Mother Of Girl Involved In Bangkok Tollway Accident Attends Funeral Of Victim

[jayboy]

It is now for you to reflect (since you seem to have no idea) why there is so much anger about this case.Of course the girl's rights must be respected but your posts are ridiculously out of balance.It's not really about class envy at all but rather a widespread rage that the elite in this country get away with crimes and abuse through the exercise of influence and money.Whether this is relevant here or will be a factor in this case remains to be seen.So far so good.

So basically this incident, that you admit has gone (handled) good so far, should be justification for anger DIRECTED AT THIS MINOR because other people of influence of money have got away with things in the past?

In fact, things have not only gone good so far in terms of the handling of the events in the aftermath but because of the name she was born with she has already had to endure death threats, her name being released by police as well as photos being published (both illegal when a minor involved in a crime). The victims family are already receiving token payments and am sure there will be much more to come given this family does appear to have the resources as opposed to a poor person.

I have no idea how rich this family is but it is simply a matter of fact that the rich often have the ability to buy their way out of problems all over the world. It is not unique to Thailand.

Personally I find it illogical, ignorant and disregardful to those killed and injured to try to make this girl the focus of anger regarding issues that have happened in the past or the family she was born into.

You still don't appear to get it.The significant issue is why there has been so much anger and rage at this particular incident, and above all why now.I don't think there would have been such a virulent reaction even ten years ago.It is I concede partly a reaction of frustration at the culture of impunity in Thailand, but not I think directed at this particular poor girl.The one interesting thing Ban Tomo mentioned was a wish to see what a commentator like Chris Baker would say.I'm guessing that Baker might also wish to consider why this incident has raised so much passion and why now.One point not I think stressed in these threads were that the victims were themselves middle class.I doubt whether a van full of Isaan peasants would have stirred up similar outrage among the Bangkok middle class.Oddly enough I checked some Facebook pages of some Thai friends/acquaintances.The ones who are ranting abuse at this foolish girl seem to be the same ones who were screaming violent and racist abuse at the Reds earlier this year - don't quite know what to make of that.

Incidentally I don't pay much attention to the girl's family showering preliminary "compensation" around and turning up at victims funerals.Not bad and not good - just not relevant except to burnish the defence case if accusations made - absurd in my view - of lack of empathy.You can bet that if that's what it took in those days (it wasn't) Rose and Jo Kennedy (that corrupt gangster) would have done the same if that was needed to keep Teddy out of the slammer.

Edited January 2, 2011 by jayboy

[neverdie]

Actually the girl involved clearly stated the van was making unsafe lane changes. The same girl who stated that the accident would either not have happened or not has been as bad had she not been speeding. She also didn't say how fast she was going so not sure about your comment "well over" the speed limit.

Without going back to the news report, I believe the girls quotes stated the van was continuing to move back and forth between lanes. She signaled the van with her lights to pass (as is the practice here) and the van moved back into the other lane but as she began to pass the van came back into her lane and they collided.

Given the girls admissions, I don't believe she is lying. I also don't believe, at this point, she didn't see the van and ran into from behind. It appears to me that the van's spinning and rolling, at least at this point, is inline with its rear side being struck (think Pit Maneuver) causing the van to spin out. Also would indicate the lack of initially noticeable paint transfers or indication the cars had collided (as initially reported) since it takes so little force to cause a vehicle (especially a van) to spin out from such contact.

This possible scenario fits well given the results and what we are hearing ... the the Van moved into her lane as she began passing and the front side of her car came into contact with the rear side of the van.

As for putting weight of sole fault into the fact that the reports of what the girl will be charged with on Wednesday .. lets both wait and see until Wednesday (and verdict) but more importantly and with all do respect to the dead, you can not ticket or charge a dead person (the van's driver).

When I refer to speed Nisa, I'm not talking about the exact point in time when the two vehicles impacted, perhaps as you described, at that exact moment the speed may have been negligible, HOWEVER, I am talking about the speed required to cover the distances required in the moments immediately prior to the impact.

If you just stop for a moment, forget about the mechanics of the alleged or apparent impact and work backwards from that point in time & understand there is no magic way for vehicles to suddenly appear at one point & 5 seconds later appear at another point without excessive speed involved then we might start getting somewhere in relation to manner & speed prior to the collision. Any crash investigator worth anything is going to be trying to establish the 'manner of driving' of all vehicles involved.

The issues don't solely relate to the nanosecond in time when the two vehicle's contacted, but what was happening in the moments that lead up to that time. I could give you lessons in basic crash investigation 101, however I get the distinct impression that you already know everything.

[Nisa]

Actually I get the reasoning behind your claims of where the anger directed at this girl is coming from but just don't condone the reasoning and see it as dangerous and unproductive..

But what you are also not considering is that these online lynch mobs (such as the FB thing) spring up over all sorts of different incidents and psychologists have yet to make a clear understanding of it. There was just so many untruths posted out there by people to fuel the flames that there could be no real agenda except to increase the level of hate which was being focused on this girl.

Here is an interesting article regarding this phenomenon that includes examples of this kind of online lynching which might help you to see that it is not always logical to try to give logic to illogical hate filled behavior like this

Edit: Here is the link http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article991297.ece

Edited January 2, 2011 by Nisa

[reason1]

Callous posters here clearly have never been involved in a serious tragedy.

All survivors and families will suffer for years to get over this

[Nisa]

Actually the girl involved clearly stated the van was making unsafe lane changes. The same girl who stated that the accident would either not have happened or not has been as bad had she not been speeding. She also didn't say how fast she was going so not sure about your comment "well over" the speed limit.

Without going back to the news report, I believe the girls quotes stated the van was continuing to move back and forth between lanes. She signaled the van with her lights to pass (as is the practice here) and the van moved back into the other lane but as she began to pass the van came back into her lane and they collided.

Given the girls admissions, I don't believe she is lying. I also don't believe, at this point, she didn't see the van and ran into from behind. It appears to me that the van's spinning and rolling, at least at this point, is inline with its rear side being struck (think Pit Maneuver) causing the van to spin out. Also would indicate the lack of initially noticeable paint transfers or indication the cars had collided (as initially reported) since it takes so little force to cause a vehicle (especially a van) to spin out from such contact.

This possible scenario fits well given the results and what we are hearing ... the the Van moved into her lane as she began passing and the front side of her car came into contact with the rear side of the van.

As for putting weight of sole fault into the fact that the reports of what the girl will be charged with on Wednesday .. lets both wait and see until Wednesday (and verdict) but more importantly and with all do respect to the dead, you can not ticket or charge a dead person (the van's driver).

When I refer to speed Nisa, I'm not talking about the exact point in time when the two vehicles impacted, perhaps as you described, at that exact moment the speed may have been negligible, HOWEVER, I am talking about the speed required to cover the distances required in the moments immediately prior to the impact.

If you just stop for a moment, forget about the mechanics of the alleged or apparent impact and work backwards from that point in time & understand there is no magic way for vehicles to suddenly appear at one point & 5 seconds later appear at another point without excessive speed involved then we might start getting somewhere in relation to manner & speed prior to the collision. Any crash investigator worth anything is going to be trying to establish the 'manner of driving' of all vehicles involved.

The issues don't solely relate to the nanosecond in time when the two vehicle's contacted, but what was happening in the moments that lead up to that time. I could give you lessons in basic crash investigation 101, however I get the distinct impression that you already know everything.

I said what and meant what I said (at least in the above post ) and none of that indicated I thought speed was negligible. I simply was correcting your early statement / post that we know she was driving "well above" the speed limit and I clearly wasn't contradicting the girls own words that she believes speed played a factor. She may very well have been driving insanely above the speed limit but at this point that has not come out yet ... that is all I was indicating relating to her speed.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Nisa

[neverdie]

To my knowledge it is not against the law nor in my opinion arrogant in either circumstances to flick your high beams at another driver to indicate your intentions.

It's not indicating an intention, it's indicating a demand, and that's why it is arrogant. And when it involves tailgating and speeding, which it invariably does, it is against the law.

You might want to do an internet search for driving laws and tips for driving in Thailand. You will then find it is both acceptable and suggested to do this when passing for safety reasons,

A google expert. Fantastic. You might want to refer to the Land Traffic Act 1979. There is no mention of this proceedure in there, so whilst it might be a common norm on the road that doesnt necessarily mean it is correct proceedure. The act actually outlines what should happen when one is overtaking & it doesnt mention highbeam lights. It does however make reference to posted speed limits & vehicles keeping a safe distance.

What you see Nisa might be common, but that doesnt make it right in the eyes of the law.

[toybits]

I don't think you are being paranoid. I also think that this is a very polarizing event. It seems that the silent majority can no longer take the abuse they get from the privileged few.

The forces unleashed on Thai society in the last decade are dramatic and polarizing. From my humble, benighted perspective, we're witness to a very risky stage in the evolution of this ancient Kingdom. It seems to me that things could easily go badly wrong. Or not. The blood-lust for the badly-behaved, privileged few is hardly surprising, nor without merit. But it is still a passion and therefore problematic in a Buddhist culture. Which, for all its failings, Thailand still is. And I, for one, hope it remains.

If this thing gets out of control, or is used by one or another of the 'black hands' currently manipulating the political situation, it could be incendiary. And there's more than enough tragedy in it without that happening.

[neverdie]

To my knowledge it is not against the law nor in my opinion arrogant in either circumstances to flick your high beams at another driver to indicate your intentions.

It's not indicating an intention, it's indicating a demand, and that's why it is arrogant. And when it involves tailgating and speeding, which it invariably does, it is against the law.

You might want to do an internet search for driving laws and tips for driving in Thailand. You will then find it is both acceptable and suggested to do this when passing for safety reasons,

You seem to have them all covered Nisa.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Anthow you seem to introduce a lot of assumptions not in evidence. Let's take the "unsafe lane change" for instance. Suppose the van was changing lanes. If that circumstance was unsafe it could ce wholly attributed to the closing speed of a speeding car overtaking. The van driver might look in their mirror and see a group of cars well behind her indicating plenty of room to change lanes. What she wouldn't see (but what we see in the overhead video) is that the girls car was passing cars like they were standing still. If there was a lane change and if it was unsafe, it could be wholly attributible to the actions of the speeding girl.

Really well said, sir.

[neverdie]

Actually the girl involved clearly stated the van was making unsafe lane changes. The same girl who stated that the accident would either not have happened or not has been as bad had she not been speeding. She also didn't say how fast she was going so not sure about your comment "well over" the speed limit.

Without going back to the news report, I believe the girls quotes stated the van was continuing to move back and forth between lanes. She signaled the van with her lights to pass (as is the practice here) and the van moved back into the other lane but as she began to pass the van came back into her lane and they collided.

Given the girls admissions, I don't believe she is lying. I also don't believe, at this point, she didn't see the van and ran into from behind. It appears to me that the van's spinning and rolling, at least at this point, is inline with its rear side being struck (think Pit Maneuver) causing the van to spin out. Also would indicate the lack of initially noticeable paint transfers or indication the cars had collided (as initially reported) since it takes so little force to cause a vehicle (especially a van) to spin out from such contact.

This possible scenario fits well given the results and what we are hearing ... the the Van moved into her lane as she began passing and the front side of her car came into contact with the rear side of the van.

As for putting weight of sole fault into the fact that the reports of what the girl will be charged with on Wednesday .. lets both wait and see until Wednesday (and verdict) but more importantly and with all do respect to the dead, you can not ticket or charge a dead person (the van's driver).

When I refer to speed Nisa, I'm not talking about the exact point in time when the two vehicles impacted, perhaps as you described, at that exact moment the speed may have been negligible, HOWEVER, I am talking about the speed required to cover the distances required in the moments immediately prior to the impact.

If you just stop for a moment, forget about the mechanics of the alleged or apparent impact and work backwards from that point in time & understand there is no magic way for vehicles to suddenly appear at one point & 5 seconds later appear at another point without excessive speed involved then we might start getting somewhere in relation to manner & speed prior to the collision. Any crash investigator worth anything is going to be trying to establish the 'manner of driving' of all vehicles involved.

The issues don't solely relate to the nanosecond in time when the two vehicle's contacted, but what was happening in the moments that lead up to that time. I could give you lessons in basic crash investigation 101, however I get the distinct impression that you already know everything.

I said what and meant what I said (at least in the above post ) and none of that indicated I thought speed was negligible. I simply was correcting your early statement / post that we know she was driving "well above" the speed limit and I clearly wasn't contradicting the girls own words that she believes speed played a factor. She may very well have been driving insanely above the speed limit but at this point that has not come out yet ... that is all I was indicating relating to her speed.

You really need to consider how much distance the girl covered on the lead up to the alleged impact, keeping in mind that she was 'closing' on a stationary object, but rather one that seems to be moving at a reasonable pace itself. Without specific measurements of the location its difficult to put anything to this, however, the cameras & a few simple measurements will clarify it all.

Well no worries about that but its all relevant. Ive just worked my way thru todays posts and can see the moderator above wants only the issue of the mother fronting at the funeral discussed here, so i guess by error we are all way off the topic line.

[Nisa]

To my knowledge it is not against the law nor in my opinion arrogant in either circumstances to flick your high beams at another driver to indicate your intentions.

It's not indicating an intention, it's indicating a demand, and that's why it is arrogant. And when it involves tailgating and speeding, which it invariably does, it is against the law.

You might want to do an internet search for driving laws and tips for driving in Thailand. You will then find it is both acceptable and suggested to do this when passing for safety reasons,

A google expert. Fantastic. You might want to refer to the Land Traffic Act 1979. There is no mention of this proceedure in there, so whilst it might be a common norm on the road that doesnt necessarily mean it is correct proceedure. The act actually outlines what should happen when one is overtaking & it doesnt mention highbeam lights. It does however make reference to posted speed limits & vehicles keeping a safe distance.

What you see Nisa might be common, but that doesnt make it right in the eyes of the law.

LOL, it is not mentioned in the law so therefore it is against the law?????

Anyone who drives the highways in Thailand knows flicking your lights means the car wants to pass. I never said it was correct but it is the norm and it does help with safety and is mentioned in a number of online sites designed to educate drivers on driving in Thailand. Please focus on the issues here instead of trying so hard to prove some insignificant thing I said to be incorrect. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and make a lot of mistakes (as you can see I need to edit almost every post I make) but you really seem to be doing yourself no justice in nitpicking me on imagined things.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Well no worries about that but its all relevant. Ive just worked my way thru todays posts and can see the moderator above wants only the issue of the mother fronting at the funeral discussed here, so i guess by error we are all way off the topic line.

.

As for sticking to the topic, we had got way off on some tangent (don't even remember what) that was not related to this incident (car vs. van). If I am not mistaken the other thread was closed and redirected here. I don;t think we are limited to speaking only about the funeral but rather things as they relate to this incident as a whole..

[BanTamo]

But surely the OP's (not to say ANY highway drivers in Thailand's) knowledge of the 'Land Traffic Act of 1979' will provide significant comfort to all affected?

Heaven forfend one display any emotion in this thread!

Bravo Nisa.

[metisdead]

Well no worries about that but its all relevant. Ive just worked my way thru todays posts and can see the moderator above wants only the issue of the mother fronting at the funeral discussed here, so i guess by error we are all way off the topic line.

.

As for sticking to the topic, we had got way off on some tangent (don't even remember what) that was not related to this incident (car vs. van). If I am not mistaken the other thread was closed and redirected here. I don;t think we are limited to speaking only about the funeral but rather things as they relate to this incident as a whole..

I think you mean this:

[ChiangMaiFun]

It is now for you to reflect (since you seem to have no idea) why there is so much anger about this case.Of course the girl's rights must be respected but your posts are ridiculously out of balance.It's not really about class envy at all but rather a widespread rage that the elite in this country get away with crimes and abuse through the exercise of influence and money.Whether this is relevant here or will be a factor in this case remains to be seen.So far so good.

So basically this incident, that you admit has gone (handled) good so far, should be justification for anger DIRECTED AT THIS MINOR because other people of influence and/or money have got away with things in the past?

In fact, things have not only gone good so far in terms of the handling of the events in the aftermath but because of the name she was born with she has already had to endure death threats, her name being released by police as well as photos being published (both illegal when a minor involved in a crime). The victims family are already receiving token payments and am sure there will be much more to come given this family does appear to have the resources as opposed to a poor person.

I have no idea how rich this family is but it is simply a matter of fact that the rich and/or connected often have the ability to buy their way out of problems all over the world. It is not unique to Thailand. Though this certainly doesn't mean that Thailand doesn't need to properly address social inequality and corruption.

Personally I find it illogical, ignorant and disregardful to those killed and injured to try to make this girl the focus of anger regarding issues that have happened in the past or because of the type or name of the family she was born into.

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

[whybother]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

[neverdie]

Well no worries about that but its all relevant. Ive just worked my way thru todays posts and can see the moderator above wants only the issue of the mother fronting at the funeral discussed here, so i guess by error we are all way off the topic line.

.

As for sticking to the topic, we had got way off on some tangent (don't even remember what) that was not related to this incident (car vs. van). If I am not mistaken the other thread was closed and redirected here. I don;t think we are limited to speaking only about the funeral but rather things as they relate to this incident as a whole..

I think you mean this:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4121559

Please step into my office.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/430052-teen-involved-in-fatal-bangkok-tollway-crash-stressed-out-mum/page__st__250__gopid__4124193#entry4124193

[ChiangMaiFun]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

yes that's right - I was pointing out the obvious - she could NOT get a license as she was UNDERAGED - if she had obeyed the law 9 people would be alive - is this correct or not?

it's a simple yes or no answer

[whybother]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

yes that's right - I was pointing out the obvious - she could NOT get a license as she was UNDERAGED - if she had obeyed the law 9 people would be alive - is this correct or not?

it's a simple yes or no answer

The simple answer is Yes.

Would it be her fault if someone had run up the back of her?

[ChiangMaiFun]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

yes that's right - I was pointing out the obvious - she could NOT get a license as she was UNDERAGED - if she had obeyed the law 9 people would be alive - is this correct or not?

it's a simple yes or no answer

The simple answer is Yes.

Would it be her fault if someone had run up the back of her?

yes - because she is not of legal age to drive - period - whoever caused the accident she is culpable to a degree because she drove as a minor

and.. softening slightly... there may be mitigations - we all make mistakes - but my post was in response to all this wailing and beating of chests

'stop having ago at a MINOR'

if she had followed the law 9 people would not have died - I'm not saying, in any way, she wanted this outcome but her lack of responsibility - and maybe her parents - caused her to drive underage - there is a reason for age limits and it has to do with skill, coordination and judgement sets

[scorecard]

Some comments from the girl driving the Honda.

Some comments and apology from the brother, and he made comments about how his father is a man of justice / teaches justice.

The mother has had several interviews, and has now attended the funeral of one of the deceased victims.

Has anybody picked up any comments directly from the father?

Edited January 2, 2011 by scorecard

[473geo]

I personally feel it must have taken great strength of character, and courage, for the mother (of the car driver) to attend the funeral.

Edited January 2, 2011 by 473geo

[TAWP]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

yes that's right - I was pointing out the obvious - she could NOT get a license as she was UNDERAGED - if she had obeyed the law 9 people would be alive - is this correct or not?

it's a simple yes or no answer

Any Fatalist will tell you that the individuals would have died even if we could have gone back and removed the girl from the scene.

Your black and white-approach to the event is silly and Bush-like. If we can prove that the driver performed ANY offense during the drive, does that mean that they are equally guilty no matter what the outcome of the investigation say?

Hopefully they have a more sensible approach to the events here, closer to how we handle it in Europe.

[Heng]

It seems that the silent majority can no longer take the abuse they get from the privileged few.

The silent majority are often hypocritical themselves as they are all part of the same hierarchy, just waiting, wishing, and hoping to move up a few notches so they can behave like those they resent (and I suspect it's not just a local trait).

[lensta]

It is now for you to reflect (since you seem to have no idea) why there is so much anger about this case.Of course the girl's rights must be respected but your posts are ridiculously out of balance.It's not really about class envy at all but rather a widespread rage that the elite in this country get away with crimes and abuse through the exercise of influence and money.Whether this is relevant here or will be a factor in this case remains to be seen.So far so good.

So basically this incident, that you admit has gone (handled) good so far, should be justification for anger DIRECTED AT THIS MINOR because other people of influence and/or money have got away with things in the past?

In fact, things have not only gone good so far in terms of the handling of the events in the aftermath but because of the name she was born with she has already had to endure death threats, her name being released by police as well as photos being published (both illegal when a minor involved in a crime). The victims family are already receiving token payments and am sure there will be much more to come given this family does appear to have the resources as opposed to a poor person.

I have no idea how rich this family is but it is simply a matter of fact that the rich and/or connected often have the ability to buy their way out of problems all over the world. It is not unique to Thailand. Though this certainly doesn't mean that Thailand doesn't need to properly address social inequality and corruption.

Personally I find it illogical, ignorant and disregardful to those killed and injured to try to make this girl the focus of anger regarding issues that have happened in the past or because of the type or name of the family she was born into.

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

I was going to read all the posts before replying to Nisa but you did it first.

Fact 1. The girl was underage

Fact 2. The girl was unlicensed

Fact 3. She should not have been driving

If the van driver was licensed, she had a right to be driving on the road

and it does not matter if she changed lanes or not, the girl had no right

to be driving under any circumstances.

In my opinion she should be charged with 9 counts of involuntary manslaughter

and the family should also be made to pay suitable compensation to the families

of the victims.

Will it happen? Not likely.

[shunima]

As tragic as this event was and is, it wasn’t caused deliberately. It happened due to gross negligence and not with the clear intention to harm anybody. And if the mother shows regret and apologizes to another mom she should be respected for that. We all do not know her intentions, it’s all speculation. There is a fair chance that she really wants to apologize and feels truly sorry about the actions she, her husband and her kid put in motion. And if this is the case she should get the chance to do so. We’ll see in the coming month if the family really means what they currently express. Until then it’s simply not fair to start the bashing on assumptions. It’s the same old story here all over again… Not all reds are bad because a few of them were firebugs, not all yellows are bad because some idiots decided to paralyse the airport, not all Thais are bad drivers and even if most farangs behave this way… we are not smarter, we just grew up with another set or rules and values and sometimes think that makes us somehow more intelligent or whatever.

[shunima]

For God's sake man - this MINOR was driving ILLEGALLY - what don't you get??? 9 people died and would NOT HAVE DIED had she not broke the law - toughen up man and stop being so PC and think, for once, about the victims - 9 dead

The point is, just because the girl was unlicensed does not make her automatically the cause of the accident.

In this case she probably was the cause, but not because she was unlicensed.

yes that's right - I was pointing out the obvious - she could NOT get a license as she was UNDERAGED - if she had obeyed the law 9 people would be alive - is this correct or not?

it's a simple yes or no answer

No it isn't that simple. The question is... Did she do it on purpose, yes or no?

And as this whole thread here is based on speculation please answer how you see the following scenario:

Guy, 17 years just completed school (Mathayom 6) is doing a party with friends, buys some booze and gets kind of drunk. On his way back home (he's walking because he thinks that he's too drunk for his motorbike, so he's actually a good guy right?) he crosses a street and overlooks a car. The car driver hits him, loses control of his car and slams into a group of people on the walkway, some of them are killed on the scene. Now... the guy was 17 (under the legal age for alcohol purchase & consumption) Without him drinking it's most likely that nothing would have happened. But according to your logic harsh punishment is a simple yes or no answer, right? And then... the shop owner selling the booze is in for jail time too? And don't tell me you won't answer because it's fictional. Almost all post here are bases on assumptions.

[lannarebirth]

As tragic as this event was and is, it wasn't caused deliberately. It happened due to gross negligence and not with the clear intention to harm anybody. And if the mother shows regret and apologizes to another mom she should be respected for that. We all do not know her intentions, it's all speculation. There is a fair chance that she really wants to apologize and feels truly sorry about the actions she, her husband and her kid put in motion. And if this is the case she should get the chance to do so. We'll see in the coming month if the family really means what they currently express. Until then it's simply not fair to start the bashing on assumptions. It's the same old story here all over again… Not all reds are bad because a few of them were firebugs, not all yellows are bad because some idiots decided to paralyse the airport, not all Thais are bad drivers and even if most farangs behave this way… we are not smarter, we just grew up with another set or rules and values and sometimes think that makes us somehow more intelligent or whatever.

I'm prepared to take it as a given that the girl in question and her family feel remorse and will offer some sort of compensation, but what does any of that have to do with the law?

[rixalex]

No it isn't that simple. The question is... Did she do it on purpose, yes or no?

Going by that logic, drink drivers who kill would all be innocent, purely because there was no intent. It's a nonsense.

[OccamsRazor]

No it isn't that simple. The question is... Did she do it on purpose, yes or no?

Going by that logic, drink drivers who kill would all be innocent, purely because there was no intent. It's a nonsense.

In law, extenuating circumstances are criminal cases in which, though an offense has been committed without legal justification or excuse, its gravity, from the point of view of punishment or moral opprobrium, is mitigated or reduced by reason of unusual or extreme facts leading up to or attending the commission of the offense. - Wiki

[TheyCallmeScooter]

i'm always amazed how thai people manage to put a monetary value on anything. so does that mean in the mother's eyes, this particular victim's life was worth 30,000?

It's possible everyone just ignored this for obvious reasons, and that my highlighting it is unproductive, but oh. my. god.

A fair response to this post above would get me banned for life, I suspect.

cause he hardly drove with a trailer in the back of a car, he lost control in a curve and the trailer hit a tree with around 60-70 miles an hour. 4 friends killed on the spot. What this guy needed was support not hatred.

Now...

regardless of what happened.

did that girl enter the car with the intention to kill others? no.

did she enter the car with thinking clearly. If something bad happens I do not care at all? no.

my best guess is that she believed that nothing will happen and as it seems she drove frequently before the crash the past validated that (her) assumption.

so please think before you insist on harsh punishment. it doesn't matter if her family is rich or not. how is it fair that the family status now becomes a disadvantage? Maybe it would be better to assign her to speak in front of youngsters caught with minor lapes and tell these guys how lucky they were that nothing serious happened. That would probably make other think.

Exactly. I genuinely believe 95% of those who are enjoying their little moral buzz of contempt have made driving errors more serious than the one this child made.

But this is a results-orientated world we live in. It's just a nasty business when you start incarcerating people on grounds of luck (or horrible lack thereof).

It is now for you to reflect why there is so much anger about this case.It's not really about class envy at all but rather a widespread rage that the elite in this country get away with crimes and abuse through the exercise of influence and money.

Spot on, Jay.

I mean, the signs were there for us all to see earlier this year in April / May that the oppressed classes have just had ENOUGH of people who use their influence to commit crimes and wield their wealth in ways that make a mockery of due process.

To see 100,000 Red Shirts rallying against Thaksin's abuses of power, really put a spring in my step and may even have gone on to warm the cockles at some point.

Seeing so many Thais rise up and say "enough!" and demand Thaksin stop using his money and influence to avoid answering for his crimes...I mean, I thought I'd never see the day...

The elites will now surely understand that a new day of justice is dawning in Thailand. No more double standards!

So far, so good.