Kiwi brothers deny all charges, their parents speak out - Tim Newton Today - March 19

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, jvs said:

Just maybe you are right.

How often has any Thai police officer shot a tourist at a traffic stop?

I have lived here for a while now and have never heard of it.

Rich guys worried over a 500 baht fine?

More like arrogant and very stupid"Daddy will always be here to bail you out"

And yes just maybe they did not realize they needed to stop but they were chased down and stopped that way.

Maybe the police officer was worried about his safety and drew his gun?Did he?

Or did the two brothers decide to try and take it from him?

In any case these two guys are not very smart.

 

Yup... agree with all of this...

 

And there is plenty of precedent of both the Police and Military guys drawing and using their service weapons in heated situations, not specifically at foreigners in traffic stops, but still plenty of reports, stories, news articles etc.

 

That's certainly enough for me to understand that pi$s off a police officer enough and this is a possible reaction !!!... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jvs]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yup... agree with all of this...

 

And there is plenty of precedent of both the Police and Military guys drawing and using their service weapons in heated situations, not specifically at foreigners in traffic stops, but still plenty of reports, stories, news articles etc.

 

That's certainly enough for me to understand that pi$s off a police officer enough and this is a possible reaction !!!... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case

(i watched the video) i saw no police man trying to shoot any one.

What i saw was one of the guys grabbing the gun from the holster and handing it to his brother.

The police man did not draw it and try to shoot the brothers.

This tells me the boys attacked him and were not in fear of their lives.

If so, why did only one of them attack?

Why not both?

Maybe by the time the one guy was handed the gun it started to dawn on him that something

was not going to work out for them.

There where witnesses there and they can and will tell what really happened.

Just as a few incidents happened with foreigners in the last few weeks ,it does not mean all

foreigners are bad.

Just as you can not call all policemen bad.

 

[Taboo2]

So, if these two "kids" are not guilty, then why try to bribe their way out of the issue?  Why fight a cop when refusing to stop?  We all know cops get angry when you ignore them.  It is a sign of disrespect, and in the Sates, you will get beat up seriously, just to teach you a lesson.

 

These punks should go to the toughest Thailand prison and prove that they can fight real Thais, not a cop, but real Thai Gangsters who are highly trained and like to fight.

 

Enjoy your stay boys.

[cdemundo]

2 hours ago, tgw said:

 

The short video shows two men restraining a cop and wringing his weapon from him without hitting him.

To me it looks like they wanted the weapon to be out of the cop's reach until his colleagues arrived.

But it's a short video and I might be wrong.

 

But so far we only heard the cop's version of events.

 

And yes, there is no assault in a self-defense situation.

 

 

 

"restraining a cop and wringing his weapon from him"

 

[richard_smith237]

41 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

3 hours ago, tgw said:

 

The short video shows two men restraining a cop and wringing his weapon from him without hitting him.

To me it looks like they wanted the weapon to be out of the cop's reach until his colleagues arrived.

But it's a short video and I might be wrong.

 

But so far we only heard the cop's version of events.

 

And yes, there is no assault in a self-defense situation.

 

 

 

"restraining a cop and wringing his weapon from him"

 

 

Terminology from two extremes could be used here..

 

- Subdued the police officer and made the gun safe. 

- Attacked the police officer and stole his gun.

 

Both describe the same event, but tell a different story with linguistic bias. 

 

In the video, I don't see the NZ guys attacking the police officer, I see them subduing him...   So I wonder what were the immediate events  in the seconds and minutes which led to this behavior ?

... .. what led to a foreigner to believe it was necessary to overpower a police officer and prevent him from using his gun ?

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, jvs said:

In this case

(i watched the video) i saw no police man trying to shoot any one.

 

You saw a video of the whole event ?

 

The video I have seen only starts at the point the NZ Guy and Policeman are grappling for the gun.

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

What i saw was one of the guys grabbing the gun from the holster and handing it to his brother.

 

You saw the NZ Guy take the gun out of the Policmans holster ???

 

Pls send a link to that video... as the video I have seen only shows the NZ Guy and Policeman are grappling for the gun which is in the Police officers hand (with the NZ guy's hand also on the gun).

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

The police man did not draw it and try to shoot the brothers.

 

Someone 'drew the gun' because its not in the holster... and you did not see the NZ guy removing from the Policemans hoster becasue the vide does not show that.

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

This tells me the boys attacked him and were not in fear of their lives.

 

This tells me you are looking a different video or seeing different things in the same video. 

 

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

If so, why did only one of them attack?

Why not both?

 

Possibly because they weren't attacking him, one was successfully subduing him and that was enough. 

 

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

Maybe by the time the one guy was handed the gun it started to dawn on him that something

was not going to work out for them.

 

Quite possible... or their only goal was to remove immediate threat to life. After that the back up police with cooler heads were able to take control. 

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

There where witnesses there and they can and will tell what really happened.

 

Witness statements are notoriously unreliable... But, I agree...  the can tell if the Policemen drew on the NZ Guys and they reacted... OR, if the Policeman was calm and the NZ kicked off without provocation.

 

 

2 hours ago, jvs said:

Just as a few incidents happened with foreigners in the last few weeks ,it does not mean all

foreigners are bad.

Just as you can not call all policemen bad.

 

Absolutely agree...   In this example, the NZ Guys were clearly in the wrong...    but I don't think the issue is as black and white as some are making out... I suspect more to the story and the NZ Guys (certainly one of them) thought he was going to get shot.....   Was he on drugs and went nuts ?... or was he correct and has saved his own life with is actions many of us are condemning ?... or something in between ?

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by richard_smith237

[kwilco]

The governor is making comments assuming they are guilty.... this is before they have been to court.

[lordgrinz]

These guys are toast, with the video and witnesses, and their lack of remorse for their actions, they aren't going anywhere for a long while. The one brother might be able to escape some of the charges, based on the fact he isn't the aggressor, but the other brother is on video attacking a uniformed officer. This isn't just going to go away, they are going to make an example of these two knuckleheads.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

These guys are toast, with the video and witnesses, and their lack of remorse for their actions, they aren't going anywhere for a long while. The one brother might be able to escape some of the charges, based on the fact he isn't the aggressor, but the other brother is on video attacking a uniformed officer. This isn't just going to go away, they are going to make an example of these two knuckleheads.

 

What lack of remorse ??... have they made a public statement ?

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What lack of remorse ??... have they made a public statement ?

 

The tail wagging the dog. A lack of a public statement of contrition is generally held to be a lack of remorse.

[lordgrinz]

37 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Absolutely agree...   In this example, the NZ Guys were clearly in the wrong...    but I don't think the issue is as black and white as some are making out... I suspect more to the story and the NZ Guys (certainly one of them) thought he was going to get shot.....   Was he on drugs and went nuts ?... or was he correct and has saved his own life with is actions many of us are condemning ?... or something in between ?

 

If he was worried about getting shot, why would his brother just stand in the background watching him?! 

[Martin71]

5 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

If he was worried about getting shot, why would his brother just stand in the background watching him?! 

 

Fair point...well put

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What lack of remorse ??... have they made a public statement ?

 

The tail wagging the dog. A lack of a public statement of contrition is generally held to be a lack of remorse.

 

Is it ???... I mean, is a lack of a public statement generally considered as a lack of remorse ?

 

I was not aware of that but can see the logic some may apply the the implication of a lack of public statement. 

 

 

In this case, have the two NZ men been given the option to make a public statement ?

 

Or, has their lawyer told them to remain silent ? (is that not the most common legal advice ?)

 

Or, perhaps they have no remorse, they are happy the Policeman didn't kill them and they made the right decision to subdue him and make safe his gun.

 

Or, perhaps they are being quiet because there are negotiations in place and a public statement of misunderstanding, apology, grovelling etc is forthcoming.

 

 

 

 

[Dolf]

58 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The governor is making comments assuming they are guilty.... this is before they have been to court.

Video proves they assaulted an officer. Plus no licence, plus running from a police check point.

 

 

[Dolf]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Is it ???... I mean, is a lack of a public statement generally considered as a lack of remorse ?

 

I was not aware of that but can see the logic some may apply the the implication of a lack of public statement. 

 

 

In this case, have the two NZ men been given the option to make a public statement ?

 

Or, has their lawyer told them to remain silent ? (is that not the most common legal advice ?)

 

Or, perhaps they have no remorse, they are happy the Policeman didn't kill them and they made the right decision to subdue him and make safe his gun.

 

Or, perhaps they are being quiet because there are negotiations in place and a public statement of misunderstanding, apology, grovelling etc is forthcoming.

 

 

 

 

Why would the cop kill them? 

[ozimoron]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

Is it ???... I mean, is a lack of a public statement generally considered as a lack of remorse ?

 

I was not aware of that but can see the logic some may apply the the implication of a lack of public statement. 

 

 

In this case, have the two NZ men been given the option to make a public statement ?

 

Or, has their lawyer told them to remain silent ? (is that not the most common legal advice ?)

 

Or, perhaps they have no remorse, they are happy the Policeman didn't kill them and they made the right decision to subdue him and make safe his gun.

 

Or, perhaps they are being quiet because there are negotiations in place and a public statement of misunderstanding, apology, grovelling etc is forthcoming.

 

OK, lets resort to some logic. If you wanted to express remorse, would you say so or shut up and hope people would give you the benefit of the doubt based on a lack of a statement expressing no remorse?

[richard_smith237]

19 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Absolutely agree...   In this example, the NZ Guys were clearly in the wrong...    but I don't think the issue is as black and white as some are making out... I suspect more to the story and the NZ Guys (certainly one of them) thought he was going to get shot.....   Was he on drugs and went nuts ?... or was he correct and has saved his own life with is actions many of us are condemning ?... or something in between ?

 

If he was worried about getting shot, why would his brother just stand in the background watching him?! 

 

 

Valid point...      one brother more dominant than the other ???   and it was he who reacted to subdue the police officer....  

 

Is it not also a valid point to suggest that if the brothers wanted to attack the police officer, why would the other just stand in the background watching him and not get involved ?

 

 

Or... perhaps one brother is nutcase and once caught...  something flipped and he attacked, whereas the other just stood there not sure what to do. 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Video proves they assaulted an officer. Plus no licence, plus running from a police check point.

 

The video proves (or rather shows) there was a fight for control of the gun...      

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Why would the cop kill them? 

 

Rage.....     

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Is it ???... I mean, is a lack of a public statement generally considered as a lack of remorse ?

 

I was not aware of that but can see the logic some may apply the the implication of a lack of public statement. 

 

 

In this case, have the two NZ men been given the option to make a public statement ?

 

Or, has their lawyer told them to remain silent ? (is that not the most common legal advice ?)

 

Or, perhaps they have no remorse, they are happy the Policeman didn't kill them and they made the right decision to subdue him and make safe his gun.

 

Or, perhaps they are being quiet because there are negotiations in place and a public statement of misunderstanding, apology, grovelling etc is forthcoming.

Expand  

 

OK, lets resort to some logic. If you wanted to express remorse, would you say so or shut up and hope people would give you the benefit of the doubt based on a lack of a statement expressing no remorse?

 

I'd remain 100% silent and act upon the advice of a trusted legal representative. 

 

Thats my logic anyway....  

 

 

[Dolf]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

The video proves (or rather shows) there was a fight for control of the gun...      

 

 

 

Rage.....     

 

The cop owns the gun. Rage? No evidence of that.

 

Why didnt they stop at the checkpoint?

[Dolf]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'd remain 100% silent and act upon the advice of a trusted legal representative. 

 

Thats my logic anyway....  

 

 

Better to stay 100% silent at checkpoints. Normally you get waved thru.

[lordgrinz]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Or... perhaps one brother is nutcase and once caught...  something flipped and he attacked, whereas the other just stood there not sure what to do. 

 

I would suggest this is the most logical scenario, most people would act like the less dominant brother did here. The brother who attacked the officer is not going free, he has almost no defense here, the other brother would be best served with begging for forgiveness and apologizing profusely, at least he has a chance of getting off on some of the charges.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'd remain 100% silent and act upon the advice of a trusted legal representative. 

 

Thats my logic anyway.... 

 

Which sane lawyer would not advise you to express remorse when you are caught dead to rights? A guilty plea and expression of remorse are highly valued in Thai society.

 

as an aside, if hypothetically, a police officer had to engage in a hot pursuit, what are the chances that he would not approach you with a gun drawn? I'm going with zero, absent the cop knowing the perp and his history in a small town.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Dolf said:

The cop owns the gun. Rage? No evidence of that.

 

Why didnt they stop at the checkpoint?

 

Numerous threads concurrently running with similar discussions... 

 

Here are my thoughts on how this situation could have sprialled in the manner it did (pure speculation of course).

 

- 2x NZ Guys pass through a Police check point

- Policeman indicates to stop

a) NZ guys didn't notice and continue

b) NZ guys burn through as they know they have no license

 

- Policeman gives chase and catches up
- Policeman draws gun and attempts to shoot at the tyres of the NZ guys bike (seen this is Thai police videos enough times)

- NZ think the Policeman is shooting AT them.

- NZ Guys stop, once of them subdues policeman and takes the gun, gives it to brother

- NZ Guys wait for more police to arrive realising how out of hand the situation just became

 

 

 

Equally so... here's another possibility....

 

- 2x NZ Guys pass through a Police check point

- Policeman indicates to stop

- NZ guys burn through as they know they have no license

- Policeman gives chase and catches up
- This makes the NZ Guys angry and they attack the police officer and take the gun

- Other police catch up and they have to surrender

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Better to stay 100% silent at checkpoints. Normally you get waved thru.

 

Thats my SoP (in Bangkok and anywhere else)....    never bothered at Check-points... Although Phuket BiB have a different reputation for ripping off foreigners.

 

 

That said - on previous threads (on this forum), plenty of posters have boasted of how they 'burn through' check-points because they don't want to pay the bribes etc for fake charges usually levied at them.... 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'd remain 100% silent and act upon the advice of a trusted legal representative. 

 

Thats my logic anyway.... 

 

Which sane lawyer would not advise you to express remorse when you are caught dead to rights? A guilty plea and expression of remorse are highly valued in Thai society.

 

One who knows you have not been caught bang to rights because the only evidence is a very sketchy video showing a small part of the altercation / issue. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

as an aside, if hypothetically, a police officer had to engage in a hot pursuit, what are the chances that he would not approach you with a gun drawn? I'm going with zero, absent the cop knowing the perp and his history in a small town.

 

I get your point - If the NZ guys knew they were being chased, they could expect that a gun is pulled on them. 

 

Did they know they were being chased ???  Or did they suddenly have a angry police officer pull up next to them pointing a gun ???

Speculation again - but when discussing all possibilities of what could have happened.......  

 

[tgw]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

The governor is making comments assuming they are guilty.... this is before they have been to court.

 

Par for the course in Thailand.

Same in the case of the Swiss scumbag who allegedly kicked a doctor, officials were bending backwards to interfere in the judicial process and peddle influence.

[Dolf]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

One who knows you have not been caught bang to rights because the only evidence is a very sketchy video showing a small part of the altercation / issue. 

 

 

 

I get your point - If the NZ guys knew they were being chased, they could expect that a gun is pulled on them. 

 

Did they know they were being chased ???  Or did they suddenly have a angry police officer pull up next to them pointing a gun ???

Speculation again - but when discussing all possibilities of what could have happened.......  

 

If an officer pulls a gun on me Im not fighting. Im complying. People who fight normally get shot.

[tgw]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Which sane lawyer would not advise you to express remorse when you are caught dead to rights? A guilty plea and expression of remorse are highly valued in Thai society.

 

as an aside, if hypothetically, a police officer had to engage in a hot pursuit, what are the chances that he would not approach you with a gun drawn? I'm going with zero, absent the cop knowing the perp and his history in a small town.

 

Details and circumstances are very important in such matters.

Gun drawn after a hot pursuit ? In general yes, gun pointed towards the ground or towards the sky.

 

after a hot pursuit of two t-shirt and shorts wearing tourists on scooters with little room to conceal weapons and ample police support around ? less so. and even less reason to point a gun at them.

 

shooting the tires as suggested by another poster would be totally inappropriate, as two guys fleeing on scooters pose no threat, but attempting to shoot their tires would put other people at risk.

 

but ... if I was driving a scooter and a cop pulled up beside me and shot in the air and then pointed his gun on me, I'd stop.

but that apparently wasn't what happened.

 

the story says the cop pursued and stopped them, then started filming them, and then somehow the situation escalated into disarming the cop. how ? that is the question on whihb the case hinges.

 

[tgw]

5 minutes ago, Dolf said:

If an officer pulls a gun on me Im not fighting. Im complying. People who fight normally get shot.

 

there must be more to this story that we don't know yet.