By Cod Satrusayang

 

The defense team and senior police officers close to Pol Col Thitisant “Joe Ferrari” Uttanapol plan on arguing that Thitisant was only guilty of manslaughter and not murder, according to several police officers familiar with the investigation.

 

The case of Joe Ferrari shocked the nation after CCTV footage emerged of the fresh-faced police colonel choking to death an alleged drug dealer with a plastic bag in the middle of a police station.

 

The case sparked further outrage when Thitisant was afforded a chance to speak to the press last week after running from the law during which he defended his actions and apologized to the nation.

 

Full story: https://www.thaienquirer.com/31917/defense-team-police-wants-joe-ferrari-tried-for-manslaughter-not-murder/

 

-- © Copyright Thai Enquirer 2021-08-30

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Well, he will release soon under the next amnesty.

And so the eventual whitewash begins.

 

Downgrading charges to manslaughter is especially significant because the jail term is reduced from 3-15 years. Since it is Thitisant’s first offense it may even be suspended.

 

That is a possible outcome, and if that happens and he walks free, it is a <deleted> disgrace !

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by Thaiwrath

Aaaahh... brown envelopes starting to work already... and probably some new owners of some luxury cars. 

.

Have they begun excavating the yard around the police station, yet, a few missing person cases might be solved.... 

Surreal. The police defending him. I just tried buying brown envelopes for my classroom and they are all sold out!

They're probably right, I doubt he intended to kill. It's hard to extort money from a dead man.

Manslaughter, eh?

Then he will probably be able to keep his job at least until he is eligible to retire in a few years time.

The acid test for the big boss PM general and his blah blah about corruption, after all Jo is not a general himself just a lower rank.

Murder and convicted - manslaughter? I shot him in the head but didn't mean to kill him sort of manslaughter.

Names and addresses of all those who want this and Joe Joe Maserati to reappear incognito no doubt ????  

Why not go for shoplifting? ????

45 minutes ago, wprime said:

They're probably right, I doubt he intended to kill. It's hard to extort money from a dead man.

He said himself that he didn't want to extort money from the victim. And as shown in the video it was clear that the victim had severe problems to breath for several minutes - it takes a while until you die without oxygen (you have to watch the 10 minutes video). I think it is a well known fact that humans cannot live without oxygen... 

manslaughter and torture???? Oh wait That is normal practice so not punishable.. I strongly believe he is out of the country already and a look a like is taking his place for a good sum of money...

Nothing being said about the torture being common practice?

But, of course torture and cohersion are denied in public.

 

I have heard his father-in-law is a higher up police too.

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by HaoleBoy

1 hour ago, webfact said:

The defense team and senior police officers close to Pol Col Thitisant “Joe Ferrari” Uttanapol plan on arguing that Thitisant was only guilty of manslaughter and not murder, according to several police officers familiar with the investigation.

This is a difficult one TBH, the act itself was life threatening and intended to be just that - if at any time during this event the victim was threatened with - "you are going to die if you don't tell us" then it is clearly murder as there was intent and the plastic bags are lethal weapons, the argument is thin - it's like shooting someone then claiming you didn't intend to kill them- that argument could stand if you shot someone in the leg at point blank and they bled out - not so easy to defend if you shot them in the head.

 

Murder is clearly defined as intent to kill 

The defense team and senior police officers close to Pol Col Thitisant “Joe Ferrari” Uttanapol plan on arguing that Thitisant was only guilty of manslaughter and not murder

There will be some more legal tricks to bend the law.

If you pull 6 plastic bags over someone's head and watch him sit idly for many minutes during the subsequent asphyxiation, then this is not an accident resulting in death, but an intentional murder.

 

Joe accepted the possible death with his act. Instead, he watched the agony and could have avoided it, which he didn't. 

It would be manslaughter if death had been unimaginable. Like a traffic accident where the consequences cannot be foreseen in advance. But here it was foreseeable that humans could suffocate. That was accepted from the start. This is murder.

 

1 minute ago, smedly said:

This is a difficult one TBH, the act itself was life threatening and intended to be just that - if at any time during this event the victim was threatened with - "you are going to die if you don't tell us" then it is clearly murder as there was intent and the plastic bags are lethal weapons, the argument is thin - it's like shooting someone then claiming you didn't intend to kill them- that argument could stand if you shot someone in the leg at point blank and they bled out - not so easy to defend if you shot them in the head.

 

Murder is clearly defined as intent to kill 

It is understandable that the defence will argue that it was a misunderstanding and an accident. In the end the court will decide - and the public opinion about handling the case. 

1 hour ago, Thaiwrath said:

 

Downgrading charges to manslaughter is especially significant because the jail term is reduced from 3-15 years. Since it is Thitisant’s first offense it may even be suspended.

 

That is a possible outcome, and if that happens and he walks free, it is a <deleted> disgrace !

And will probably keep his job AND perks. 

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by phetphet

Preventing somebody from breathing is a clear intent to kill. The victim is told: you do what we want or you die. The death, in such case, is one of only two possible scenarios and not an accident.

 

 

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by Zikomat

I expect this is to keep Joe Ferrari from implicating many up the police foodchain in corruption in order to save his own skin.

I can see a parliamentary seat coming up for this bloke, the drug dealer probably killed a few with his product (the stuff that he never got caught with) so he’s in like Flynn. ????

1 hour ago, Thaiwrath said:

 

Downgrading charges to manslaughter is especially significant because the jail term is reduced from 3-15 years. Since it is Thitisant’s first offense it may even be suspended.

 

That is a possible outcome, and if that happens and he walks free, it is a <deleted> disgrace !

On the other hand Thai courts can impose the death penalty for "aggravated" murder. Torturing the victim is one of the "aggravating" factors.

 

https://www.thailandlaw.org/thai-law-on-murder.html

Someone will pay the ultimate price for this event be it the lawyer the one who acquired the tape or the suspected murderer one may happen in the near future the other may take years but something will happen be it for revenge or to keep someone from squealing ! accidents happen just like the poor victim !!! 

23 minutes ago, Mickeymaus said:

It is understandable that the defence will argue that it was a misunderstanding and an accident. In the end the court will decide - and the public opinion about handling the case. 

The fact that 6 plastic bags were pulled over the victim's head was not an accident. This was done consciously and was not a coincidence. 

This bestial torture method is intended to bring someone close to death by suffocation. The torturer consciously accepts the possible death by suffocation. The torturer "plays" with possible human death. This is murder. If one chooses from a variety of torture methods the one that results in possible death, it cannot be accidental death.

1 hour ago, wprime said:

They're probably right, I doubt he intended to kill. It's hard to extort money from a dead man.

Hate saying it but murder means the intention to kill, I doubt it because like you said can't get money from a dead man. Then it should be like manslaughter with torture added making it a harsher sentence. 

 

But legally I m not sure its murder. Been looking at some legal definitions of murder one does state 

 

What Is the Legal Definition of Murder?

Under the common law (law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes), murder was an intentional killing that was:

• unlawful (in other words, not legally justified), and
• committed with "malice aforethought."

Malice aforethought doesn't mean that a killer has to have acted out of spite or hate. It exists if a defendant intends to kill someone without legal justification or excuse. In addition, in most states, malice aforethought isn't limited to intentional killings. It can also exist if the killer:

• intentionally inflicts serious bodily harm that causes the victim's death, or
• behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death.

 

This way it could be murder but this is US law. Not sure about Thai law.

 

In the Dutch legal system this would not be murder by death by fault or manslaughter because the intention to kill was not there.

 

But maybe torture like this would change it it would certainly add to the penalty.

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by robblok

This guy has been an exemplary franchisee and as such is a good earner for those higher up in this multi level selling scheme…they will want him back out ther earning asap. 
 

This guy is like a young Thammanat Prompow. An exciting up and comer.

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Hate saying it but murder means the intention to kill, I doubt it because like you said can't get money from a dead man. Then it should be like manslaughter with torture added making it a harsher sentence. 

 

But legally I m not sure its murder. Been looking at some legal definitions of murder one does state 

 

What Is the Legal Definition of Murder?

Under the common law (law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes), murder was an intentional killing that was:

• unlawful (in other words, not legally justified), and
• committed with "malice aforethought."

Malice aforethought doesn't mean that a killer has to have acted out of spite or hate. It exists if a defendant intends to kill someone without legal justification or excuse. In addition, in most states, malice aforethought isn't limited to intentional killings. It can also exist if the killer:

• intentionally inflicts serious bodily harm that causes the victim's death, or
• behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death.

 

This way it could be murder but this is US law. Not sure about Thai law.

Further, the Thai Criminal Code imposes the maximum penalty of death, when the killing was done under the following circumstances:

1. If the victim is an ascendant of the offender;

2. If the victim is an official acting in the exercise of his official functions or having exercise his functions;

3. If the victim is a person who assisted, is planning to assist or has assisted an official who is performing an official function;

4. If the killing was premeditated;

5. If the offender employs torture or any acts of cruelty;

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by tomacht8

2 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

Surreal. The police defending him. I just tried buying brown envelopes for my classroom and they are all sold out!

what are you trying to get your students to do?