Bangkok Van Crash Girl Released Without Bail

[Nisa]

I wonder if the accident wasn't caused by a 16 year old girl if the outrage would have been just as high.

I think the outrage has less to do with her age but more to do with her family name based on many posts and the online lynch mob established after the accident.

[lensta]

You mean the same parents that made her an entitled little princess and gave her the keys to a car at 16 ??

Anything in the news to indicate the parents gave her the keys to the car? Actually everything I read says they not know she was driving with a care borrowed from a friend. As for "entitled little princess" comment ... it only seems to show your biased against people who have money and status in society. As has been witnessed by all of us there are kids of all status driving underage in Thailand.

Nisa, I have been reading your posts on this and other threads about this "accident"

and I keep wondering what relation you are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family.

Logical thing to wonder considering I am pointing out facts as opposed to many of the posts here that contain information posters have dreamed up to help them vent the rage they have inside them that certainly has nothing to do with this 16 year old girl.

Edit: A perfect example would be the post from "somtampet" above. That is if it is not removed by the mods as so many of the other ignorant and hateful posts have.

So what relation are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family?

[Nisa]

So what relation are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family?

none to my knowledge beyond what I have read in the news.

[gemini81]

So what relation are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family?

none to my knowledge beyond what I have read in the news.

It appears you do, 'cause if I log in once every few days, and there's something related to the accident, it says you recently posted just minutes prior, indicating your obsession with it-along with peculiar reasons to defend the girl and sweep things under the carpet, defying rationale.

[Nisa]

So what relation are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family?

none to my knowledge beyond what I have read in the news.

It appears you do, 'cause if I log in once every few days, and there's something related to the accident, it says you recently posted just minutes prior, indicating your obsession with it-along with peculiar reasons to defend the girl and sweep things under the carpet, defying rationale.

You sound a bit paranoid and/or either dishonest or trouble with reading comprehension. I'd be welcome to defend anything I have posted if you want to give an example of your accusations. But. If you think pointing out the law regarding minors is sweeping things under the rug then I cannot help you and if you believe my saying weight should be added, in determining her punishment, by what the victims family desire are and not ours then again I cannot help you. If it upsets you that I correct somebody when they make untrue and/or hateful posts then once again I cannot help you.

If you look at most of the threads on this topic I have no even chimed in until well into the debate such as this thread where my first post was the near the 50th made and most are grouped together within a certain period while I happen to be online.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nisa

[gemini81]

So what relation are to this girl or what personal involvement

you have with her or her family?

none to my knowledge beyond what I have read in the news.

It appears you do, 'cause if I log in once every few days, and there's something related to the accident, it says you recently posted just minutes prior, indicating your obsession with it-along with peculiar reasons to defend the girl and sweep things under the carpet, defying rationale.

You sound a bit paranoid and/or either dishonest or trouble with reading comprehension. I'd be welcome to defend anything I have posted if you want to give an example of your accusations. But. If you think pointing out the law regarding minors is sweeping things under the rug then I cannot help you and if you believe my saying weight should be added, in determining her punishment, by what the victims family desire are and not ours then again I cannot help you. If it upsets you that I correct somebody when they make untrue and/or hateful posts then once again I cannot help you.

If you look at most of the threads on this topic I have no even chimed in until well into the debate such as this thread where my first post was the near the 50th made and most are grouped together within a certain period while I happen to be online.

thanks for proving my point!

...paranoia??? that's random.

[OzMick]

[

It is clear that a number of people are choosing to believe untrue things because of their bias and hatred towards all those with power, money or status while other just seem to be incapable of getting of the hate train they get on when they mistakenly believed the stuff coming out from the online lynch mob that formed after this accident before ANY real facts were in.

To date, I have seen nothing to indicate this case has been handled any differently than it would be for any minor involved in the same circumstances where the minor suspect has taken responsibility, doesn't posses a future danger, the actions had no malice, compensation is being offered and the minor has what appears to have a responsible family to take responsibility for her before trial / sentencing.

The police have charged the girl with the deaths and there is nothing to indicate they have done anything to show favoritism towards this 16-year old girl because of the last name she was born to or because of the riches the family may or may not have. The police were not responsible for this girl's not being held before trial but it was the juvi authorities who determined under law that there was no reason to hold the girl. They followed the law as it relates to minors where punishment and incarceration are not the objectives but rather safety and education. Since it appears the girl poses no risk, is not in need of mental help from the state there simply is no reason to hold her prior to any conviction. To add to this, the girl and her family have appeared to do everything a remorseful and responsible family could do to this point but yet people still want to pretend conspiracies abound.

From what we know now she borrowed the car from a friend and that friend got the car from the owner of a garage who lent it to her/him while his/her car was in the shop. It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine.

In reality, what we have seen happen in the case is that this 16-year old has faced more than a typical 16-year old would face in this situation. Her name has been published (illegally) and likely released by the police (illegally). She and her family have received numerous threats, have had at least one person break into her hospital room and have seen all sorts of lies being spread globally about this girl including that after the accident she immediately found it funny people died and tweeted about it. Had the media and/or police followed the law, her name would not have been released and like other minors would not need to have their mistakes as a youth follow them into adulthood in terms of being labeled by others forever.

The facts are (as we know them) is that this girl broke minor Thai laws (speeding & no license) but it resulted in horrific consequences. She needs to be held accountable per the law, as they relate to her being a minor, and to date we have seen authorities do just that beyond the release of her name. It is just illogical to believe this girl had any intent to harm anybody by her actions and there is simply no reason at all to believe she or her family are evil.

None of us here are the victims of the accident or their immediate family and have no right to speak for them or pretend we know what they want when it comes to "justice" for this 16-year old. However, based on knowledge of Thais, I suspect they don't wish the girl to be incarcerated but would feel much better about seeing their own family improved financially as a way to honor their lost family member and believe something good came from their death in terms of helping the family ... as is such a strong and respected belief here.

Again you fail to address the issue of unequal leniency due to social status. Again you claim that the adult who gave the girl a car will face only minor charges, and might get a pass because he/she thought the girl was legit. That is pure crap. Ignorance is no excuse - it is the responsibility of the key-holder to check before handing over the keys. And when you finally accept that although it was an accident, it was a reasonably for-see-able result of a series of illegal acts.

Why do you think finding this person is taking so long? This smells of a scam to allow children of wealthy families to flout the law and drive illegally, with a short-circuit to prevent blame coming back to their families. I say wealthy because most thais could not afford to enter into such a scheme. If this is not a scam as I claim, why could not the BIB identify this person with 5 minutes of entering the workshop where his/her car is under repair? If it is a scam involving numerous hiso families, what chance is there of it being exposed?

" It is just illogical to believe this girl had any intent to harm........." Well that just dandy. And she's very sorry! With that and $5 you might get a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But in my mind, ignoring possible consequences that a reasonable person could see may happen comes close to callous indifference, and at least rates arrogant disregard of both thai law and other road users safety.

Edited January 12, 2011 by OzMick

[Nisa]

A simple question to all of you people defending this reprobate.

If your child/loved one was killed as a result of this accident would you be happy with a pay off or would you want justice to be done, and the reprobate responsible put behind bars?

I don't think what we (western's and those not part of the victims families) has anything to do with justice for these families who have different beliefs and culture and views on "justice". What is more concerning to me is those who are screaming for "their" view of justice with no regard for what the actual victims families want. "IF" the families believe that having the 16-year old do a stiff jail sentence would only cause more pain then my question would be do posters here still believe "justice" is served to these families by locking her up?

As for your initial "simple" question in addition to being irrelevant unless you also want to consider what would you do/feel/want if your daughter was the 16-year old and also consider not just how we "think" we might handle such a situation but also what would be the right way to handle such a situation. But if I was forced to give an answer I believe to be true based on my past then I really don't believe I would feel any need to see somebody punished for causing me or my family unintended harm but would want to be compensated for any loss but it would take time before I was able to think about compensation and certainly wouldn't be able to meet with the family within a week after the accidents as the majority (if not all) have in this incident. But I also understand this is a different culture Although not on the same level by any means I have just never (accept as a kid0 felt the need to punish somebody for stepping on my foot or scratching my car if done unintentionally even if the person was acting irresponsibly. I simply want a sincere apology and to be compensated for any damage. On the other hand if the person is not regretful and shows no remorse then I do tend to want to see them learn a lesson and be put in my shoes. Although not easy to do, I "try" to put myself in other people's shoes and treat them the way I wanted to be treated regardless if they are a victim or the one responsible for a tragedy. I've never had a 16-year old girl kill a family member and I have never had my speeding result in a death .. in either circumstance I hope that I act in a way that I believe is right and not based on emotions since most people make terrible mistakes when they act out of emotions with out thinking clearly.

[LivinLOS]

OK let me just add 3 road death sentances I personally know of.

1) Farang parks his car every night at the side of the road.. Bar girl at 3am drove drunk into his parked car. The police say he shouldnt have parked there and he was sentenced to 2 years for causing her death !! for a parking offence !! When she drove (probably drunk, police refused to do blood alcohol test) into his static parked car and he was asleep in his home !!

2) Thai man killed one of my best mates 15 year old farang niece. Got 3.5 years from memory (cant remember if it was 3.5 sentenced or likely to serve 3.5 based on higher).

3) Farang man driving at night, granny steps into the path of his pickup on a country rd. Dead Granny. The insurance company wouldnt pay the blood money and he had to pay 800k to not go to jail. For granny walking in front of his truck.

Now with those as baseline real world punishments, for driving offences (not not unlicensed, speeding, etc offences) what would be normal for the death of 10 people, educated college type Thais, if caused by dangerous driving ??

And does anyone think Miss 'na Ayathaya' will get anything close to it ??

Edited January 12, 2011 by LivinLOS

[Nisa]

It is clear that a number of people are choosing to believe untrue things because of their bias and hatred towards all those with power, money or status

Edit: deleted the rest of post due to length according to forum etiquette

Again you fail to address the issue of unequal leniency due to social status. Again you claim that the adult who gave the girl a car will face only minor charges, and might get a pass because he/she thought the girl was legit. That is pure crap. Ignorance is no excuse - it is the responsibility of the key-holder to check before handing over the keys. And when you finally accept that although it was an accident, it was a reasonably for-see-able result of an illegal act.

Why do you think finding this person is taking so long? This smells of a scam to allow children of wealthy families to flout the law and drive illegally, with a short-circuit to prevent blame coming back to their families. I say wealthy because most thais could not afford to enter into such a scheme. If this is not a scam as I claim, why could not the BIB identify this person with 5 minutes of entering the workshop where his/her car is under repair? If it is a scam involving numerous hiso families, what chance is there of it being exposed?

" It is just illogical to believe this girl had any intent to harm........." Well that just dandy. And she's very sorry! With that and $5 you might get a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But in my mind, ignoring possible consequences that a reasonable person could see may happen comes close to callous indifference, and at least rates arrogant disregard of both thai law and other road users safety.

I didn't say anything close to what you claim ... I said re: the car owner

" It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

*added formatting to help you with comprehension

As for "Why do you think finding this person is taking so long?" I have no idea if the found her/him or not. Maybe they ran away, maybe they are in jail, maybe they got fined, maybe they lied ... What I do know is that last I read the police said they are investigating charges against this person and I believe the parents and garage owner too. I also know that the police work slow in Thailand when it comes to charging people as well as investigating. I also know that the reporting here by the press is usually very bad. I also know that the police have not either concluded with and/or released a ton of information regarding this crash/investigation yet which is pretty standard prior to a trial. Based on the law here, as I am aware of it, I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point.

As you mentioned ... your thoughts and your posts along with $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... along with the rest of us

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nisa

[random]

A simple question to all of you people defending this reprobate.

If your child/loved one was killed as a result of this accident would you be happy with a pay off or would you want justice to be done, and the reprobate responsible put behind bars?

I don't think what we (western's and those not part of the victims families) has anything to do with justice for these families who have different beliefs and culture and views on "justice". What is more concerning to me is those who are screaming for "their" view of justice with no regard for what the actual victims families want. "IF" the families believe that having the 16-year old do a stiff jail sentence would only cause more pain then my question would be do posters here still believe "justice" is served to these families by locking her up?

As for your initial "simple" question in addition to being irrelevant unless you also want to consider what would you do/feel/want if your daughter was the 16-year old and also consider not just how we "think" we might handle such a situation but also what would be the right way to handle such a situation. But if I was forced to give an answer I believe to be true based on my past then I really don't believe I would feel any need to see somebody punished for causing me or my family unintended harm but would want to be compensated for any loss but it would take time before I was able to think about compensation and certainly wouldn't be able to meet with the family within a week after the accidents as the majority (if not all) have in this incident. But I also understand this is a different culture Although not on the same level by any means I have just never (accept as a kid0 felt the need to punish somebody for stepping on my foot or scratching my car if done unintentionally even if the person was acting irresponsibly. I simply want a sincere apology and to be compensated for any damage. On the other hand if the person is not regretful and shows no remorse then I do tend to want to see them learn a lesson and be put in my shoes. Although not easy to do, I "try" to put myself in other people's shoes and treat them the way I wanted to be treated regardless if they are a victim or the one responsible for a tragedy. I've never had a 16-year old girl kill a family member and I have never had my speeding result in a death .. in either circumstance I hope that I act in a way that I believe is right and not based on emotions since most people make terrible mistakes when they act out of emotions with out thinking clearly.

a simple answer would have sufficed to a simple question, I have read you answer and I am still none the wiser so i will make it a simple closed question that needs only a yes or no answer.

If one of your family was killed by a speeding unlicensed underage driver would you be happy to accept a piss poor payment to compensate?

Don't buy into all this 'remorse' nonsense, to be frank its <deleted>, its is put on to garner sympathy, if this reprobate actually gave a dam_n about other people she would not have been behind the wheel in the first place, Is it acceptable if I drive home tonight like a lunatic, kill someone, and then shed some crocodile tears saying how sorry I am when in my mind I am thinking "I don't really give a dam_n, daddy will sort this for me".

this reprobate deserves all she gets, for a few reasons:

1. Driving underage

2. driving unlicensed

3. driving too fast

4. causing an accident that killed 9 people

5. not being forthcoming with information

6. Not being straight about the car ownership

7. Not really being bothered as her twitter showed

8. Hiding behind mummy and daddy in the knowledge that they will make it all go away, and eventually buy her a new car so she can get back on the roads.

9. to deter others from doing the same things

10. to show there is no bias.

you can buy all the crocodile tears you want, but as an ex policeman lets just say I am more of a cynic and want to see this reprobate punished

[Nisa]

A simple question to all of you people defending this reprobate.

If your child/loved one was killed as a result of this accident would you be happy with a pay off or would you want justice to be done, and the reprobate responsible put behind bars?

I don't think what we (western's and those not part of the victims families) has anything to do with justice for these families who have different beliefs and culture and views on "justice". What is more concerning to me is those who are screaming for "their" view of justice with no regard for what the actual victims families want. "IF" the families believe that having the 16-year old do a stiff jail sentence would only cause more pain then my question would be do posters here still believe "justice" is served to these families by locking her up?

As for your initial "simple" question in addition to being irrelevant unless you also want to consider what would you do/feel/want if your daughter was the 16-year old and also consider not just how we "think" we might handle such a situation but also what would be the right way to handle such a situation. But if I was forced to give an answer I believe to be true based on my past then I really don't believe I would feel any need to see somebody punished for causing me or my family unintended harm but would want to be compensated for any loss but it would take time before I was able to think about compensation and certainly wouldn't be able to meet with the family within a week after the accidents as the majority (if not all) have in this incident. But I also understand this is a different culture Although not on the same level by any means I have just never (accept as a kid0 felt the need to punish somebody for stepping on my foot or scratching my car if done unintentionally even if the person was acting irresponsibly. I simply want a sincere apology and to be compensated for any damage. On the other hand if the person is not regretful and shows no remorse then I do tend to want to see them learn a lesson and be put in my shoes. Although not easy to do, I "try" to put myself in other people's shoes and treat them the way I wanted to be treated regardless if they are a victim or the one responsible for a tragedy. I've never had a 16-year old girl kill a family member and I have never had my speeding result in a death .. in either circumstance I hope that I act in a way that I believe is right and not based on emotions since most people make terrible mistakes when they act out of emotions with out thinking clearly.

a simple answer would have sufficed to a simple question, I have read you answer and I am still none the wiser so i will make it a simple closed question that needs only a yes or no answer.

If one of your family was killed by a speeding unlicensed underage driver would you be happy to accept a piss poor payment to compensate?

Don't buy into all this 'remorse' nonsense, to be frank its <deleted>, its is put on to garner sympathy, if this reprobate actually gave a dam_n about other people she would not have been behind the wheel in the first place, Is it acceptable if I drive home tonight like a lunatic, kill someone, and then shed some crocodile tears saying how sorry I am when in my mind I am thinking "I don't really give a dam_n, daddy will sort this for me".

this reprobate deserves all she gets, for a few reasons:

1. Driving underage

2. driving unlicensed

3. driving too fast

4. causing an accident that killed 9 people

5. not being forthcoming with information

6. Not being straight about the car ownership

7. Not really being bothered as her twitter showed

8. Hiding behind mummy and daddy in the knowledge that they will make it all go away, and eventually buy her a new car so she can get back on the roads.

9. to deter others from doing the same things

10. to show there is no bias.

you can buy all the crocodile tears you want, but as an ex policeman lets just say I am more of a cynic and want to see this reprobate punished

As for you being none the wiser ... I can not help that as I answered your question.

Although obviously my opinion .. you must have been a horrible police officer based on your inability to see I did answer your question as well as your list of 10 including a number of things that are factually inaccurate according to any reliable source. As the police said she was cooperative in giving information, she didn't hold back information about the owner of the car, she didn't post on her twitter account after the accident, there is no indication she is hiding behind her mom and dad as she met with victims family's as well as doing an interview where she took responsibility for the accident and admitted speeding. There is also nothing that has been reported about her parent's ever buying her a car. So, if you are being honest about being a policeman, I feel for anybody who you came in contact with since you play so loose with facts and evidence and make over the top assumptions.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nisa

[OzMick]

I didn't say anything close to what you claim ... I said re: the car owner

" It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

*added formatting to help you with comprehension

As for "Why do you think finding this person is taking so long?" I have no idea if the found her/him or not. Maybe they ran away, maybe they are in jail, maybe they got fined, maybe they lied ... What I do know is that last I read the police said they are investigating charges against this person and I believe the parents and garage owner too. I also know that the police work slow in Thailand when it comes to charging people as well as investigating. I also know that the reporting here by the press is usually very bad. I also know that the police have not either concluded with and/or released a ton of information regarding this crash/investigation yet which is pretty standard prior to a trial. Based on the law here, as I am aware of it, I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point.

As you mentioned ... your thoughts and your posts along with $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... along with the rest of us

But you did say ".......the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine." looking at the offense without considering its consequences. If you think the consequences are irrelevant, check the UK press where yesterday a lad (18, not much older) has been sentenced to 2 years for throwing a fire extinguisher from a roof. He missed, but was jailed for the possible consequences of a dangerous act.

Perhaps you don't see the consequences as reasonably fore-see-able. If so, please explain why.

And a whole string of reasons why the car lender can't be identified, missing one point. Why havn't the police got it from the horse's mouth - why hasn't little Miss Contrition and Penance supplied this information? Perhaps she doesn't know the name of the patsy.

" I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point." You seem to forget the expert who claimed there was NO evidence of the 2 vehicles colliding. Later evidence from a man in the van say it was struck from behind with enough force to jar the door open, and this collision has later been described as a "brush". What would make people make obviously fallacious statements?

[random]

A simple question to all of you people defending this reprobate.

If your child/loved one was killed as a result of this accident would you be happy with a pay off or would you want justice to be done, and the reprobate responsible put behind bars?

I don't think what we (western's and those not part of the victims families) has anything to do with justice for these families who have different beliefs and culture and views on "justice". What is more concerning to me is those who are screaming for "their" view of justice with no regard for what the actual victims families want. "IF" the families believe that having the 16-year old do a stiff jail sentence would only cause more pain then my question would be do posters here still believe "justice" is served to these families by locking her up?

As for your initial "simple" question in addition to being irrelevant unless you also want to consider what would you do/feel/want if your daughter was the 16-year old and also consider not just how we "think" we might handle such a situation but also what would be the right way to handle such a situation. But if I was forced to give an answer I believe to be true based on my past then I really don't believe I would feel any need to see somebody punished for causing me or my family unintended harm but would want to be compensated for any loss but it would take time before I was able to think about compensation and certainly wouldn't be able to meet with the family within a week after the accidents as the majority (if not all) have in this incident. But I also understand this is a different culture Although not on the same level by any means I have just never (accept as a kid0 felt the need to punish somebody for stepping on my foot or scratching my car if done unintentionally even if the person was acting irresponsibly. I simply want a sincere apology and to be compensated for any damage. On the other hand if the person is not regretful and shows no remorse then I do tend to want to see them learn a lesson and be put in my shoes. Although not easy to do, I "try" to put myself in other people's shoes and treat them the way I wanted to be treated regardless if they are a victim or the one responsible for a tragedy. I've never had a 16-year old girl kill a family member and I have never had my speeding result in a death .. in either circumstance I hope that I act in a way that I believe is right and not based on emotions since most people make terrible mistakes when they act out of emotions with out thinking clearly.

a simple answer would have sufficed to a simple question, I have read you answer and I am still none the wiser so i will make it a simple closed question that needs only a yes or no answer.

If one of your family was killed by a speeding unlicensed underage driver would you be happy to accept a piss poor payment to compensate?

Don't buy into all this 'remorse' nonsense, to be frank its <deleted>, its is put on to garner sympathy, if this reprobate actually gave a dam_n about other people she would not have been behind the wheel in the first place, Is it acceptable if I drive home tonight like a lunatic, kill someone, and then shed some crocodile tears saying how sorry I am when in my mind I am thinking "I don't really give a dam_n, daddy will sort this for me".

this reprobate deserves all she gets, for a few reasons:

1. Driving underage

2. driving unlicensed

3. driving too fast

4. causing an accident that killed 9 people

5. not being forthcoming with information

6. Not being straight about the car ownership

7. Not really being bothered as her twitter showed

8. Hiding behind mummy and daddy in the knowledge that they will make it all go away, and eventually buy her a new car so she can get back on the roads.

9. to deter others from doing the same things

10. to show there is no bias.

you can buy all the crocodile tears you want, but as an ex policeman lets just say I am more of a cynic and want to see this reprobate punished

As for you being none the wiser ... I can not help that as I answered your question.

Although obviously my opinion .. you must have been a horrible police officer based on your inability to see I did answer your question as well as your list of 10 including a number of things that are factually inaccurate according to any reliable source. As the police said she was cooperative in giving information, she didn't hold back information about the owner of the car, she didn't post on her twitter account after the accident, there is no indication she is hiding behind her mom and dad as she met with victims family's as well as doing an interview where she took responsibility for the accident and admitted speeding. There is also nothing that has been reported about her parent's ever buying her a car. So, if you are being honest about being a policeman, I feel for anybody who you came in contact with since you play so loose with facts and evidence and make over the top assumptions.

feel free to pm me and check my credentials, as for being a horrible policeman, I preferred to be sympathetic to the victims of reckless and criminal behaviour rather than make nice cups of tea and give consoling pats on the back to people that cause the heartbreak to innocent people, you should try it sometime. If you were a victim i am sure you would prefer this approach than me turning up and trying to make excuses for the offender. Remember policeman are drawn from society to protect society, we police by consent, we also have the same feelings as others although with time they start to diminish and a hardness sets in, that said however I never had time for ANY offender and no ammount of crocodile tears or fake remorse will ever change that, she made these decisions herself, she is old enough to know right from wrong.

She is guilty, we already know this, has she been open with all the information?? it appears not based on postings on the Honda website, did she twitter? I believe she did although her account is now closed, is she hiding behind mummy and daddy? of course she is, crocodile tears while daddy sorts it all out for her. As for admitting it, well she had no choice really as all the evidence points to her guilt, and she has no issues admitting it as she already knows there will be no penalty, that will have already been sorted out.

Bleeding heart liberals make me sick tbh Nisa, you might be a nice person for all I know, but your reasoning's are a little off. i hope that one day you do not have to suffer like the victims families have in order for you to change your views on this.

[Nisa]

I didn't say anything close to what you claim ... I said re: the car owner

" It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

*added formatting to help you with comprehension

As for "Why do you think finding this person is taking so long?" I have no idea if the found her/him or not. Maybe they ran away, maybe they are in jail, maybe they got fined, maybe they lied ... What I do know is that last I read the police said they are investigating charges against this person and I believe the parents and garage owner too. I also know that the police work slow in Thailand when it comes to charging people as well as investigating. I also know that the reporting here by the press is usually very bad. I also know that the police have not either concluded with and/or released a ton of information regarding this crash/investigation yet which is pretty standard prior to a trial. Based on the law here, as I am aware of it, I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point.

As you mentioned ... your thoughts and your posts along with $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... along with the rest of us

But you did say ".......the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine." looking at the offense without considering its consequences.

First of all, I said, "I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

Second of all, I doubt there is additional charges to be laid against the owner of the vehicle based on the outcome based on the assumption the accident was due to the girls speeding. I could be wrong on this but I am fairly confident I am not. However, I believe the owner of the car certainly can be gone after through a civil process if it can be shown he .should have known it was likely the girl would be involved in an accident because of her age or driving status or if he was aware of she was likely to drive carelessly.

Because you don't know the name of the owner of the car that certainly doesn't mean she withheld it from the police I am am VERY confident she supplied it as they stated she was fully cooperating with them.

As for two supposed investigators saying different things right after such a horrific accident this only shows why it is better to keep your mouth shut until after the accident. The girl never has claimed the vehicles didn't collide and it would be very stupid to influence an investigator immediately after an accident then not use that investigator and contradict him. And the statement from the passenger said he just woke up to a bump at the back of the ban. Although not very reliable since he just woke up and then immediately went into a roll with the van .. I do believe him. However, that doesn't mean that contact marks between the vehicles would be easy to see (if at all) on an initial examination in this type of accident ... especially given it would only take little contact to the rear side of the van to cause it to spin.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nisa

[random]

I didn't say anything close to what you claim ... I said re: the car owner

" It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

*added formatting to help you with comprehension

As for "Why do you think finding this person is taking so long?" I have no idea if the found her/him or not. Maybe they ran away, maybe they are in jail, maybe they got fined, maybe they lied ... What I do know is that last I read the police said they are investigating charges against this person and I believe the parents and garage owner too. I also know that the police work slow in Thailand when it comes to charging people as well as investigating. I also know that the reporting here by the press is usually very bad. I also know that the police have not either concluded with and/or released a ton of information regarding this crash/investigation yet which is pretty standard prior to a trial. Based on the law here, as I am aware of it, I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point.

As you mentioned ... your thoughts and your posts along with $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... along with the rest of us

But you did say ".......the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine." looking at the offense without considering its consequences. If you think the consequences are irrelevant, check the UK press where yesterday a lad (18, not much older) has been sentenced to 2 years for throwing a fire extinguisher from a roof. He missed, but was jailed for the possible consequences of a dangerous act.

Perhaps you don't see the consequences as reasonably fore-see-able. If so, please explain why.

And a whole string of reasons why the car lender can't be identified, missing one point. Why havn't the police got it from the horse's mouth - why hasn't little Miss Contrition and Penance supplied this information? Perhaps she doesn't know the name of the patsy.

" I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point." You seem to forget the expert who claimed there was NO evidence of the 2 vehicles colliding. Later evidence from a man in the van say it was struck from behind with enough force to jar the door open, and this collision has later been described as a "brush". What would make people make obviously fallacious statements?

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

[Nisa]

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

A reasonable person knowing or even should have known is a standard common in other countries too but it kind of gets thrown out the window when minors are the accused.

[random]

I didn't say anything close to what you claim ... I said re: the car owner

" It would be nice if we had more information about this but police have said they are investigating this. It may turn out there is something more here but that is simply pure speculation at this point. If the person who lent her the car told the police she thought the 16-year old was older and licensed then maybe that gives this person a pass. Even if the person didn't, I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

*added formatting to help you with comprehension

As for "Why do you think finding this person is taking so long?" I have no idea if the found her/him or not. Maybe they ran away, maybe they are in jail, maybe they got fined, maybe they lied ... What I do know is that last I read the police said they are investigating charges against this person and I believe the parents and garage owner too. I also know that the police work slow in Thailand when it comes to charging people as well as investigating. I also know that the reporting here by the press is usually very bad. I also know that the police have not either concluded with and/or released a ton of information regarding this crash/investigation yet which is pretty standard prior to a trial. Based on the law here, as I am aware of it, I also have yet to see anything in this case to indicate this girls family has had any illegal influence over the handling of the case to this point.

As you mentioned ... your thoughts and your posts along with $5 can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... along with the rest of us

But you did say ".......the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine." looking at the offense without considering its consequences.

First of all, I said, "I suspect the charge would not be too harsh given that driving w/o a license only carries a 400 baht fine."

Second of all, I doubt there is additional charges to be laid against the owner of the vehicle based on the outcome based on the assumption the accident was due to the girls speeding. I could be wrong on this but I am fairly confident I am not. However, I believe the owner of the car certainly can be gone after through a civil process if it can be shown he .should have known it was likely the girl would be involved in an accident because of her age or driving status or if he was aware of she was likely to drive carelessly.

This depends on whether thailand has the Use/Cause/Permit law, unless the car owner gave permission to drive then the driver would be guilty of stealing the car basically, and if the owner gave permission then the owner would be guilty of permitting the car to be used by an unlicensed driver, if the driver was on an errand for the owner then the claim would be 'use' or 'cause'

That is in the UK, however this is Thailand.

[random]

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

A reasonable person knowing or even should have known is a standard common in other countries too but it kind of gets thrown out the window when minors are the accused.

Well when we are talking about children, but correct me if i am wrong the argument is that this girl holds a US licence, so in that case then she should know better, she should know that speeding and driving recklessly is dangerous, so she could in this instance be regarded as a 'reasonable man' as she has knowledge and is not ignorant of the fact.

[neverdie]

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

A reasonable person knowing or even should have known is a standard common in other countries too but it kind of gets thrown out the window when minors are the accused.

Sorry, that is just WRONG!

Nothing gets thrown out the window in other 'western countries'. What actually happens is the Police investigate the issues and also question the 'young person' about what they were doing and whether or not they knew it was WRONG TO DO SO. Its not that difficult but perhaps not something you would pick up with 10 minutes of google training.

[Nisa]

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

A reasonable person knowing or even should have known is a standard common in other countries too but it kind of gets thrown out the window when minors are the accused.

Sorry, that is just WRONG!

Nothing gets thrown out the window in other 'western countries'. What actually happens is the Police investigate the issues and also question the 'young person' about what they were doing and whether or not they knew it was WRONG TO DO SO. Its not that difficult but perhaps not something you would pick up with 10 minutes of google training.

Actually you are wrong in the sense of it being a big issue in a case of a minor but clearly if somebody minor or adult should have no idea their actions could cause harm then there is no crime. I thought this would be obvious to a reasonable person. The difference is in terms of arguing law and technicalities in the case of a minor.

Guilt and innocence is not usually a big question in the US (at least in all the states I am aware) regarding when a minor is accused. In fact, they do not even have the right to a jury trial (unless charged as an adult). When a juvi is charged in the states it is KIND OF assumed they are guilty and the main concern is what is best for the minor and not punishment or being held accountable. If their crime rises to such then they can be charged as an adult. A minor does have the option to plead innocent and have a hearing before a judge to determine their guilt but this is not common because most are caught red handed, the judge's main focus is helping the kid and the system is not looking to punish them unless the court feels that would best serve them from future criminal acts. In addition their juvi record is sealed and any punishment or crime they receive is not open to public or even any court once they are an adult.

Also, police cannot even question a young person without the parents being present.

In addition, KNOWING if something is against the law is irrelevant in almost all cases because as you surely have heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Edit: If I recall correctly minors are not even found guilty by a judge in the US. they are simply found to be a troubled or delinquent.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

In the UK we have the 'reasonable man' test, as to whether a reasonable man would deem it dangerous or reckless to commit this act, could you foresee that your actions could cause harm to others, clearly in the UK case the answer is yes, as for the Thai case, well again the answer clearly is yes (also be aware though that the two acts mentioned come under different statutes, one is criminal and one is road traffic.

A reasonable person knowing or even should have known is a standard common in other countries too but it kind of gets thrown out the window when minors are the accused.

Well when we are talking about children, but correct me if i am wrong the argument is that this girl holds a US licence, so in that case then she should know better, she should know that speeding and driving recklessly is dangerous, so she could in this instance be regarded as a 'reasonable man' as she has knowledge and is not ignorant of the fact.

She has already been charged with careless driving resulting in deaths. She has already said she was speeding and that the accident would either not have happened or been as bad had she not been speeding. This really doesn't apply here. Most people although aware speeding can cause loss of life, do not think about this when speeding, and usually only consider getting caught by the cops (maybe not even that in Thailand). Although irrelevant in this situation, it is not uncommon for a 16-year old tend to have a certain feeling of invincibility and/or believe these types of things don't happen to them.

[neverdie]

In addition, KNOWING if something is against the law is irrelevant in almost all cases because as you surely have heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Firstly nisa, thats isnt what I said. I didnt say that they had to know something was against the law.

Secondly, nisa, I know you might find this hard to understand, but the usa is not the world, so most of that stuff about the usa this and that, is totally irrelevant.

[neverdie]

So, in other words police don't investigate IF a person knew the law but rather if a law was broken.

The error of my way was by trying to keep things short, so as not to allow you the opportunity to side track something or accuse me of extending something for no purpose (like you have in the past) BUT clearly I was too brief.

I am well aware of what you are stating above, however I wasnt trying to suggest it as you have written above.

I see you constantly defending a child who is 16 years old & based on the points you were making in relevance to the converstation with random. The point I was trying to make wasnt one about what her knowledge of offences was but a test of whether or not she had an appreciation for the basic understanding of the 'act she was engaged in was wrong'. (& Im not talking specific knowledge of the laws of the land). Whenever Police deal with minors around the world, in my experience & including what happens here in Thailand (sometimes) the Police will ask her questions that pertain to this. To make it clear, it is possible for some people at the age of 16 do NOT have a basic appreication for what is RIGHT/WRONG, however it is more likely that they will. Each case must be treated on its own merits, in more than one way. Of course the younger the child gets the less likely that it is that they will have an appreication of what they did, hence the reason that most countries around the world that I am aware of have an age limit set for the age of Criminal liability. I can assure you now, that if the Police were doing their job properly at the time they recorded her interview, there would of been questions that pertained to this & that will go along to assisting the courts at a later stage . Being a child doesnt automatically excuse someone whos being charged with an offence such as Careless Driving here in Thailand or Culpable Driving in Norway, vehicular manslaughter or whatever you call it in the USA. What definately changes though is the systems in place to deal with the youths that find themselves in these situations & apparently that is what we are also witnessing in Thailand.

I am also able to appreciate that what happens in the one area of the world isnt exactly what happens in another and Im not going to be as bold as to suggest that one country is wrong and one is right.

Finally, I think you will find that random was in fact a very good Policeman & perhaps you should stop & think a little before continuing with your google law enforcement career and imagine what its like to walk just a few inches in his shoes, understand what he has seen IN THE REAL WORLD. Then look at how some of your comments might appear to him. If anything seems clear from any portion of these threads about this entire incident, its clear you seem to have little understanding of what a innocent victim actually is.

[beechguy]

So, in other words police don't investigate IF a person knew the law but rather if a law was broken.

The error of my way was by trying to keep things short, so as not to allow you the opportunity to side track something or accuse me of extending something for no purpose (like you have in the past) BUT clearly I was too brief.

I am well aware of what you are stating above, however I wasnt trying to suggest it as you have written above.

I see you constantly defending a child who is 16 years old & based on the points you were making in relevance to the converstation with random. The point I was trying to make wasnt one about what her knowledge of offences was but a test of whether or not she had an appreciation for the basic understanding of the 'act she was engaged in was wrong'. (& Im not talking specific knowledge of the laws of the land). Whenever Police deal with minors around the world, in my experience & including what happens here in Thailand (sometimes) the Police will ask her questions that pertain to this. To make it clear, it is possible for some people at the age of 16 do NOT have a basic appreication for what is RIGHT/WRONG, however it is more likely that they will. Each case must be treated on its own merits, in more than one way. Of course the younger the child gets the less likely that it is that they will have an appreication of what they did, hence the reason that most countries around the world that I am aware of have an age limit set for the age of Criminal liability. I can assure you now, that if the Police were doing their job properly at the time they recorded her interview, there would of been questions that pertained to this & that will go along to assisting the courts at a later stage . Being a child doesnt automatically excuse someone whos being charged with an offence such as Careless Driving here in Thailand or Culpable Driving in Norway, vehicular manslaughter or whatever you call it in the USA. What definately changes though is the systems in place to deal with the youths that find themselves in these situations & apparently that is what we are also witnessing in Thailand.

I am also able to appreciate that what happens in the one area of the world isnt exactly what happens in another and Im not going to be as bold as to suggest that one country is wrong and one is right.

Finally, I think you will find that random was in fact a very good Policeman & perhaps you should stop & think a little before continuing with your google law enforcement career and imagine what its like to walk just a few inches in his shoes, understand what he has seen IN THE REAL WORLD. Then look at how some of your comments might appear to him. If anything seems clear from any portion of these threads about this entire incident, its clear you seem to have little understanding of what a innocent victim actually is.

You're entitled to your opinion, but why would you think random was a good policeman? It appeared that at least 4 of his points listed in an earlier post were based on unsubstantiated information, that would make him about as ignorant as most of these other posters wouldn't it?

[OzMick]

Actually you are wrong in the sense of it being a big issue in a case of a minor but clearly if somebody minor or adult should have no idea their actions could cause harm then there is no crime. I thought this would be obvious to a reasonable person. The difference is in terms of arguing law and technicalities in the case of a minor.

Guilt and innocence is not usually a big question in the US (at least in all the states I am aware) regarding when a minor is accused. In fact, they do not even have the right to a jury trial (unless charged as an adult). When a juvi is charged in the states it is KIND OF assumed they are guilty and the main concern is what is best for the minor and not punishment or being held accountable. If their crime rises to such then they can be charged as an adult. A minor does have the option to plead innocent and have a hearing before a judge to determine their guilt but this is not common because most are caught red handed, the judge's main focus is helping the kid and the system is not looking to punish them unless the court feels that would best serve them from future criminal acts. In addition their juvi record is sealed and any punishment or crime they receive is not open to public or even any court once they are an adult.

Also, police cannot even question a young person without the parents being present.

In addition, KNOWING if something is against the law is irrelevant in almost all cases because as you surely have heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Edit: If I recall correctly minors are not even found guilty by a judge in the US. they are simply found to be a troubled or delinquent.

"....................minor or adult should have no idea their actions could cause harm then there is no crime. I thought this would be obvious to a reasonable person." What should be obvious to a reasonable person is that giving the car keys to an under-age unlicenced driver is VERY likely to cause harm. The extent of the harm, in this incident, is the only real variable.

When a minor escapes/diminishes responsibility because of their age, the onus then falls on the "responsible adult" who aided/abetted/facilitated/encouraged them. The identity of that adult is a crucial part of this, the question is why havn't they been identified.

[neverdie]

You're entitled to your opinion, but why would you think random was a good policeman?

Personal knowledge of him, but don't take that as I know him because I don't.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[mysterybkk]

would locking this girl up in jail and throwing away the key make people feel like justice has been served? probably.

but would it help the girl? not really....

yes, she committed a crime and killed 9 people in the process, and i'm not saying that she should get off with just a slap on the hand, but i think the parents should have a more "active" role in the decision. ultimately they are the ones who allowed her to drive a car. i'm guessing that this wasnt her first time behind the wheel...

a lot of foreigners see compensation to the victims' families as an insult, but as one poster pointed out earlier, they may see it as "helping the families".

i think it would be much more effective if the girl was sentenced to volunteer for one of those rescue foundations who clean up after accidents. i think after spending a few days there she would more clearly see the consequences of speeding.

[neverdie]

I am clueless how to respond to your babbling .

You see nisa, this is what you did on the other thread, which is why I tried to be brief on this initially.

Anyway, its clear to all that you know best & thats all that matters. Its also fairly impressive considering your level of experience in both the fields of law enforcement & Thailand itself. No doubt you have other specialities as well.

[Nisa]

When a minor escapes/diminishes responsibility because of their age, the onus then falls on the "responsible adult" who aided/abetted/facilitated/encouraged them. The identity of that adult is a crucial part of this, the question is why havn't they been identified.

I think regardless of the minor escaping responsibility (assuming you mean civil/financial), an adult who "aided/abetted/facilitated/encouraged" or even should have known and stopped them (in cases such as this) can be held liable financially. However, criminally speaking there is usually a higher standard. Not sure about the laws here but I would guess there might be little legal action (no jail - only a fine) that can be taken against the owner of the vehicle depending on a number of factors. Again not knowing the law here but I would bet the owner of the car stating something to the effect that, " I saw the suspect (16-year old) drive all the time and assumed she had a license" might get him/her off the hook for the accident but not lending a car to a minor or whatever law might be in place regarding this. The criminal burden would also likely be very high in bringing this person up on charges for the accident or deaths unless the owner specifically should have known this act would likely result in an accident (such as giving your keys to a drunk person or kid who has no driving experience). If the 16-year old drove a lot and the owner was aware of this despite her driving illegally it might be very hard to hold them criminally responsible for the deaths but civilly the burden is lower as is the responsibility. In fact the owner of the garage who supposedly owns the car and who supposedly lent it to a licensed driver who had their car in for repairs will likely also face some financial responsibility even though (assuming we have heard the fact correctly) he/she could not have likely foreseen his actions causing an accident.

I too would like to know more about the ownership and how the 16-year old got in possession of the vehicle but it is not something I expect to see investigated by the Thai press or released by the police unless serious charges are filed or the feel a need to explain why the weren't..