2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think that is the truth. It seems he wanted to extort money from the suspect. Dead suspects don't pay money. That makes it clear he didn't plan to murder the suspect.

And if the authorities to their job then it is likely they will find that was not the first time he tried to extort money and tortured suspects. That should be enough to jail him for life. At least it should be if the authorities really want that... 

He tortured him to death.

This is not manslaughter but

barbaric murder. It is not his intended intentions that are decisive, but the result of his actions.

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He's been fired already.

No. Only suspended. The media have erroneously used the English word "fired".  

This is clearly first degree murder, a mandatory death sentence, under the Penal Code. It is first degree murder due to the use of torture to kill the victim.  Without the torture and without premeditation it could be second degree murder with a penalty of 15 to 20 years or perhaps even manslaughter with a 3 to 20 year penalty.  There is a recent precedent in the Supreme Court which upheld a conviction of a policeman for attempted murder by asphyxiation with a plastic bag on the grounds the cop clearly knew that the plastic bag torture could result in death. But perhaps that cop didn't have the huge financial clout and big shot cop connections of Ferrari Jo.  

 

 

I read yesterday they had wanted 20 years but that was halved as first offence , that was then halved as he gave himself up and then the 5 yr was downgraded to 2 years on license and he wasn’t allowed to leave the country and had report to station every 90 days .

Im sure the amount of dirt he must have on those around him and up the chain will make the above a highly likely possibility of a sentence , despite the video and he will walk ! 

Prosecutors will no doubt readily accept the narrative of the honest crime buster ardently protecting the nation's youth once they get their brown envelopes. After the verdict and acquittal or suspended sentence any criticism will be silenced with the contempt of court and defamation laws. 

9 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

No. Only suspended. The media have erroneously used the English word "fired".  

Not the first or the last error, and it doesn't only apply to "words" but far too often - content, that can  change the whole meaning. 

6 minutes ago, ronster said:

I read yesterday they had wanted 20 years but that was halved as first offence , that was then halved as he gave himself up and then the 5 yr was downgraded to 2 years on license and he wasn’t allowed to leave the country and had report to station every 90 days .

Im sure the amount of dirt he must have on those around him and up the chain will make the above a highly likely possibility of a sentence , despite the video and he will walk ! 

Nonsense, who wanted 20 years or did the majority of us miss the hearing and subsequent court proceedings. 

6 hours 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 !

Correct and if he pleads guilty, that is another half of the sentence as well. And the judge will believe that he is “helping” children getting rid of drugs, another further reduction. His record will show him having good behavior and “model” citizen. It’s all a set up from the beginning. My guess is he will be in an ac jail for couple months and be released on good behavior.

 

 

Have no idea why he surrendered himself. We already have Boss from Red Bull. Now add Joe Ferrari and the first Thai only “Red bull-Ferrari” team is ready for the next Formula 1 season. 

11 minutes ago, ronster said:

I read yesterday they had wanted 20 years but that was halved as first offence , that was then halved as he gave himself up and then the 5 yr was downgraded to 2 years on license and he wasn’t allowed to leave the country and had report to station every 90 days .

Im sure the amount of dirt he must have on those around him and up the chain will make the above a highly likely possibility of a sentence , despite the video and he will walk ! 

How about this as being more like it from his friendly superior:

You're a graduate of the academy meaning you should do the honourable thing and surrender. If you escape from jail, do a runner if out on bail - that's ok  - honour had been fulfilled by your surrender. 

4 hours ago, smedly said:

Murder is clearly defined as intent to kill 

Not necessarily. I don't know the details of Thai legal definitions, but here's some background about the definition of murder under common law - I think the current case meets the conditions of 3/4 of the examples given:

 

Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

• "Intent-to-kill murder"
• "Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
• "Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
• "Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

"Murder | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder

4 hours ago, Pib said:

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

Exactly! He knows too much! The two likely outcomes are either free or dead.

This guy will pay the victim's family and some others. Will not serve any jail time as first time offender. If you want to punish him take away his cars and money - these are the only things which will teach him a lesson.

10 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

Not necessarily. I don't know the details of Thai legal definitions, but here's some background about the definition of murder under common law - I think the current case meets the conditions of 3/4 of the examples given:

 

Background: Common Law Murder

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

• "Intent-to-kill murder"
• "Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
• "Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
• "Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

"Murder | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder

This is Thailand... not the USA.  Here there is one law for the "commoners" and another for the HiSo's.

6 hours ago, wprime said:

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

He didn't intend to kill him?

How many plastic bags did he use.. in-case the underneath one split when the prisoner tried to struggle to stay alive.
Murder and nothing less.

5 hours ago, HaoleBoy said:

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.

How do you think the son-in-law climbed the ladder so quickly.

He originally claimed that he put the plastic bags over the alleged offenders head so that he could not see/recognise the other officers. If that was the case, he would have known that in doing so there was a reasonable risk that the person would suffocate.  He later changed his plea to defending the morals of young people.  (BS.... 1st class award).  This is murder! plain and simple.

 

If I was in his shoes, I would have thought his best defence would have been to claim that it was known that the alleged offender was Covid positive and that during questioning he started spitting at everyone in the room (which would have been difficult to see on the video).  He could then claim that despite warnings to stop spitting the alleged offender continued to spit at the officers, so he grabbed a plastic bag that was on a nearby table and put it over the alleged offender's  head to stop him from possibly infecting the other officers with Covid  The alleged offender refused to co-operate and continued to struggle.  Unfortunately, he quickly lost consciousness we removed the plastic bag quickly and attempted to revive him.  The alleged offender was transported to hospital and certified dead the next day.  This would be more like manslaughter e.g. spur of the moment action.

 

As it happens, he appears that he has the 'ear' of people at the top of the 'food chain', so it is highly unlikely that he will be charged with murder.

5 hours ago, HaoleBoy said:

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.

A General, for what it's worth.

 

They are all pond life together. They disgust me.

What you are all seeing in the news now people is the Thai police ' testing the waters ' of public reaction.

 

It's a well used ploy. If it flies and people generally accept the ' manslaughter charge '  it will be pushed heavily.

 

If there is outrage at home and around the globe, because everybody is watching this, then some General will pop out of the woodwork and announce he is stamping down on corruption and won't accept a manslaughter charge, it's murder.

 

It's all a game by them now to check out the public sentiment.

31 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

Not necessarily. I don't know the details of Thai legal definitions, but here's some background about the definition of murder under common law - I think the current case meets the conditions of 3/4 of the examples given:

yes that is were the mechanism becomes relevent - for example the instrument, the act, the motive  and how it was used resulting in death - a gun is a fine example, it would be very difficult to prove that a person did not intend to kill someone after shooting them, not so sure about a plastic bag, to convict someone of murder several tests may need to be met and of course the are several degrees of murder - it can be very complex 

This people is black and white.

 

You put six bags on a man's head and tape it solidly shut. Even this idiot of a Colonel knows if you deprive somebody of air for that length of time, they will die.

 

It's inconceivable that it's manslaughter.

 

Premeditated murder and death by torture.

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

The senior police officers have very considerable influence, and will deploy that influence to ensure that events follow the course which they wish them to.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 

I was trying to highlight the fact that being in any kind of position to influence the outcome is totally wrong. 

2 minutes ago, smedly said:

yes that is were the mechanism becomes relevent - for example the instrument, the act, the motive  and how it was used resulting in death - a gun is a fine example, it would be very difficult to prove that a person did not intend to kill someone after shooting them, not so sure about a plastic bag, to convict someone of murder several tests may need to be met and of course the are several degrees of murder - it can be very complex 

They had a judgment passed down by the Supreme court in 2017 relating exactly to this type of case.

 

The Supreme court stated in such actions as this plastic bagging, it was reasonable to assume it would result in death.

46 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

This is Thailand... not the USA.  Here there is one law for the "commoners" and another for the HiSo's.

Tell that to Brionna Taylor...

A post with a trolling video and a reply has been removed.

 

A post with a derogatory trolling reference to the other defendants in this case has been removed. 

15 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 

I was trying to highlight the fact that being in any kind of position to influence the outcome is totally wrong. 

Yes, and of course you are entirely right.

 

As many will realise, the Police Force, especially in cases which involve one of their own, and which have a bearing upon their "benefits" have an ability to dictate the outcome in such cases. In the unusual event that a court "gainsays" their "findings" then that judgement is simply ignored. Again, I am sure you know that.

 

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by herfiehandbag

58 minutes ago, Prince77 said:

This guy will pay the victim's family and some others. Will not serve any jail time as first time offender. If you want to punish him take away his cars and money - these are the only things which will teach him a lesson.

What are you talking about?

 

Thai prisons are full of people who are in there as a ' first offense ' the reduction comes from admitting it, that doesn't mean a suspended sentence.

 

I agree to lessen his sentence, he will be involved in compensating the family.

 

Cars and houses, a tricky one!

 

Remember his woman's Dad is a General, it depends how much his clout is, and the determination others are to get justice.

Why do I feel there is a conflict of interest here?

I understand the defence (possibly correctly, although I have a BIG doubt about that) attempting to get the charges downgraded.

However, the police force, which is supposed to be investigating this death, also say the same thing. What ever happened to an "unbiased" investigation to establish FACTS.

Have they completed a brief of evidence which (not surprisingly) does not support the possibility of a murder conviction?

Or has the NEW BIG carpet arrived at Police HQ already and needs lifting to enable the sweepers to do their job?

 

 

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

He tortured him to death.

This is not manslaughter but

barbaric murder. It is not his intended intentions that are decisive, but the result of his actions.

As far as I know murder is murder if a person intentionally kills someone. As far as I see the torture was intentionally and they obviously knew that the suspect could die. But they didn't intend to kill the suspect.

That is just the way I understand the term "murder". Apart from that IMHO that torturing police officer should go forever to jail and forever to hell.

The "wealth transfer" I spoke of in another thread about Jo seems to be, in principle, complete. Now, we can expect more Porsches, Minis, Audis, etc. on the streets of Thailand soon. 

Edited August 30, 20214 yr by djayz