Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[Claymore]

Andrew Drummond is currently on his telephone in Manila I understand so he he has moved from his alleged sedentary position.

Sabajai is happily quoting off duty cops willingly admit that Uthai was drunk on the night of question. No surprise here. Of course nobody is scared to talk in the bars and pubs. Its the major issue of the year for Pai people. The point is are Mr. Sabai Jai's cops going to give evidence in court. Dont think Sabaijai is going to put any money on this and that is the only place it counts at the end of the day. Sabaijai shd have taped the conversation. Drummond has not said people are running around quaking in fear. Might they be however if they listed themselves as prosecution witnesses against Uthai.

PS As Andrew Drummond has pointed out, there is no shortage of witnesses who will not go on record. Sabaijai can probably find endless numbers of them.

[BarryMan]

.....In this case, we have the astounding physical evidence of overwhelming, deadly force by an off-duty cop used on two unarmed, albeit, unruly members of the public.

Umm, no you do not. The bullet wounds and associated trajectory will provide a clear indication of the position from which the weapon was discharged. The report hasn't been made public. For all we know, it could have been execution style discharge or it migth have been a discharge consistent with the policeman's story.

Unruly people have a bad habit of getting violent. Have you ever been faced with an unruly drunk that is in a violent way? They are not easy to control and can easily become violent. One doesn't know if the subjects were drunk or under the influence of drugs that may have altered their behaviours because the blood and body fluids analyses have not been made public. The subjects might very well have been sober or they could have been juiced up on yaba. There is no public evidence either way.

If they did hit or push the cop, does this warrant deadly force -- twice? This alleged offense anywhere else should have gotten them arrested and deported, but not killed. Did Reisig's story shift - yes; Did the cop's story shift - yes; Do they both have bad character references - yes;

Unfortunately, if the police officer can demonstrate that his life was in danger, he can justify the use of deadly force. If the implicated injured and deceased parties have a history of violence (which must be established in fact and not from TV statements) then that provides evidence of a history of violence supporting the policeman's case.

Neither professionalism nor impartiality are traits commonly associated with the Thai police, or as it seems, many expats.

You are allowing your emotions to prejudice your view of the situation and are as guilty of the same faults as those that you accuse.

I have a strong feeling that the forensic evidence will make this an even more tragic event and will show events to be significantly different than what most people are assuming happened. I have my own assessment of events and the most likely explanation, but will remain quiet. However, folks may wish to go back and read the reports of the deceased's activities and wound positions again and think of their own experiences in bars when people have been drinking.

An excellent post. Thank you for being one of the few people on this forum willing to say that the case is not closed and that the truth has yet to be revealed. I wish reporters were so impartial.

I almost was going to forget about this forum after reading more than one comment from people who thought that the history of the woman in this town is not relevant to this incident. She has a history of getting drunk and starting trouble with the police. I ask again: how in hades is that not relevant when we're trying to establish how this incident started?

If the evidence bears out her version of how the shooting happened, then it is a relevant fact pertaining to how the incident was likely touched off, but certainly no justification whatsoever for the use of deadly force. If that were the case, then the cop could have made his point and sobered the pair up considerably by just discharging his weapon into the air... I can't see them doing anything but letting their feet do the talking if he did that.

But unfortunately that did not happen. Del Pinto, a nice person from all accounts, did not deserve this, and Reisig's actions in the past which point to her having likely provoked this incident, does not mean that she deserved to be shot. That the shootings were accidental is tough to swallow. The forensics will, as the poster above says, provide us with the truth. If it is that the cop discharged his weapon to end a physical altercation, then it would look like manslaughter to me.

Edited January 14, 2008 by BarryMan

[kat]

I think what is called for is an official press release from Lonely Planet guru Joe Cummings, spokesman and darling of teenage SE Asian backpackers.

I was almost killed following that advice, when I first arrived in SEA; a little learning is a dangerous thing, and so is selective learning.

[A_Traveller]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

[BarryMan]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

The manslaughter bit was a pure guess on my part. From her past actions, it is established that Reisig is a violent drunk. That establishes a pattern of behavior on her part which suggests that her incredible story of a cop walking up and slugging her for no reason is not true, and that she was the one who sparked the incident. I think a struggle than ensued. We know what the result was. If the policeman fired on them, it could be regarded as self defence, or manslaughter. I would be leaning toward manslaughter since the force was terribly excessive.

There is no proof that he fled the scene. That was another unsubstantiated rumor. I would appreciate it if the people who are in Pai right now could confirm or deny this one.

Anyway, this sort of all encompassing paranoia about the Thai police is not to be reasoned with. Keep in mind, in a tourist town like Pai, tourism is the lifeblood of everybody in the town, including the cops. The higher ranking among them probably have businesses in the town that depend on tourism. I've made this point until I'm blue in the face, but maybe it will penetrate a bit with repetition: given the fact that this is a tourist town, why would officials go out of their way to protect one drunken cop at the risk of souring tourism? Answer: they wouldn't. This is not Kanchanaburi all over again.

Edited January 14, 2008 by BarryMan

[rafval]

Now if you look at the police as a "closed system" that cannot be threatened from within or without for fear of upsetting the balance of things you begin to understand why they protect their own at all costs. Very powerful people have ownership in this system and if it becomes threatened, history will show they close ranks and protect what is theirs. If the lower ranking officers are not protected from culpability or at the very least protected from jail and continue to receive a salary to feed the family, the system will breakdown. The police commanders must have the unwaivering support of the rank and file to sustain the cash flow and maintain the status quo. It is quite easy for the police to ride out the media storm by making moves we have all seen before. A quick arrest and the obligatory reassignment to an "inactive post". Additional action will be seen by the rank and file as a weakness in the command staff and the system will be in jeopardy. In their mind it is really a case of "us (police) versus them (anyone else).

can you explain more? how would one cop going to jail break down their system?

[kat]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

The manslaughter bit was a pure guess on my part. From her past actions, it is established that Reisig is a violent drunk. That establishes a pattern of behavior on her part which suggests that her incredible story of a cop walking up and slugging her for no reason is not true, and that she was the one who sparked the incident. I think a struggle than ensued. We know what the result was. If the policeman fired on them, it could be regarded as self defence, or manslaughter. I would be leaning toward manslaughter since the force was terribly excessive.

There is no proof that he fled the scene. That was another unsubstantiated rumor. I would appreciate it if the people who are in Pai right now could confirm or deny this one.

Anyway, this sort of all encompassing paranoia about the Thai police is not to be reasoned with. Keep in mind, in a tourist town like Pai, tourism is the lifeblood of everybody in the town, including the cops. The higher ranking among them probably have businesses in the town that depend on tourism. I've made this point until I'm blue in the face, but maybe it will penetrate a bit with repetition: given the fact that this is a tourist town, why would officials go out of their way to protect one drunken cop at the risk of souring tourism? Answer: they wouldn't. This is not Kanchanaburi all over again.

Sorry, but if we are judging from patterns alone, then one has to ask why one drunken confrontation with a previous cop and a boyfriend ended in jail time, and another confrontation with a different cop ended in fatal shots. Surely, Uthai is also an important ingredient to this pattern, given his own history and contribution to the incident. Hopefully, the forensics report will be able to tell us more about the rest.

Secondly, your reasoning about cops protecting tourism over the reputation of a drunken cop is simply not rational. The two are absolutely linked, and the reputation of Thailand takes primacy over all.

[canuckamuck]

Facts:

-Police can and will kill tourists and non tourists in Thailand and they do not get punished for errors in judgment causing death.

-Tourists have nearly no rights because even regular Thais have nearly no rights.

-Corruption is endemic to all systems of authority in Thailand. (Monarchy excluded)

-We can not change this system by ranting, but we can learn how to avoid the trouble.

-Everywhere in the world drunks who get violent occasionally get themselves and their friends killed.

-Make friends with non violent drunks. Try to keep your head when you are in public. Learn how to behave in foreign lands, when you see a gun realize you have a better chance on your knees than you do at dodging a bullet. And finally, If you have a history of messing with cops in a third world backwater town and you have no political or police connections - leave town!!!

[Arkady]

There is a very good reason that the Thai police are not usually punished for there indiscretions. The reason is not justified and I'm not going along with it so please don't kill the messenger (me).

The Thai police represent some 250,000 poorly trained, somewhat powerful individuals who see themselves as the "thin brown line" that holds back evil doers from committing atrocities against the weak and hi-so classes. Most at the lower level have little formal education in the western sense and they do exactly as they are told by their superiors. The police are not only quasi-military they are part of the feudal system here that keep the rank and file cops forever at that lower level and the higher ranks are filled through a patronage system. The system in place is quite lucrative as we all suspect and NO ONE in the upper levels of the police administration is going to rock the boat nor would one be allowed to.

Now if you look at the police as a "closed system" that cannot be threatened from within or without for fear of upsetting the balance of things you begin to understand why they protect their own at all costs. Very powerful people have ownership in this system and if it becomes threatened, history will show they close ranks and protect what is theirs. If the lower ranking officers are not protected from culpability or at the very least protected from jail and continue to receive a salary to feed the family, the system will breakdown. The police commanders must have the unwaivering support of the rank and file to sustain the cash flow and maintain the status quo. It is quite easy for the police to ride out the media storm by making moves we have all seen before. A quick arrest and the obligatory reassignment to an "inactive post". Additional action will be seen by the rank and file as a weakness in the command staff and the system will be in jeopardy. In their mind it is really a case of "us (police) versus them (anyone else).

This a pretty good analysis. Reinforcing the feudal or paramilitary characteristics of the police structure is the fact that the senior ranks of the police officer corps all come from the police academy and many have also come, like Thaksin, through the combined military and police pre-cadet school before that. In the old days the educational requirement for rank and police entry was only Por 6 (graduationg from elementary school at age 12. There are still a lot of older station sergeants around with only Por 6 education, particularly in the provinces. Today recruits may join as privates with bachelor degrees but the system is designed to prevent non police academy graduates from achieving high rank, even though today they are eligible for commissioned rank. The senior ranks are close knit by the class mate system at the two academies. It is an unwritten rule for both military and police that classmates must always defend each other whatever they have done. I believe that most Western police forces dropped the military style officer academy concept after World War 2, if they had ever had it, in favor of having every one come up through the ranks to enhance the community aspect of policing. Perhaps in the old days it was necessary to provide accelerated promotion to the small number of educated recruits but today with Thai universities churning out thousands of graduates, there is no definitely no justification for this elitist structure to remain.

Another point that needs to be added is that the system implicates every one from an early stage. Since every one has to pay rent to the next level up, even police at the lowest level have information about corruption in the level immediately above them. This mutual dependency is reinforced when they are directly involved in criminal activities or extrajudicial executions which are ordered through the chain of command and perpetrated at the lower levels. If the police hierarchy allowed junior cops to be hung out to dry, their ability to maintain the system might be compromised, as you suggest. What the senior levels most fear are disgruntled whistle blowers who have nothing to lose.

[BarryMan]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

The manslaughter bit was a pure guess on my part. From her past actions, it is established that Reisig is a violent drunk. That establishes a pattern of behavior on her part which suggests that her incredible story of a cop walking up and slugging her for no reason is not true, and that she was the one who sparked the incident. I think a struggle than ensued. We know what the result was. If the policeman fired on them, it could be regarded as self defence, or manslaughter. I would be leaning toward manslaughter since the force was terribly excessive.

There is no proof that he fled the scene. That was another unsubstantiated rumor. I would appreciate it if the people who are in Pai right now could confirm or deny this one.

Anyway, this sort of all encompassing paranoia about the Thai police is not to be reasoned with. Keep in mind, in a tourist town like Pai, tourism is the lifeblood of everybody in the town, including the cops. The higher ranking among them probably have businesses in the town that depend on tourism. I've made this point until I'm blue in the face, but maybe it will penetrate a bit with repetition: given the fact that this is a tourist town, why would officials go out of their way to protect one drunken cop at the risk of souring tourism? Answer: they wouldn't. This is not Kanchanaburi all over again.

Sorry, but if we are judging from patterns alone, then one has to ask why one drunken confrontation with a previous cop and a boyfriend ended in jail time, and another confrontation with a different cop ended in fatal shots. Surely, Uthai is also an important ingredient to this pattern, given his own history and contribution to the incident. Hopefully, the forensics report will be able to tell us more about the rest.

Secondly, your reasoning about cops protecting tourism over the reputation of a drunken cop is simply not rational. The two are absolutely linked, and the reputation of Thailand takes primacy over all.

All that I was saying about your first point is that she is likely to have sparked the incident. Certainly Uthai's reaction is a hugely important ingredient -- the most important, of course, but if we want a full and accurate version of how things went, one not coloured by prejudice, then her history is important too because it gives us a logical start as to how this incident started. And, I agree completely that forensics will tell us what we need to know in this case.

I don't understand your second point. That seems to me just to be paranoia. How is my first point not rational? Is Pai not heavily dependant on tourism? Wouldn't maintaining a half-way decent image as a place where tourists are not randomly executed be important to people living there? Would it be worth sacrificing the town's name for the actions of one cop? Why has there not been another incident similar to this one in Pai in recent memory? In fact throughout Thailand murders of tourists are very few and far between.

[BarryMan]

Facts:

-Police can and will kill tourists and non tourists in Thailand and they do not get punished for errors in judgment causing death.

-Tourists have nearly no rights because even regular Thais have nearly no rights.

-Corruption is endemic to all systems of authority in Thailand. (Monarchy excluded)

-We can not change this system by ranting, but we can learn how to avoid the trouble.

-Everywhere in the world drunks who get violent occasionally get themselves and their friends killed.

-Make friends with non violent drunks. Try to keep your head when you are in public. Learn how to behave in foreign lands, when you see a gun realize you have a better chance on your knees than you do at dodging a bullet. And finally, If you have a history of messing with cops in a third world backwater town and you have no political or police connections - leave town!!!

An interesting post that is halfway between the paranoia that is endemic on this forum and good, common sense. All of your observations on drunks and avoiding keeping company with the violent ones are spot on, but it seems that we must be reading different newspapers about cops killing tourists. How many such incidents have there been in recent memory? I can think of Kanchanaburi... That was front-page news here and abroad and it is the same case every time a tourist is killed here. Hardly the Wild West.

It seems to me that the reverse of what you're implying is often true. Tourism is important to Thailand and the cops know it. Killing a foreigner means a huge, glaring international spotlight will descend upon you, and your actions will have reflected badly on your superiors too.

[jumnien]

Quote

All that I was saying about your first point is that she is likely to have sparked the incident. Certainly Uthai's reaction is a hugely important ingredient -- the most important, of course, but if we want a full and accurate version of how things went, one not coloured by prejudice, then her history is important too because it gives us a logical start as to how this incident started. And, I agree completely that forensics will tell us what we need to know in this case.

I don't understand your second point. That seems to me just to be paranoia. How is my first point not rational? Is Pai not heavily dependant on tourism? Wouldn't maintaining a half-way decent image as a place where tourists are not randomly executed be important to people living there? Would it be worth sacrificing the town's name for the actions of one cop? Why has there not been another incident similar to this one in Pai in recent memory? In fact throughout Thailand murders of tourists are very few and far between.

One look at the photographs of the participants in this story a brief look at their past behaviours is enough for anyone to know that this was no random execution. It's not like a Thai cop walked up to a polite elderly Scandinavian couple and started firing!

Edited January 14, 2008 by sunrise07

[kat]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

The manslaughter bit was a pure guess on my part. From her past actions, it is established that Reisig is a violent drunk. That establishes a pattern of behavior on her part which suggests that her incredible story of a cop walking up and slugging her for no reason is not true, and that she was the one who sparked the incident. I think a struggle than ensued. We know what the result was. If the policeman fired on them, it could be regarded as self defence, or manslaughter. I would be leaning toward manslaughter since the force was terribly excessive.

There is no proof that he fled the scene. That was another unsubstantiated rumor. I would appreciate it if the people who are in Pai right now could confirm or deny this one.

Anyway, this sort of all encompassing paranoia about the Thai police is not to be reasoned with. Keep in mind, in a tourist town like Pai, tourism is the lifeblood of everybody in the town, including the cops. The higher ranking among them probably have businesses in the town that depend on tourism. I've made this point until I'm blue in the face, but maybe it will penetrate a bit with repetition: given the fact that this is a tourist town, why would officials go out of their way to protect one drunken cop at the risk of souring tourism? Answer: they wouldn't. This is not Kanchanaburi all over again.

Sorry, but if we are judging from patterns alone, then one has to ask why one drunken confrontation with a previous cop and a boyfriend ended in jail time, and another confrontation with a different cop ended in fatal shots. Surely, Uthai is also an important ingredient to this pattern, given his own history and contribution to the incident. Hopefully, the forensics report will be able to tell us more about the rest.

Secondly, your reasoning about cops protecting tourism over the reputation of a drunken cop is simply not rational. The two are absolutely linked, and the reputation of Thailand takes primacy over all.

All that I was saying about your first point is that she is likely to have sparked the incident. Certainly Uthai's reaction is a hugely important ingredient -- the most important, of course, but if we want a full and accurate version of how things went, one not coloured by prejudice, then her history is important too because it gives us a logical start as to how this incident started. And, I agree completely that forensics will tell us what we need to know in this case.

I don't understand your second point. That seems to me just to be paranoia. How is my first point not rational? Is Pai not heavily dependant on tourism? Wouldn't maintaining a half-way decent image as a place where tourists are not randomly executed be important to people living there? Would it be worth sacrificing the town's name for the actions of one cop? Why has there not been another incident similar to this one in Pai in recent memory? In fact throughout Thailand murders of tourists are very few and far between.

The facts of her last interaction don't determine the facts of this encounter.

My second point is that protecting the cop or the town's reputation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

And to your third and fourth questions, yes there has been murderous incidents concerning cops, to both Thais and tourists, and they have not been few enough for the public to forget.

[kat]

Facts:

-Police can and will kill tourists and non tourists in Thailand and they do not get punished for errors in judgment causing death.

-Tourists have nearly no rights because even regular Thais have nearly no rights.

-Corruption is endemic to all systems of authority in Thailand. (Monarchy excluded)

-We can not change this system by ranting, but we can learn how to avoid the trouble.

-Everywhere in the world drunks who get violent occasionally get themselves and their friends killed.

-Make friends with non violent drunks. Try to keep your head when you are in public. Learn how to behave in foreign lands, when you see a gun realize you have a better chance on your knees than you do at dodging a bullet. And finally, If you have a history of messing with cops in a third world backwater town and you have no political or police connections - leave town!!!

How many such incidents have there been in recent memory? I can think of Kanchanaburi... That was front-page news here and abroad and it is the same case every time a tourist is killed here. Hardly the Wild West.

Well, none that were ever proven, anyway, such as Kirsty Jones.

[LoveDaBlues]

I'm pleased to see that some people on here, not the majority of course, but some, felt the same way I did when reading Drummond's letter to the Nation today. To whit:

Carly Reisig has a history of getting drunk and violent with police. HOW IN THE hel_l is that not totally relevant to this case involving an altercation with a cop, while she was drunk.

As for earlier posters who basically said I was making up facts about the case, two points:

Reisig's version of events did change. She started with her initial story about how she was skipping down the road with facepaint and enjoying herself only to be randomly assaulted by a policeman, which was clearly enough stated. Then she went on to say that she didn't really remember what happened, or that her memories were "vague". Both of these accounts were reported by Drummond.

If this was a cold-blooded killing, which it may well have been, her changing versions of events does matter. Had she told one consistent story from the start we would a solid place from which to start to find out the truth. By being inconsistent she has harmed the investigation into this case and she owes the family of the deceased an apology.

I used to respect Drummond for "going where others dared not", now I do not. He has not reported on this story fairly, but rather decided from jump that this was Kanchanaburi all over again, before looking into anything about the case at all. That he would later send in a letter to the editor and apologize publicly for reporting on relevant facts shows the type of journalist we're dealing with here. Drummond, as a professional journalist and self-proclaimed expert, should know better than to dismiss eyewitness accounts (if the people in Pai are in fear of the police, why have people come forward to say that the officer was drunk that night? Doesn't wash, but in Drummond's world, all Thais conspire against foreigners: a sentiment that is lapped up on this forum with relish, though thankfully not by everyone).

I wish the Post had someone reliable on this one. The reports I've read from them have seemed more balanced, but they have been few and far between. Having Drummond as the only local option for this story is worrying.

It's not relevant because cops deal with drunks on a regular basis. It's a huge part of the job description. Shooting an unarmed female with a near-fatal shot is not how drunks are dealt with; in Thailand or the UK or the States.

Of course, it is absolutely relevant and to say it is not, is absurd. You could compare it to posters here dismissing evidence of 'a history of violence' for a guy suspected of killing his wife.

As for Lovedeblues, sure Thai police are used to dealing with drunks. But, they are not used to being attacked by a huge drunk Farang woman and probably her ex-boyfriend. Looks like the guy shot in self defense and got carried away. Sure, he deserves to be incarcerated. Same as the Farang woman deserves to be booted out of the Kingdom.

Again, for anyone to say that police do not use violence against drunks in Farangland is absurd - especially in The US.

If you are pissed in The US and get loud with the cops then you will be on the receiving end of a taser gun. Even those these things often kill, the the US cops still commonly use them.

There's a HUGE difference between using a taser (which is SUPPOSED to be non-lethal) to subdue a drunk and shooting a near x-ring shot into the body of an unarmed drunk female. I think most posters get that.

It's amazing how posters with weak arguments will twist what is said to try to prove their point. NOWHERE did I say that cops in 'farangland' don't use force in dealing with drunks. Of course they do; they just don't kill unarmed folks with the alarming regularity that happens here. I think most posters get that too.

[DamianMavis]

...I think it speaks volumes that a hardened news professional sees the victim of an attempted murder being treated so unfairly by the authorities (and others) that he expresses remorse over having published the full balanced results of his investigations.

Arkady - good post. I'm sure Andrew Drummond's letter in the Nation today raised more than a few eyebrows amongst seasoned expats here. It certainly did with me!

I truly and sincerely hope he follows up - and duly continues to report comprehensively and honestly on this shocking case.

So what would it take for Andrew Drummond's boosters on this forum to think him a bad journalist? Prejudicing the case from jump? He's done that in his first story when he said, without referencing a single source and only relying on his own authority (the kind of authority you get from staying in Bangkok while you write your expert analyses on Thailand events occurring miles away) to say that this case was a mirror of the "face-saving" killings in Kanchanaburi.

Does Mr. Drummond investigate these pieces on his own or does he call up Damien on Thaivisa.com and between the two of them they figure what's what with the world?

I would like to have been proven wrong on here, but I've only received idiotic counters to my posts, such as those that come from Damien (And I paraphrase his initial rant "YOU'RE LYING!! YOU MAKE UP EVERYTHING",.... Right.... Let me know when your 21st time being involved with Thai cops comes about and I'll call the Guinness Book and tell them they have a contender for most annoying farang of the year, and also I want to know when you and the other farang are going to get together to sing "Redemption Song" by Bob Marley.I want to be there to witness one of the great civil-rights movements in history.)...

Those who assume Drummond "knows something" should think twice. He's saving his own reputation after he published an initial accounting of things that could not have been more irresponsible journalistically.

Thanks to a poster, I believe by the name of 'sabaijai', who is actually on the scene. Don't worry about running into Andrew Drummond there, because you won't. He is a lazy telephone journalist.

I look forward to hearing more of the REAL version of things going on there from people like Sabaijai, and I hope the rest of you are able to put a grip on your paranoia as farangs for long enough to get a good dose of the truth.

This poor Canadian fellow did not deserve to die, but that is not reason for us as Westerners to bury the entire story in a bunch of xenophobic, lying s*it.. It would be a better tribute to his memory to speak truthfully of this incident and to acknowledge that from all we know it was his a**hole drunken female friend who sparked it, and another irresponsible a**hole drunk cop who did the killing. Let's not lie, and let's not let the stupid paranoia and idiocy of the day carry us away.

I realise now what your problem is, you have a reading deficiency. I dont mean that as a random personal attack, I'm stating a fact. When I say you make most of your post up I truly mean it because you misquote and throw in statements that are completely wrong. I now understand why you have such a strange viewpoint, its because half of what you read is remembered incorrectly or it never gets through in the first place. FOR EXAMPLE: "Let me know when your 21st time being involved with Thai cops comes about" I didnt say that, nobody said that, you made it up. I said quite clearly in several posts that I have been involved in about 20 possible bad/violent situations (nothing to do with police) and that being sober probably kept me from escalating the situation, I even gave examples that also showed I was not referring to police. I then stated very clearly that I have actually only been in ONE negative interaction with police.

Another example: your quote of me doesnt exist - "YOU'RE LYING!! YOU MAKE UP EVERYTHING" The real quote was "BARRYMAN, you made your whole post up! No where do all the FACTS you listed actually exist! It is JUST YOUR OPINION." You have just proven this point AGAIN, you continuously make up facts based on your opinion, you even misquote.

You have done this kind of thing many times throughout your posts, mostly about the details of this case, only remembering bits and pieces of what you read and than coming to a conclusion based on a partial story and then posting about it like its fact. I think this is causing you to see this whole situation differently than if you were reading this thread throroughly.

Damian

[BarryMan]

There's a HUGE difference between using a taser (which is SUPPOSED to be non-lethal) to subdue a drunk and shooting a near x-ring shot into the body of an unarmed drunk female. I think most posters get that.

It's amazing how posters with weak arguments will twist what is said to try to prove their point. NOWHERE did I say that cops in 'farangland' don't use force in dealing with drunks. Of course they do; they just don't kill unarmed folks with the alarming regularity that happens here. I think most posters get that too.

Hi, do you have any facts to back up this wild and incorrect statement? What 'alarming regularity'?

[canuckamuck]

An interesting post that is halfway between the paranoia that is endemic on this forum and good, common sense. All of your observations on drunks and avoiding keeping company with the violent ones are spot on, but it seems that we must be reading different newspapers about cops killing tourists. How many such incidents have there been in recent memory? I can think of Kanchanaburi... That was front-page news here and abroad and it is the same case every time a tourist is killed here. Hardly the Wild West.

It seems to me that the reverse of what you're implying is often true. Tourism is important to Thailand and the cops know it. Killing a foreigner means a huge, glaring international spotlight will descend upon you, and your actions will have reflected badly on your superiors too.

Your adding to what I said. I said "-Police can and will kill tourists and non tourists in Thailand and they do not get punished for errors in judgment causing death."

this is like saying sharks can and will eat people. It is not saying it happens everyday. Nevertheless there are ways to increase or decrease the odds of being eaten by a shark. The thing about sharks is they are often hunted down and pay the price for their actions. Not so with Thai cops.

[DamianMavis]

There's a HUGE difference between using a taser (which is SUPPOSED to be non-lethal) to subdue a drunk and shooting a near x-ring shot into the body of an unarmed drunk female. I think most posters get that.

It's amazing how posters with weak arguments will twist what is said to try to prove their point. NOWHERE did I say that cops in 'farangland' don't use force in dealing with drunks. Of course they do; they just don't kill unarmed folks with the alarming regularity that happens here. I think most posters get that too.

Yes it is amazing.

Damian

[Foggy Bottom]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

It seems to me that the collective voices in this and other forums can push for two options -

- they could push for what they see as the preferred outcome, in the sense that they have "closed ranks" on a racial divide and are out for the blood of Pol Sgt Major Uthai regardless of why the events happened - i.e. they believe under no circumstances should he have drawn and discharged his weapon.

- or, they could seek a constructive outcome regardless of the investigation outcome into the incident - i.e. they could use their combined voices, contacts, influence with Thai friends / students / acquaintances etc. to highlight the need for reform and improvement in the Royal Thai Police standing procedures and training.

Regardless of whether Uthai was drunk or not, and whether he fled the scene or not, there is an incommutable fact that has been admitted by his superiors - he was off duty, out of uniform, and carrying a weapon (police issued or otherwise). From the statements of other posters, this appears to be contrary to police regulations and perhaps one of the TV legals such as SunBelt could ascertain the exact standing of such an issue?

Combining the results of the Kanchanaburi incident with the Pai incident, there is a strong case to be made for an organised ruckus regarding stricter enforcement of off-duty Thai police carrying concealed weapons while dressed in "civvies". I accept they may need to in the southern provinces, but in tourist zones in the rest of the country?

If even a portion of the angst and sometimes eloquent posting here was directed at the letters pages of the Nation and Post, on a daily basis for a sustained period, then perhaps the Thai public would join in citing similar cases involving Thai victims, and perhaps eventually something positive would come from it. I don't hold my breath, but I can hope that the "neo-revolutionaries" on this forum can see beyond the anonymity of web-posting, and try to do something in the real world.

Gaz

[BarryMan]

I realise now what your problem is, you have a reading deficiency. I dont mean that as a random personal attack, I'm stating a fact. When I say you make most of your post up I truly mean it because you misquote and throw in statements that are completely wrong. I now understand why you have such a strange viewpoint, its because half of what you read is remembered incorrectly or it never gets through in the first place. FOR EXAMPLE: "Let me know when your 21st time being involved with Thai cops comes about" I didnt say that, nobody said that, you made it up. I said quite clearly in several posts that I have been involved in about 20 possible bad/violent situations (nothing to do with police) and that being sober probably kept me from escalating the situation, I even gave examples that also showed I was not referring to police. I then stated very clearly that I have actually only been in ONE negative interaction with police.

Another example: your quote of me doesnt exist - "YOU'RE LYING!! YOU MAKE UP EVERYTHING" The real quote was "BARRYMAN, you made your whole post up! No where do all the FACTS you listed actually exist! It is JUST YOUR OPINION." You have just proven this point AGAIN, you continuously make up facts based on your opinion, you even misquote.

You have done this kind of thing many times throughout your posts, mostly about the details of this case, only remembering bits and pieces of what you read and than coming to a conclusion based on a partial story and then posting about it like its fact. I think this is causing you to see this whole situation differently than if you were reading this thread throroughly.

Personally I could care less about whether you had 20 incidents with police, tuk-tuk drivers or the woman who cooks your fried noodles. I paraphrased the quote you mentioned, but the intent of it was the same, you were accusing me of making stuff up, as you are again, while not citing a specific fact I mentioned.

If there is any reading deficiency, it is your own. You are probably the most heavily biased poster on this thread and if I were to learn anything new at the case, it would certainly not be from someone like you, a bitter expat who seems like he has an axe to grind.

I have stated throughout that the version of events I was suggesting was my own theory based on what seemed like the most logical course of action. I undoubtedly have a better grasp on what happened than you do, that is proven time and again by your unreasonable and prejudiced posts.

[jumnien]

Push for the option that will save the lives our fellow farang in Thailand:

Encourage travelers to show respect at all times and save their stupidity for their arrival back in their home country. We cannot change the Thai police force but we can reach many tourists on this forum and plead with them to be noble in their appearance and actions and let history warn them of the consequences if they decide to act otherwise.

Edited January 14, 2008 by sunrise07

[BarryMan]

^^ It is odd that having taken to task those who view the alleged past actions of Ms. Reisig of minimal import, you then create your own scenario leading to the view that '[she] having likely provoked this incident, ... ' and completing you post with '... would look like manslaughter to me.', for which you have in a handful of posts failed to posit your case.

A policeman discharges, he claims accidentally, three rounds, all of which strike targets, fatally and causing injury. He fails to remain at the scene to work with his colleagues, and to ensure the speedy treatment of Ms. Reisig. He is supposed to be an officer of the law, one who should be held to an higher standard then we mere civilians. The reality is that in Thailand, police buy their positions, thereby confounding the tenant that 'anyone who seeks a position of power, should be barred from it. Their training is lax, and especially outside the 'tourist zone' they are minded to treat all foreigners with, at best, disdain, since they are unlikely to have protective shielding or connexions of value.

Regards

It seems to me that the collective voices in this and other forums can push for two options -

- they could push for what they see as the preferred outcome, in the sense that they have "closed ranks" on a racial divide and are out for the blood of Pol Sgt Major Uthai regardless of why the events happened - i.e. they believe under no circumstances should he have drawn and discharged his weapon.

- or, they could seek a constructive outcome regardless of the investigation outcome into the incident - i.e. they could use their combined voices, contacts, influence with Thai friends / students / acquaintances etc. to highlight the need for reform and improvement in the Royal Thai Police standing procedures and training.

Regardless of whether Uthai was drunk or not, and whether he fled the scene or not, there is an incommutable fact that has been admitted by his superiors - he was off duty, out of uniform, and carrying a weapon (police issued or otherwise). From the statements of other posters, this appears to be contrary to police regulations and perhaps one of the TV legals such as SunBelt could ascertain the exact standing of such an issue?

Combining the results of the Kanchanaburi incident with the Pai incident, there is a strong case to be made for an organised ruckus regarding stricter enforcement of off-duty Thai police carrying concealed weapons while dressed in "civvies". I accept they may need to in the southern provinces, but in tourist zones in the rest of the country?

If even a portion of the angst and sometimes eloquent posting here was directed at the letters pages of the Nation and Post, on a daily basis for a sustained period, then perhaps the Thai public would join in citing similar cases involving Thai victims, and perhaps eventually something positive would come from it. I don't hold my breath, but I can hope that the "neo-revolutionaries" on this forum can see beyond the anonymity of web-posting, and try to do something in the real world.

Gaz

I like it when reasonable posts appear on this thread. Gives me hope. My only point of contention with what Gaz has written here is the bit about officers carrying weapons off duty being against procedure in Thailand. It's not. They are not required to turn in their weapons after a shift or anything of the sort -- they keep them on themselves because, in theory, they are policemen 24 hours a day and are always required to be available for service.

If a call were to be sounded calling for stricter regulations concerning off-duty cops with guns, I would be all for it.

Glad you pointed out how this thing is breaking down along the racial divide. I didn't want to invite a flame war by underlining that point, but certainly it is the case, especially among certain posters here.

[Arkady]

Facts:

-Police can and will kill tourists and non tourists in Thailand and they do not get punished for errors in judgment causing death.

-Tourists have nearly no rights because even regular Thais have nearly no rights.

-Corruption is endemic to all systems of authority in Thailand. (Monarchy excluded)

-We can not change this system by ranting, but we can learn how to avoid the trouble.

-Everywhere in the world drunks who get violent occasionally get themselves and their friends killed.

-Make friends with non violent drunks. Try to keep your head when you are in public. Learn how to behave in foreign lands, when you see a gun realize you have a better chance on your knees than you do at dodging a bullet. And finally, If you have a history of messing with cops in a third world backwater town and you have no political or police connections - leave town!!!

How many such incidents have there been in recent memory? I can think of Kanchanaburi... That was front-page news here and abroad and it is the same case every time a tourist is killed here. Hardly the Wild West.

Well, none that were ever proven, anyway, such as Kirsty Jones.

I can think of another police farang murder in my recent memory which may be longer than some posters', although he was not really a tourist (but then Del Pinto and Reisig were not typical short stay tourists either). An American guy was running a bar in Isaan (I think it was in Udon) with his Thai wife. Over time he got more and more fed up with local police dropping and in and demanding loads of free food and drinks on and off duty. One night a group of policemen in uniform came in an and spent some time in the bar drinking. When they got up to leave the American guy for whatever foolish reason tried to make them pay for their drinks. When they refused he pulled out a digital camera and took a picture of the policeman who had refused to pay on behalf of the group. His reaction was instinctive. He immediately drew his service pistol and shot the American dead. This was around the mid 90s and never hit the front pages or elicited an international outcry or any visible reaction from the US Embassy, maybe because he was a bar owner. Who knows? Since there was no follow up in the press and no Thai Visa in those days I never found out what happened to killer but you can imagine it went something like this...................

If we chose to include police killings of undocumented Burmese, Khmers and Laotians, the list would probably extremely long. But then most of these people didn't officially exist!

Edited January 14, 2008 by Arkady

[DamianMavis]

Personally I could care less about whether you had 20 incidents with police, tuk-tuk drivers or the woman who cooks your fried noodles. I paraphrased the quote you mentioned, but the intent of it was the same, you were accusing me of making stuff up, as you are again, while not citing a specific fact I mentioned.

If there is any reading deficiency, it is your own. You are probably the most heavily biased poster on this thread and if I were to learn anything new at the case, it would certainly not be from someone like you, a bitter expat who seems like he has an axe to grind.

I have stated throughout that the version of events I was suggesting was my own theory based on what seemed like the most logical course of action. I undoubtedly have a better grasp on what happened than you do, that is proven time and again by your unreasonable and prejudiced posts.

Give you an example? I GAVE YOU 2! But they dont count? They were perfect examples of how you twist and remake or just dont remember what you read. And the bonus is they WERE ACTUALLY REAL, unlike many things you have said.

You undoubtedly have a better grasp on what happened than I? If you say so.

Im unreasonable and prejudiced but you are not? heh

Damian

[DamianMavis]

I like it when reasonable posts appear on this thread. Gives me hope. My only point of contention with what Gaz has written here is the bit about officers carrying weapons off duty being against procedure in Thailand. It's not. They are not required to turn in their weapons after a shift or anything of the sort -- they keep them on themselves because, in theory, they are policemen 24 hours a day and are always required to be available for service.

Really? A few people already stated this was against the law, if you are correct I'm very surprised, what made people think it was illegal for cops to carry guns while off duty in Thailand?

Damian

[BarryMan]

Personally I could care less about whether you had 20 incidents with police, tuk-tuk drivers or the woman who cooks your fried noodles. I paraphrased the quote you mentioned, but the intent of it was the same, you were accusing me of making stuff up, as you are again, while not citing a specific fact I mentioned.

If there is any reading deficiency, it is your own. You are probably the most heavily biased poster on this thread and if I were to learn anything new at the case, it would certainly not be from someone like you, a bitter expat who seems like he has an axe to grind.

I have stated throughout that the version of events I was suggesting was my own theory based on what seemed like the most logical course of action. I undoubtedly have a better grasp on what happened than you do, that is proven time and again by your unreasonable and prejudiced posts.

Give you an example? I GAVE YOU 2! But they dont count? They were perfect examples of how you twist and remake or just dont remember what you read. And the bonus is they WERE ACTUALLY REAL, unlike many things you have said.

You undoubtedly have a better grasp on what happened than I? If you say so.

Im unreasonable and prejudiced but you are not? heh

Damian

You're prejudiced because you fail to listen to consider all sides to this story. I have seen no balance in your posts whatsoever, or willingness to consider all sides to the story.

If it's all the same to you, I'm going to close the door on our little back and forth. I have no interest in engaging in any further discussion with you because in my opinion you have nothing of merit to contribute. I'd rather continue reading the interesting posts of people on the ground in Pai than filling this space with a useless attempt to try to get you to think beyond your paranoid imaginings.

PS -- One more unrelated point, I hope nobody gives any credulity to the nonsensical rumor that the policeman in the Kanchanaburi murder case is anywhere other than in jail serving his sentence. He has a double doing the time for him while he whoops it up in Kanchanaburi? What bosh. I hope the concerned families aren't reading crap like that.

[BarryMan]

I like it when reasonable posts appear on this thread. Gives me hope. My only point of contention with what Gaz has written here is the bit about officers carrying weapons off duty being against procedure in Thailand. It's not. They are not required to turn in their weapons after a shift or anything of the sort -- they keep them on themselves because, in theory, they are policemen 24 hours a day and are always required to be available for service.

Really? A few people already stated this was against the law, if you are correct I'm very surprised, what made people think it was illegal for cops to carry guns while off duty in Thailand?

Damian

Wow, not a flame! Thanks! Yes, that is verifiable truth.... When you see cops out and about around town wearing white t-shirts for example with their uniform pants on and guns in holsters, they are often off-duty, but they're not breaking the law. It's permitted for them to carry their weapons at all times -- which in the case of cops with drinking problems would seem to pose a risk to public safety. It has to do with the idea of them having to be police all the time. They are sworn to that. Thus Uthai being called in to break up a domestic quarrel would not have been unusual, though of course his use of excessive force is an entirely different story.

I have heard from a reliable local source that Thai police are not permitted to fire more than one shot in self defence. Obviously, unless Uthai's claims that the shots were accidental (which seems incredible) is true, he is clearly guilty of excessive force.

[DamianMavis]

You're prejudiced because you fail to listen to consider all sides to this story. I have seen no balance in your posts whatsoever, or willingness to consider all sides to the story.

If it's all the same to you, I'm going to close the door on our little back and forth. I have no interest in engaging in any further discussion with you because in my opinion you have nothing of merit to contribute. I'd rather continue reading the interesting posts of people on the ground in Pai than filling this space with a useless attempt to try to get you to think beyond your paranoid imaginings.

PS -- One more unrelated point, I hope nobody gives any credulity to the nonsensical rumor that the policeman in the Kanchanaburi murder case is anywhere other than in jail serving his sentence. He has a double doing the time for him while he whoops it up in Kanchanaburi? What bosh. I hope the concerned families aren't reading crap like that.

Actually I have changed my attitude about this case alot after following the thread. If you remember, the beginning had the cop putting his pistol in Leos mouth and pulling the trigger. Things have changed. I'll stop arguing with you over unrelated stupid stuff, but please just try not to misquote and say things that look like you are stating opinion as fact, just try ok?

In reference to the police officer that may or may not be serving his sentence. Im not saying he isn't, I dont know. But Barry you may be surprised to know crazier things have happened here. I cannot talk about a perfect example, I do use my own name after all, but I'd love to tell you about a horrible/funny example of murderers not doing time they are supposed to be doing. It is just one case I know of so no Im not saying this is normal. But in the case above you mentioned, it wouldnt be as crazy as having a double do his time, he simply wouldnt be in jail like it said he was "on the books". Did the person who talked about this mean it was actually reported in the news? If so then its not "bosh" is it? I dont know, but instead of discounting it immediately I would ask" was this in fact reported and confirmed before being swept under the rug or was it all just rumour?"

Damian

[DamianMavis]

Wow, not a flame! Thanks! Yes, that is verifiable truth.... When you see cops out and about around town wearing white t-shirts for example with their uniform pants on and guns in holsters, they are often off-duty, but they're not breaking the law. It's permitted for them to carry their weapons at all times -- which in the case of cops with drinking problems would seem to pose a risk to public safety. It has to do with the idea of them having to be police all the time. They are sworn to that. Thus Uthai being called in to break up a domestic quarrel would not have been unusual, though of course his use of excessive force is an entirely different story.

I have heard from a reliable local source that Thai police are not permitted to fire more than one shot in self defence. Obviously, unless Uthai's claims that the shots were accidental (which seems incredible) is true, he is clearly guilty of excessive force.

Well now I am upset that more than one poster has claimed it was illegal..... hard to get facts when people do things like that.

Damian

Edited January 14, 2008 by DamianMavis