36 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He didn't impede an ambulance. He allegedly cut in front of an ambulance on a non-urgent drive, and gave the finger to the driver of the ambulance. 

 

We don't know the Swiss guy's side of the story either. 

 

Can we please stop with the lies and exaggerations, please?

 

Bull**t! Cutting in front of ANYBODY is "impeding" them:- From the Oxford Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

 

 

 

 

im·pede

/imˈpēd/

verb

gerund or present participle: impeding

1. delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.

    

   "We don't know the Swiss guy's side of the story either."

    

   Then why did I see a picture of him giving a bouquet of flowers to the ambulance driver by means of apology? 

    

   "Can we please stop with the lies and exaggerations, please?" 

    

   I think you might want to rethink that one!!!

    

    

56 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

If he is a danger, why did the local authorities give him licences for the firearms?

 

No proper background checks? Corruption? 🤔

 

"He said that the Swiss national, whose visa was revoked yesterday, will face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

 

I presume that "illegal possession" means that he DIDN'T have a licence? 

From Wikipedia:-

 

"The Thai laws applicable to firearms regulation are the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (1947)[4][5] and Amendments to the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (2017).[6]

Gun ownership in Thailand is restricted to Thai citizens

 

Unless he is a Thai citizen, can we stop with the lies and exaggerations, please?

 

56 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Quite possibly in his wife's name.

 

I think I read that somewhere too, but I didn't want to post that to Mr MeeSeeks because I had no proof!

59 minutes ago, transam said:

He has yet to go to trial over the assault, but he has admitted the offence, so that is enough for immigration.

If immigration had a problem with you or me, we are toast.........🤗

 

He hasn't admitted the offence, he is saying he slipped.

 

He has been forced to publicly apologise though, maybe you are confusing that for an admission of guilt?

On 3/8/2024 at 5:43 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

You advocate putting the victim in jail too... what drugs are you taking that have destroyed your mind to this point?

Kicking a woman for no reason is not punishable by law with a time in the BKK Hilton?  By the way just having a drink not any other drugs.

30 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

"He said that the Swiss national, whose visa was revoked yesterday, will face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

 

I presume that "illegal possession" means that he DIDN'T have a licence? 

From Wikipedia:-

 

"The Thai laws applicable to firearms regulation are the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (1947)[4][5] and Amendments to the Act Controlling Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation of Firearms, B.E. 2490 (2017).[6]

Gun ownership in Thailand is restricted to Thai citizens

 

Unless he is a Thai citizen, can we stop with the lies and exaggerations, please?

 

 

He had licences for both handguns according to earlier reports.

44 minutes ago, sambum said:

Then why did I see a picture of him giving a bouquet of flowers to the ambulance driver by means of apology? 

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

1 hour ago, roo860 said:

Quite possibly in his wife's name.

 

If that was the case, how could they charge him with illegal possession, given that they legally belong to his wife?

6 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He hasn't admitted the offence, he is saying he slipped.

 

He has been forced to publicly apologise though, maybe you are confusing that for an admission of guilt?

He has admitted the offence, we have all seen the video of the offence.

 

The guy has a Mr. Angry problem, stop making excuses for the bloke....🙄

 

Let the searches do their thing, don't stick your neck out just yet.......😉

5 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

Are you his dad............?  😂

2 minutes ago, transam said:

He has admitted the offence, we have all seen the video of the offence.

 

The guy has a Mr. Angry problem, stop making excuses for the bloke....🙄

 

Let the searches do their thing, don't stick your neck out just yet.......😉

 

I am not making excuses for him, but they are punishing him before he has stood trial, which is arbitrary and unacceptable.

31 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

I am not making excuses for him, 

You do nothing else than making excuses in all your posts.

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

You do nothing else than making excuses in all your posts.

 

I'm stating the facts.

 

Not made any excuses for his behaviour. 

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

If that was the case, how could they charge him with illegal possession, given that they legally belong to his wife?

Transporting them to the range. Without his wife being with him.

1 hour ago, sambum said:

 

I think I read that somewhere too, but I didn't want to post that to Mr MeeSeeks because I had no proof!

He is a bit of a muppet. 

58 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

I am not making excuses for him, but they are punishing him before he has stood trial, which is arbitrary and unacceptable.

The Minister of Interior has stated the visa revocation is a completely  separate issue from the court case

The court case is brought under  Section 295. The penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding 40,000 baht, or both. if found guilty

https://www.thairath.co.th/news/local/south/2769136

 

Police Colonel Itthipol Itthisaranachai, Superintendent of Immigration Division 6,

The report highlighted the individual's behavior, indicating multiple incidents of misconduct, totaling 3-4 times, which adversely affected the peace and happiness of the people in the country, posing a threat to society.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=419778263900124

I would suspect that the Police have access to information that is not in the public domain 

Remember his visa was revoked under section 12 Immigration Act, B.E. 2522

7 Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

 

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

And we know the case was resolved by mutual agreement of all parties

Ambulance driver fined B1,000 for insulting Swiss guy fined B,1000 for insulting and B,4000 for reckless driving

https://www.khaophuket.com/จับปรับเดวิดคนดัง-มอบช่อดอกไม้ขอโทษคนขับรถพยาบาล-ตัดหน้าให้นิ้วกลางด่าทอบนถ-10883.php

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He hasn't admitted the offence, he is saying he slipped.

 

He has been forced to publicly apologise though, maybe you are confusing that for an admission of guilt?

When people slip, they invariably utter an instinctive sound or word- 'oh', 'aaah', etc. 

I'm not sure what sound Swiss people emit but I'm fairly sure it's not ' fluck off' repeated.

1 hour ago, roo860 said:

Transporting them to the range. Without his wife being with him.

 

It was reported that two licences for handguns were in his name.

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

The Minister of Interior has stated the visa revocation is a completely  separate issue from the court case

The court case is brought under  Section 295. The penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding 40,000 baht, or both. if found guilty

https://www.thairath.co.th/news/local/south/2769136

 

Police Colonel Itthipol Itthisaranachai, Superintendent of Immigration Division 6,

The report highlighted the individual's behavior, indicating multiple incidents of misconduct, totaling 3-4 times, which adversely affected the peace and happiness of the people in the country, posing a threat to society.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=saved&v=419778263900124

I would suspect that the Police have access to information that is not in the public domain 

Remember his visa was revoked under section 12 Immigration Act, B.E. 2522

7 Having behavior which would indicated possible danger to the public or likelihood of being a nuisance or constituting any violence to the peace or safety of the public or to the security of the public or to the security of the nation, or being under warrant of arrest by competent officials of foreign governments.

 

 

Not only his visa, they are taking his elephant sanctuary licence from him now too. 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

It was reported that two licences for handguns were in his name.

Link please.

11 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Not only his visa, they are taking his elephant sanctuary licence from him now too. 

 

 

 

Some media outlets are reporting that the elephant sanctuary licence will be revoked other media outlets such as BP are reporting that the elephant foundation created in 2021 its license will be revoked 

In this article it states

Authorities have already withdrawn the licenses for a pistol and rifle. Mr Fehr owned the pistol, while the Elephant Foundation owned the rifle.

https://www.chiangraitimes.com/news/elephant-sanctuary-in-phuket/

1 hour ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

Not only his visa, they are taking his elephant sanctuary licence from him now too. 

 

 

 

He only owns one elephant.

If David returns to his homeland, I suggest his charming wife goes to visit him overland on their one magnificent beast.

She could start a YouTube channel based on the legendary 'Hannibal Crosses the Alps' tale of yore.

14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He had licences for both handguns according to earlier reports.

Maybe the earlier reports had some kind of "difficulty in translation"? "Mistaken identity"?

 

If he did have licences, why is he being charged for not having licences? :- "......face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

On 3/9/2024 at 8:19 AM, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

You are only done with it because you don't like me stating the facts. 

 

 

OK, I'm back, challenge accepted.  No, it's because you're a total idiot who has a hard-on for the Swiss guy.  Each response you have done literally exactly what I said you did.  And you continue to do so.

 

How's that, smart@ss?

5 minutes ago, sambum said:

Maybe the earlier reports had some kind of "difficulty in translation"? "Mistaken identity"?

 

If he did have licences, why is he being charged for not having licences? :- "......face charges of illegal possession of firearms and carrying firearms in public."

Shhhh, don't try to confuse him.

12 hours ago, bannork said:

When people slip, they invariably utter an instinctive sound or word- 'oh', 'aaah', etc. 

I'm not sure what sound Swiss people emit but I'm fairly sure it's not ' fluck off' repeated.

MeeSeeks thinks that's what they say.

15 hours ago, transam said:

How do you know, plus his firearm licence will have a name on, let's not jump to conclusions, eh...😉

Jumping to conclusions -- and then defending those erroneous conclusions in the face of all logic and data -- is the only exercise MeeSeeks gets.  Let's not take that away from him.

14 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

 

He was forced to apologise. 

 

When the incident originally occurred, he refused to apologise, claimed the ambilance driver was at fault, and the ambulance driver was facing charges of defamation and for contravening the computer crimes act. 

 

Anyway, the ambulance was not on an urgent mission and there was no-one in danger of dying as you claimed earlier. 

 

He cut in front of another vehicle, and gave the driver the finger. That is all we know for sure.

If you are going to quote somebody at least have the decency to quote them correctly - I did not claim that "someone was in danger of dying" - what I said was:- "Yes, anybody who acts as he does is a threat to society - from kicking a woman in the back, to impeding an ambulance that may be a contributing factor in causing someone's death."

 

So he refused to apologise, then he did, he cut in front of an ambulance, thereby impeding it, but you claim he did not impede it?

 

Are you a friend/relative/legal representative of this guy? Because you certainly seem to be going out of your way to justify his despicable behaviour!  

5 minutes ago, sambum said:

If you are going to quote somebody at least have the decency to quote them correctly - I did not claim that "someone was in danger of dying" - what I said was:- "Yes, anybody who acts as he does is a threat to society - from kicking a woman in the back, to impeding an ambulance that may be a contributing factor in causing someone's death."

 

So he refused to apologise, then he did, he cut in front of an ambulance, thereby impeding it, but you claim he did not impede it?

 

Are you a friend/relative/legal representative of this guy? Because you certainly seem to be going out of your way to justify his despicable behaviour  

Guilty as charged on all accounts seems to be the prevailing opinion, followed by all sort of suggestions about the just punishment - from sending him to years in prison to transporting him back to Switzerland inside the wheel well.

Would it be too much to ask awaiting the outcome of the upcoming trial before rendering judgement?