

 

More basic comprehension issues?

 

  He was in the KFC , which would mean he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries (if he went back and then paid) .

10 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  He was in the KFC , which would mean he left the supermarket without paying for the groceries (if he went back and then paid) .

Who says he was in KFC? No one but the perp. Also, there is CCTV footage (still shown in the OP) of him going through the checkout.

 

"The attack happened on December 26th at the Big C Supercenter" No mention of KFC

 

 

Just now, polpott said:

Who says he was in KFC? No one but the perp. Also, there is CCTV footage (still shown in the OP) of him going through the checkout.

 

  Please read the story , its stated in either this story or the original story .

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  Please read the story , its stated in either this story or the original story .

Its only stated in the perp's story,

On 12/31/2020 at 9:41 PM, kingofthemountain said:

Total rubbish

so you take a random trolley and you have by miracle all the stuff you wanted?

Even if a Thai gives me his trolley, i don't want it.i have no use of 5 liters of palm oil

24 eggs and a box of mama noddles.

So she has the money to buy a car and to pay all the stuff in her trolley

but she wants more, she has no more money and when she is in the mall she thinks

''what about to take this trolley in front of  KFC, maybe i could find some juicy loot in here?''

And of course when she is caught, the first thing she does is going to file a report to the police

because it's what all the thiefs do, particularly the ones working in a family mafia trolley robber style

specialised in a thai mall ?

seriously mate...

 

  Yes, but if you had a trolley full of palm oil, eggs and mama noodles and you noticed someone else had a trolley with lots of nice expensive food , chicken, fish and cheese and maybe some bottles of wine , you may be temped to walk off with his trolley whilst he was distracted .

  Knowing that if you get caught, you could just claim mistaken trolley .

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  Yes, but if you had a trolley full of palm oil, eggs and mama noodles and you noticed someone else had a trolley with lots of nice expensive food , chicken, fish and cheese and maybe some bottles of wine , you may be temped to walk off with his trolley whilst he was distracted .

  Knowing that if you get caught, you could just claim mistaken trolley .

But that's not what happened, is it? 

 

"Just your imagination

Running away with you"

Many Thais would'nt take this lieing down but a Norwegian wood.

1 minute ago, polpott said:

But that's not what happened, is it? 

 

"Just your imagination

Running away with you"

 

   No one knows whether this was deliberate theft or a genuine case of mistaken identity .

She said it wasnt , he thought it was .

10 minutes ago, polpott said:

Its only stated in the perp's story,

 

Its from the original news report .

 

 

"After the purchase, he was carted into the mall's famous fried chicken shop with his mother." 

Just now, CorpusChristie said:

 

   No one knows whether this was deliberate theft or a genuine case of mistaken identity .

She said it wasnt , he thought it was .

Either way its no excuse for kicking a woman. Foul creature. If someone gives you a reasonable excuse for their actions, you accept it and move on. Well, a man does at least. Scumbag who likes hitting women may take a different view,

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

Either way its no excuse for kicking a woman. Foul creature. If someone gives you a reasonable excuse for their actions, you accept it and move on. Well, a man does at least. Scumbag who likes hitting women may take a different view,

 

  It can be justifiable, if you were trying to knock a thief off balance and trying to stop them from escaping with your belongings 

4 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  It can be justifiable, if you were trying to knock a thief off balance and trying to stop them from escaping with your belongings 

Not. Why didn't he just grab his trolley?

 

The injuries to her legs, a bit more than knocking someone off balance. Also by the account that you have faith in, the perp claimes to have kicked her up the backside, not the legs, is that how you would have knocked someone off balance? Just a violent thug.

 

 

1 minute ago, Victornoir said:

 

No.

When you are a strong and robust man, you are forbidden to kick a small woman in any circumstance. This is not debatable.

And to spend so much time trying to justify the indefensible, one is entitled to express serious doubts about your moral capacities and your education.

 

   So, if a female grabbed your phone and ran off with it , would you just let her run off with it ?

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   So, if a female grabbed your phone and ran off with it , would you just let her run off with it ?

That's not what happened though, is it? She mistakenly started wheeling his trolley away. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary. And don't quote the words of a violent moron who caused injuries to both of her thighs. The front of her thighs that is.

Scum like him give all farang a bad image, no surprise Thais DO NOT want us here.

6 minutes ago, polpott said:

That's not what happened though, is it? She mistakenly started wheeling his trolley away. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary. And don't quote the words of a violent moron who caused injuries to both of her thighs. The front of her thighs that is.

 

  Only SHE knows what her intentions were .

 

4 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Scum like him give all farang a bad image, no surprise Thais DO NOT want us here.

 

Is it  people like him that make it harder for us all to get visas ? 

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  Only SHE knows what her intentions were .

 

Exactly. Not you nor the violent thug who kicked her for no justifiable reason.

6 hours ago, kingofthemountain said:

yes. and even in the embellished story this norwegian idiot was still unable to explain why 

he prefered to hit the girl rather than to grab the trolley. that's just show using violence is 

something ''normal'' for him

 

  No one has asked him as to why he did it .

Would need to hear his explanation , before coming to a conclusion 

5 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

  I believe it , because it sounds plausible 

 

Fallacious would be a far better adjective to use; everything you say in defense of this nasty bully is based on uncorroborated hearsay. You have fallen into the classic trap of trying to defend the indefensible, and now you don't know how to stop.

 

With every comment you post in his defense, your credibility fades further, like shadows into the night.

 

You were obviously out of the office when the “put the shovel down” memo was sent.