Police charges against top cop’s Porsche driving son at the centre of fatal Bangkok car accident

[IamNoone88]

Well, the son seems to have admitted the charge and voluntarily stated he switched lanes instead of denying or fleeing the scene. That deserves some respect and he was truthful from the start. Let us see if there was alcohol or drugs involved. But for now respect to the son for manning up to this terrible accident. 

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, harada said:

I’m sure that the Thai oligarch can afford a good lawyer for his brat.

Why is he a "brat"...do you know anything about him?   Has he done a runner, denied being at fault, played the do-you-know-who-I-am card or anything else that makes him a brat?   Or is he a brat in your mind simply because he's got a bit of money?

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Why do they refer to him as "Top Cop? He is a former Deputy Chief ?

Being the holder of the position of Deputy National Police Chief, by definition, makes him one of the country's top police officers, i.e. a "top cop".  Nowhere did the OP report that he was the top cop.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, andyman57 said:

All they keep repeating is ex police chief very rich. its not about him his son has taken a life and needs to be punished by law

Because by letting people know the father is very rich, those reading or listening to news on this story will know that it's a good chance that nothing is going to happen to the driver of the car...

Edited March 14, 2022 by Bluespunk
clarification

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

They charged Khun Boss with reckless driving causing death as well as that policeman who killed the doctor.

 

Means diddly squat.

Its an automatic charge here in Thailand whenever the is an RTA which involves a death, the charge is independent of fault, is commonly dropped when fault cannot be proven, is the reason for the 200,000 bail bond on our 1st Class insurance. 
 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Because by letting people know the father is very rich, those reading or listening to news on this story will know that it's a good chance that nothing is going to happen to the driver of the car...

Is the driver of the car at fault ?

 

The damage was not minor i.e. it doesn’t appear he was speeding.

 

Was the motorcyclist wearing a helmet? i.e would he have been mainly unhurt if he was wearing a decent helmet ?

 

Fault is not with the driver just because he’s rich. The issue of course is that IF the driver were driving recklessly his wealth makes us all distrusting of the legal process. 

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

I thought he was forced to resign in disgrace!

You thought wrong.

"Last year, in July, he returned to work at Royal Thai Police headquarters in Bangkok after Thailand’s Administrative Court granted an injunction to him quashing an order that he be removed from his post"

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2022/03/13/charges-for-top-cop-porsche-driving-son/

 

And reported in many other places also.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Since he is no longer a police officer, immaterial. Has not been one for many years

He's a police officer right now...

"Last year, in July, he returned to work at Royal Thai Police headquarters in Bangkok after Thailand’s Administrative Court granted an injunction to him quashing an order that he be removed from his post".

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2022/03/13/charges-for-top-cop-porsche-driving-son/

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Is the driver of the car at fault ?

 

The damage was not minor i.e. it doesn’t appear he was speeding.

 

Was the motorcyclist wearing a helmet? i.e would he have been mainly unhurt if he was wearing a decent helmet ?

 

Fault is not with the driver just because he’s rich. The issue of course is that IF the driver were driving recklessly his wealth makes us all distrusting of the legal process. 

Where did I say the driver was at fault?

 

I suspect, fault or not, the outcome is probably going to be the same...

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, crazykopite said:

no doubt every avenue will be explored was the deceased on overstay , did he have a work permit they will try everything to discredit the deceased .

He was here legally as a refugee.  You think that he needs a WP to ride a bike?

 

"they will try everything to discredit the deceased"

So far, there's not even been the slightest suggestion of that happening.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

1 hour ago, kimamey said:

If he wasn't wearing a suitable helmet then I'd expect that to be used at the very least to get a reduced sentence. Probably non custodial.

So the man's death was primarily his fault is what your saying.....there are some warped minds here...

The helmet question is valid point…. 
 

Some say not wearing a helmet is no one else’s issue, the law breaking is victimless. But its not.

 

If a motorbike rider suddenly swerves in front of us and clips us, falls and smacks his head and dies, is it our fault if he died because he wasn’t wearing a helmet. Especially when wearing a helmet would have resulted in nothing more than bruising etc….  
 

The point is, in the example above, the severity of the outcome was impacted by the riders choice not to protect themselves. Should that impact the severity of a charge? 

 

 

[jippytum]

Lots of criticism from posters and comparisons to the red bull case that are inaccurate.

The red bull driver fled the scene and ran to 'mamma and eventually fled the country,

Confidence in the Thai justice system is at an all time low and this case will be closely scrutinized by the media.  However the cases are vastly different . The driver in this case stayed at the scene and admitted he was careless and causing the death of the motorbike rider .

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Is the driver of the car at fault ?

 

The damage was not minor i.e. it doesn’t appear he was speeding.

 

Was the motorcyclist wearing a helmet? i.e would he have been mainly unhurt if he was wearing a decent helmet ?

 

Fault is not with the driver just because he’s rich. The issue of course is that IF the driver were driving recklessly his wealth makes us all distrusting of the legal process. 

Where did I say the driver was at fault?

 

I suspect, fault or not, the outcome is probably going to be the same...

Your implication was that money will wash this. I don’t disagree. 
 

But, with that implication comes a certain degree of implication of blame on the driver otherwise there would be no need for money to have any impact in the outcome. 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

Two days later , have they managed to give the driver a breathalyzer yet ?

"A blood sample was also taken from Mr Pornmet as well as a urine sample for drugs"....

As reported in the OP.  They don't need to test his breath.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your implication was that money will wash this. I don’t disagree. 
 

But, with that implication comes a certain degree of implication of blame on the driver otherwise there would be no need for money to have any impact in the outcome. 

I disagree with you on money not being a core factor in determining punishment, this is based upon historical precedent. I wish I was wrong but it is what has happened.

 

As to fault, I neither implied or made a statement on who was at fault.

 

Nor did I make implications on how wearing or not wearing a helmet should influence charges...

Edited March 14, 2022 by Bluespunk
rewording

[Misterwhisper]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

former Deputy National Police Chief Wirachai Songmetta one of the kingdom’s most well known and respected police officers who is also one of the richest men in the country.

Allow me to interpret that for you:

 

1) He is one of the wealthiest men in the country BECAUSE he (was) a deputy national police chief.

2) He is only so well respected BECAUSE he is one of the wealthiest men in this country.

3) If he had been a low-ranking policeman throughout his entire career, he would now NEITHER be one of the wealthiest men in the country NOR be well respected.

[Liverpool Lou]

4 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

7 hours ago, webfact said:

former Deputy National Police Chief Wirachai Songmetta one of the kingdom’s most well known and respected police officers who is also one of the richest men in the country.

Former, because he was fired.

Reinstated.

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reinstated.

I get the impression he did his job (well) and it was causing a lot people a lot of headaches.....hence the attempt to get rid of him.

 

His wealth seems to have come from his 22 biopower plants.......could he be a real policeman in the RTP?

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your implication was that money will wash this. I don’t disagree. 
 

But, with that implication comes a certain degree of implication of blame on the driver otherwise there would be no need for money to have any impact in the outcome. 

I disagree with you on money not being a core factor in determining punishment, this is based upon historical precedent. I wish I was wrong but it is what has happened.

 

As to implications, I made none on fault

Read again…  I don’t disagree (that money will wash this) - I.e. money is the core factor. 

 

This idea that money is the core factor and washes away fault, the distrust in the system that money is more powerful than the law means there is an an assumption of blame / fault because money interferes with the facts as they are reported or investigated.  
 

You may not have proportioned blame to the wealthy driver, but many have because of the assumption that this will be washed due to his wealth. The wealth and fault are intertwined because of historical precedent you point out. 

 

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This idea that money is the core factor and washes away fault, the distrust in the system that money is more powerful than the law means there is an an assumption of blame / fault because money interferes with the facts as they are reported or investigated.  

I do agree that there is a general distrust in the system when it comes to prosecuting the wealthy, but that is based upon historical precedent. However I reiterate I have not apportioned or implied fault to anyone in my posts.

 

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You may not have proportioned blame to the wealthy driver, but many have because of the assumption that this will be washed due to his wealth.

What others have done is none of my concern.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Bluespunk

[ThailandRyan]

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The helmet question is valid point…. 
 

Some say not wearing a helmet is no one else’s issue, the law breaking is victimless. But its not.

 

If a motorbike rider suddenly swerves in front of us and clips us, falls and smacks his head and dies, is it our fault if he died because he wasn’t wearing a helmet. Especially when wearing a helmet would have resulted in nothing more than bruising etc….  
 

The point is, in the example above, the severity of the outcome was impacted by the riders choice not to protect themselves. Should that impact the severity of a charge? 

 

 

No it should not impact the severity of the charge.  The precipitating accident is what caused the death, not the fact if he was or was not wearing a helmet.  Helmets in Thailand as we have discussed as well as the rest of the world have little life saving capabilities, unless your wearing a neck brace, a Hans device, and have full riding gear in order to minimize impact like a MC racer on a closed course does.

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

No it should not impact the severity of the charge.  The precipitating accident is what caused the death, not the fact if he was or was not wearing a helmet.  Helmets in Thailand as we have discussed as well as the rest of the world have little life saving capabilities, unless your wearing a neck brace, a Hans device, and have full riding gear in order to minimize impact like a MC racer on a closed course does.

I completely disagree… 

 

If my wife (or anyone else) noses out of soi to turn left, a motorcyclist without a helmet is not paying attention, other traffic stops, the motorcyclist doesn’t and ends up clipping the car, hits the road, they are wearing a helmet, they are ok, just bruised up. Or, IF they were not wearing a helmet they suffer head trauma and die….. their choice to break the law No not wear a helmet impacts the outcome. 
The severity of the outcome is also the fault of the motorcyclist and this consideration ‘should’ be given.

[richard_smith237]

14 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Helmets in Thailand as we have discussed as well as the rest of the world have little life saving capabilities,

Helmets are useless ??… we disagree… unless you mean the crappy plastic ones.
 

A decent helmet is a major life saver… it’s obviously not going to do much at 150kmh, but in a regular fender bender it’s the difference between brushing and road rash and severe head injury and death. 

[Bangkok Barry]

37 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reinstated.

Which is why I deleted the comment.

[ThailandRyan]

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I completely disagree… 

 

If my wife (or anyone else) noses out of soi to turn left, a motorcyclist without a helmet is not paying attention, other traffic stops, the motorcyclist doesn’t and ends up clipping the car, hits the road, they are wearing a helmet, they are ok, just bruised up. Or, IF they were not wearing a helmet they suffer head trauma and die….. their choice to break the law No not wear a helmet impacts the outcome. 
The severity of the outcome is also the fault of the motorcyclist and this consideration ‘should’ be given.

The scenario you describe is completely different as the motorcyclist in your scenario is at fault for the collision.  The deceased in this case was no at fault as the Porsche driver hit him after making an unsafe lane change.

[RemyDog]

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

What's this i read? police are seriously charging a VIP, well connected high profile person? something is wrong there, wires cost crossed somewhere?...

There has been a mis-understanding,  .....my pen rai

[Liverpool Lou]

16 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

53 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Reinstated.

Which is why I deleted the comment.

Not before responses could be made to it, though, it was there when I commented.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I completely disagree… 

 

If my wife (or anyone else) noses out of soi to turn left, a motorcyclist without a helmet is not paying attention, other traffic stops, the motorcyclist doesn’t and ends up clipping the car, hits the road, they are wearing a helmet, they are ok, just bruised up. Or, IF they were not wearing a helmet they suffer head trauma and die….. their choice to break the law No not wear a helmet impacts the outcome. 
The severity of the outcome is also the fault of the motorcyclist and this consideration ‘should’ be given.

Expand  

The scenario you describe is completely different as the motorcyclist in your scenario is at fault for the collision.  The deceased in this case was no at fault as the Porsche driver hit him after making an unsafe lane change.

While my scenario is hypothetical it serves to highlight that ‘not wearing a helmet’ impacts the severity of the outcome in when a motorcyclist is involved in an accident.

You also pointed out that wearing of additional protective gear (Jacket / Pants, pack protector, neck brace etc) also impacts the severity of injuries. when a motorcyclist is involved in an accident.

 

The difference is the wearing a of a helmet is law. 

I am not sure if there is a law regarding ‘wearing of certified helmets’ in Thailand, if there is, this one is also widely broken. 

 

The head injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents are significantly limited when the motorcyclist is wearing a helmet. 

 

 

In this case, the severity of the outcome may also be impacted by the deceased not wearing a helmet. 

In this case, the motorcyclists may have simply landed on the bonnet (hood) of the Porsche and suffered bruising and not a fatal head injury. 

 

 

 

Did the Porsche driver make a lane change and ride straight into the motorcyclist ?

Or did he make a lane change to avoid him but still hit him ? - this is not entirely clear.

 

Again - more reasons to have a dash-cam.

 

My argument is that the motorcyclist may be alive and relatively uninjured if he was wearing a helmet - that obviously needs further investigation. IF it can be highlighted that he [the motorcyclist] would likely have suffered minor injuries (i.e. if the cause of death is brain trauma due to impact, i.e. due to not wearing a helmet) then the motorcyclist is complicit in his own death for not wearing helmet.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bangkok Barry]

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not before responses could be made to it, though, it was there when I commented.

Within five minutes. Thank you for your attention.

[Ralf001]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The same applies to you.

 

"That windscreen is 3 to 4mm thick.

That kind of damage could also occur a relatively low speed given the size and weigh of a grown man that impacted it".

 

 

Ive smashed a lot of windscreens in my life (on purpose) I know how much force is needed to badly damage one.