Man who stole weed from neighbor dies after attack - initially police won't prosecute saying owner had right to defend property

[ToolKit]

9 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Not sure how the homeowner can be responsible for the 'thief' not seeking medical attention

>>> He couldn't walk and stopped eating.

he was badly bruised, the hospital should have not discharged him for one.

 

[metisdead]

An off topic post about shoplifting in San Francisco has been removed.

[KhunLA]

5 minutes ago, ToolKit said:

>>> He couldn't walk and stopped eating.

he was badly bruised, the hospital should have not discharged him for one.

 

If he couldn't walk, how'd he leave the hospital ?  

 

They can't keep him against his will.  I checked myself out end of October, after 1 night, as they wanted to keep me over the weekend till the doc was available to check on me, before discharging.

 

No thanks, I'll come for the follow up Monday, and the doc didn't even come in the day of my appointment ????

 

Took the guy how long to die, and who's to say he didn't injure himself more, afterwards.   Police made the right call.

[The Theory]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

He had smoked weed since he was a youth.

Justifies brother action ???? or she meant that her brother always used free weed since he was a youth. ????????????

[NoshowJones]

9 hours ago, mikebell said:

Or the vicious homeowner has 'friends' in high places.  How can anyone be allowed to beat someone up & not face prosecution!  Banana Republic.

He should not face prosecution, he should have a right to defend his own property, how did he know the intruder would not pull a knife, or even a gun? The intruder got what he deserved, unless there is something else that was not reported.

Back in the UK I always had a pick axe handle next to my front door, and would have used it if I felt threatened by any stranger on my property.

[NoshowJones]

10 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

What? Of course, there is a case and a reason to prosecute him. Are you living by the law book of Rwanda? Here we have a person that has been attacked and tries to crawl away. Then the owner of the property could have chosen to hold him and call police. Instead, he chose to kick the person until badly hurt. That is excessive force, that was not needed and can´t be called self-defense nor protection of his own property.

What you´re asking here is why they should prosecute him? Look at it this way, if I am in my own home eating french fries, and a person walks by stealing one of my french fries. Do I have the right to cause him bodily harm, that will later be the cause of his death?

I can't believe I am reading this.

[DavisH]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

You missed the whole point, i.e. if they guy was on our property, he would have received more than a beating, he would be dead, suffice to say, how hard would it be to say that he tried to rape my wife and she feared for her life, end of story, next !

 

 

You can't just kill someone in Thailand that enters (unarmed), into your property. There is no "srand your ground" law here. This is the law. Deadly force could be used if the intruder was armed with a gun. 

[Bogbrush]

Firstly, it depends upon the law of the country where the crime was committed as to (1) what exact offence took place and (2) what rights in law a victim has to defend himself against that offence.  Whilst this can hugely vary (look at the wildly different legislation in US states) the rule of thumb is (1) the response has to be proportional to the threat - ‘knife to a gun fight’ scenario - and (2) response is only justified to prevent the commission of the crime, not after the event i.e. when the suspect is fleeing. This of course leads to the grey area as to how much if any force can be used to apprehend the suspect.

Having served as a police officer in three countries, I can assure you it’s never cut and dried and so often the victim ends up as the accused…

[jvs]

2 hours ago, bangon04 said:

so if a drunk or addict forces his way into your home - you would feel obliged to watch him beat your son to death and rape your daughter while you wait for the police to arrive?

What a dumb response.

[geisha]

Well, I think a lot of you have very violent natures. How anyone can think that a thief deserves to die , that it’s his own  fault for dying , is beyond any decency  and any understanding.  ( apparently he was an addict and had mental problems), I’ve been robbed in Europe at home, attacked in Thailand , I’d never wish anyone dead. The cannabis owner obviously had «  friends », and could have restrained the man without kicking him until the police came. 

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Tragic to read what you post. There is a perfect solution here, that you seem to have missed totally. The guy was already attacked and brought to the ground. He was trying to crawl away. The property owner could have held him and called the police to remove and charge him. Instead, he made the choice to kick a man already laying on the ground. You don´t need to talk about getting away scott free. The point is that the owner had already diffused the situation before he caused grivious bodily harm on a person seemingly unable to defend himself. So, he used violence, when there was no need for it.

That he attacked him from start is not anything wrong with, as that is defending his own property. However, adding extra violence that can be tracked down as a reason for a person´s death can never be right.

I don't agree, the previous poster JonnyF has it spot on, you cannot intrude on other peoples property, if you let him get away, he could turn round, pull a gun and shoot you. You cannot say that could not happen.

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

You have been awarded! First price, a precious gold medal goes to JonnyF for professional victim blaming.

Nonsense.

[bangon04]

15 minutes ago, jvs said:

What a dumb response.

yes it would be......

[Gandtee]

10 hours ago, mikebell said:

Or the vicious homeowner has 'friends' in high places.  How can anyone be allowed to beat someone up & not face prosecution!  Banana Republic.

You don't beat him up. Once he is subdued you call the police to have him charged. 

[Bangkok Barry]

11 hours ago, Artisi said:

Why should they prosecute him? 

Because he used unreasonable force, perhaps. Beating someone so badly that they later die is way over the top. But then, Thais rarely do anything in moderation, especially when it comes to violence. Kicking someone in the head when they're down and helpless is simply caveman savagery, but very common in the Land of Smiles.

[Gottfrid]

2 hours ago, firemans35 said:

Damn right you do! He shouldn't be in your home!

Says a person that think it´s alright to take the law in his own hands. Congratulation! You are one of the people on planet earth that stands positive to anarchy. Because that´s what you have when people start to act like you post.

[Gottfrid]

3 hours ago, bangon04 said:

You do know that even one punch CAN sometimes result in death, right?

I assume you are standing in line for the gold medal in victim blaming. You have to sort that out with Jonny

[Gottfrid]

28 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Nonsense.

Yeah it is. You are right. I made it up. Now punish me, please.

[Gottfrid]

35 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

I don't agree, the previous poster JonnyF has it spot on, you cannot intrude on other peoples property, if you let him get away, he could turn round, pull a gun and shoot you. You cannot say that could not happen.

What? Just because you do not know what might happen, you have the right to kill a person? You are American, right? Don´t answer. It was rhetorical.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Gottfrid

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

I can't believe I am reading this.

The words from a violent mind, who thinks he have the right to take the law in his hands and decide between life and death, just because a person made a break-in.

 

[Billy Bloggs]

11 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

What? Of course, there is a case and a reason to prosecute him. Are you living by the law book of Rwanda? Here we have a person that has been attacked and tries to crawl away. Then the owner of the property could have chosen to hold him and call police. Instead, he chose to kick the person until badly hurt. That is excessive force, that was not needed and can´t be called self-defense nor protection of his own property.

What you´re asking here is why they should prosecute him? Look at it this way, if I am in my own home eating french fries, and a person walks by stealing one of my french fries. Do I have the right to cause him bodily harm, that will later be the cause of his death?

AND if the thief had stayed in hospital he probably would not have died.

[steven100]

6 hours ago, Nsp64 said:

Police threatened the homeowner with a month in jail but reduced it to a 500 baht fine . Now why doi you think they did that?

Now they are warning the relatives of the thief to leave it alone .

The whole thing stinks of bribery .

of course it does ....  TIT ...  money changed hands,  no question about that  !!

[Russell17au]

There are several things with this story that a lot of ASEAN Now lawyers do not understand and are ignoring what happened. Firstly this man was an intruder and he was assaulted by the property owner. HE WAS NOT KILLED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. He left the property alive under his own power and 2 weeks later he went to hospital and he REFUSED the medical treatment and he decided to leave the hospital. After this he died. What happened between the time of the assault and his death? Nobody knows and nobody has made any statement to this at this time. Where was his loving family in the 2 weeks between the assault and him refusing treatment at the hospital? Why didn't his loving family make sure he had the treatment that would have saved his life? Anything could have happened to this man in the 2 weeks between the assault and his death that could have saved his life or even sped up his death. The only thing that any court in any country could find would be assault by the property owner and give him a fine because of the time from the assault to his death he could have done various other crimes and nobody knows about them. Plus the refusing by him of the medical treatment which contributed to his death

[jak2002003]

10 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I have to disagree with you, as I believe the blame lay solely on the intruder, I mean you know that you wouldn't risk going onto a neighbours property at night or any other property for that matter.

 

It's called trespassing and the intruder was out to steal, regardless if it was ganja, his intention was clear, a good beating should have made him learn a lesson, in my days, the cops would do it.

 

The fact that he refused medical treatment when it was to be administered, shows to me that he is incapable of accepting things for what they are and has a problem mentally.

 

He is lucky my wife didn't catch him in our yard as she wields a manchette pretty well and won't think twice about using it.

 

As for the relatives, well to me, it shows that they are only after money as they can't see past their own noses, the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunately got a beating which medical treatment could have sorted, however he refused it, so there is no manslaughter case to be answered and no compensation to be made in my opinion.

 

Everyone has a right to defend their property and this sends a clear message and is within his rights in my opinion.

With your logic I would be able to do anything I wanted to someone that I found on my property? 

 

I could keep them chained up and torture them to death over several months... Because they didn't have my permission to be on my land?. 

 

Dumb 

 

[jak2002003]

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

IMHO ... in the end, things worked out as they should.

Karma's a bitch sometimes 

So you think the penalty for a person trying to pinch a few plants / vegetables is for them to be beaten up so bad that they slowly die over seversl days? 

 

Maybe you should go and live in some strict Muslim country. 

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, bangon04 said:

so if a drunk or addict forces his way into your home - you would feel obliged to watch him beat your son to death and rape your daughter while you wait for the police to arrive?

Was the thief on the op doing any of that stuff? 

[Gottfrid]

23 minutes ago, Billy Bloggs said:

AND if the thief had stayed in hospital he probably would not have died.

Number 3 in line to compete with JonnyF, for the precious medal. After all is over you can sit together and imitate Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Oh, My Precious!

Edited December 7, 2022 by Gottfrid

[Zack61]

A taste of things to come me thinks. With every Tom Dick and Harry growing weed there is a lot of potential this will become a regular occurrence. An unfortunate consequence of the liberalisation of the cannabis laws. 
Careful where you stray.  

[crazykopite]

Your home is your castle everybody has a right to defend there property and those who live there . I would of done the same had someone had entered my property to steal and possibly injure members of my family

[Zack61]

4 hours ago, bangon04 said:

so if a drunk or addict forces his way into your home - you would feel obliged to watch him beat your son to death and rape your daughter while you wait for the police to arrive?

Not sure he did any of this unless I’ve not properly read the story.