webfact Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 3 cops guilty in 9-year-old boy shooting case By The Nation The Criminal Court yesterday sentenced three Bang Chan policemen to two years in jail - suspended for two years, and a fine of Bt10,000 each - for manslaughter in a shooting that killed a nineyearold boy in a sting operation to arrest drug suspects in 2003. Pol Sr SgtMaj Pipat Saenin, 42, Pol SgtMaj Panumas Chanakham, 37, and Pol Sgt Anusorn Thaensuwan, 37, faced charges of murder and attempted murder. The prosecution submitted that on February 23, 2003 the three policemen opened fire on a car driven by Pornwipa Kerdboonruang with intent to kill her. The bullets went into the car and Chakraphan Srisaard, alias Nong Fluke, Ms Pornwipa's son, was hit twice in the back and the chest. Nong Fluke died later in hospital. Ms Pornwipa was not hit and narrowly escaped death. The court found the three policemen had been assigned to arrest drug suspects when they opened fire on the car. Three bullets hit its tyres and bumper and the defendants claimed they intended only to stop the vehicle. However, some bullets also went through the rear window and hit Nong Fluke, who later died. The defence said this was unintentional. The court found the three police officers guilty of recklessness, causing the boy's death, and sentenced them to two years imprisonment and a fine of Bt10,000 each. The jail sentence was suspended for two years because the court found the defendants were performing their duty and this was their first offence. The case has attracted much public attention because the shooting took place during the war on drugs declared by then PM Thaksin Shinawatra, during which an estimated 2,400 people were killed. -- The Nation 2011-07-29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Can anyone justify this, GK, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebluewater Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 With what they can steal it's roughly a months salary for these guys ($300 USD). No jail time. Off ya go now fellers - Have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdenner Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Can anyone justify this, GK, anyone? Obviously the Thai justice system can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Seemingly no punishment at all... Except, the article doesn't mention what if anything happens to their status as police officers, given they now each have a criminal conviction on their records.... Promotions for each, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted July 29, 2011 Author Share Posted July 29, 2011 Cops Get Suspended Jail Sentence for Boy's Death The Criminal Court has handed down a two-year sentence to each of the three non-commissioned police officers, who accidentally shot and killed a nine year-old boy during a drug raid in 2003. However, the court has converted the sentence to two years probation, saying that the incident took place while the officers were on duty and neither of them has any prior criminal offense. The Criminal Court has handed down a two-year prison sentence to Police Senior Sergeant Major Pipat San-in, Police Sergeant Major Panumas Chanakam and Police Sergeant Anusorn Tansuwan for accidentally shooting and killing Jakaphan Srisa-ard or Fluke, a nine year-old boy during a drug raid. On top of the prison sentence, the court has also fined each of the police officers 10,000 baht. In 2003, the convicted policemen opened fire on a suspected drug dealer's car that was fleeing and the boy was asleep in the backseat. The boy was shot and later pronounced dead in hospital. However, the court has decided to suspend the prison sentence and gave them two years probation instead, claiming that the incident took place in the line of duty and the officers have no prior offenses. The case was filed by prosecutors on behalf of the boy's father. Prior to this, Deputy Commander of the Metropolitan Police Bureau Police Major General Amnuay Nimmano posted bail for the defendant policemen with his position, claiming that they had no intention of causing the boy's death. -- Tan Network 2011-07-29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Can anyone justify this, GK, anyone? Come come Thaddeus , you did not expect anything else but a complete "whitewash" did you?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kishi10 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 In 2003 was the 'Shoot first, question later' policy in effect? If so, the PM of the time and his cabinet have responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayden5650 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. Not a parent are you? War? Sorry, sounds like you spent to much time at "whooo haaa" class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Hope you'll be saying same thing, should the Thai police do the same with an absolutely innocent member of your family.... Perfectly acceptable...of course.... Give them a medal.... Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeslice Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. You seem to sporting a generous dose of depraved indifference. It was a child. Think for a minute....before you reproduce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Hope you'll be saying same thing, should the Thai police do the same with an absolutely innocent member of your family.... Perfectly acceptable...of course.... Give them a medal.... Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. This verdict IS disgusting, this in Thailand is completely unacceptable, Did the driver of the vehicle intentionally run over the police???? did the driver shoot the police???? were they defending themselves from a life threatening maniac??? <deleted> !!!! This was in the time of The P.M. of the day who gave orders for the crackdown that many posters deny or defend. This actually makes one feel sick, highlighting what a warm hearted man and servants Thaksin employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pib Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The convicted cops will be reassigned to be traffic cops for a month....should take them around 10 days to recover the cost of their individual fines of 10,000 baht. Justice in Thailand depends on who you are....I know, I know, you can say that somewhat about any country, but Thailand has taken it to a new high. Big Noodle, Little Noodle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Sounds like an acceptable kill to me. In any war there will always be some innocent people killed, it's just the way it goes. Mai pen rai. If ever I ever was involved in a lousy crime, I would want you as the judge in court. Your comment is abnormal, but is your opinion, and you have a right to that.:bah: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. Edited July 29, 2011 by random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. Since when is fleeing a capital offense? Since when is seeing a criminal running away a life-threatening to the police-officers to that degree that they must pepper the car with bullets and kill bystanders? On what moral level is that permissible? Oh, what, you support Thaksin and Red Shirts...now I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. Disobeying (allegedly) orders from the police is sufficient motive to being shot? Let's say, if you are holding a protest and refuse to disperse is it the same logic? The people have the option of stopping and going home but if they ignore the orders it's OK to shoot them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. Suspected is what you said, not proven. Couldn't the police set up road blocks or give chase??? if it doesn't justify the killing of a child. This incident was not a life threatening one from the driver, if you thought that the police were going to shoot you wouldn't you drive on???? because it is like this in Thailand it doesn't excuse it. The police were in full flight and to get as many people as possible from direct orders via the P.M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman2543 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Only 8.5 years to reach a verdict and then a suspended sentence. Thai Justice at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJW Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 In Thailand, if you flee the police, you risk being shot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 In Thailand, if you flee the police, you risk being shot at. If they want to shoot you they will - flee or not, I would suspect most of the suspected shootings in the drug crackdown the men were not running, they would have been selected partly from grassing on higher officials. It is happening now, in Issan high profile people and officials control not the village kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 i see the usual mob are online, not reading what I write, just inventing what they think i wrote. At what point do I mention a capital offence, at what point do i say the shooting is justified, what does this have to do with my political leanings etc etc etc. the kid died because his mother decided to drive away when ordered to stop by the police, in uniform, on duty and performing a legal stop of a vehicle. I repeat again, this does not justify the accidental death of the boy, however in life we reap what we sow. I guess if this woman then went on to sell tainted drugs to your family member that dies from the drugs then you would forgive her. there was a warrant for her arrest, she failed to stop, her son is dead. I have been here 6 years and I know the police are a law unto themselves, surely a Thai would also know this, a thai drug dealer would know this, and a thai drug dealer would know that fleeing from the police is likely to have one outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 ... the kid died because his mother decided to drive away when ordered to stop by the police, in uniform, on duty and performing a legal stop of a vehicle. I repeat again, this does not justify the accidental death of the boy, however in life we reap what we sow. ... Repeated for emphasis. "... this does not justify the accidental death of the boy, however in life we reap what we sow" It's not justified, but it is justified. Doublespeak in other words. I do wonder though what did the boy sow to reap a couple bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DP25 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 the kid died because his mother decided to drive away when ordered to stop by the police, in uniform, on duty and performing a legal stop of a vehicle. Spraying a car with gunfire is a legal way to stop a vehicle now? The mother survived the attack on the vehicle. Where is she now? She disappeared and has never been seen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. I believe you are incorrect. This happened during the so-called "war on drugs". Police forces and provincial governors were given a hit list of people to eliminate in their province. Governors and police who declined to expedite extrajudicial killings were moved from their post. The goal was to kill the suspects and then later it would be presented to the press as a shootout in which the suspects allegedly fired first. A handgun would be placed in one hand of the corpse and a bag of speed tablets in his/her pocket. 'Cept this one didn't go to plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackysleet Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Nowhere does it actually say that the police called on the driver to stop, it states the driver was fleeing, or was this the excuse needed to justify their shooting of an innocent child. The police state their intention was only to stop the vehicle so why were some bullets fired through the back window while others hit the tyres, perhaps a case of one crack shot policeman and two crap shot policemen. It never actually mentioned in this article by this upstanding publication as to whether any drugs were discovered, I suspect not otherwise it would have been mentioned in the hope of adding justification to this murder. As for the article pointing out that this crime was committed under the rule of the PM at the time with his policy on drugs, it was but they were also directly employed by the Democrats since they came to power and what kind of a person would carry out orders like murdering people. Edited July 29, 2011 by wackysleet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackysleet Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 The driver of the vehicle had the option to stop when requested to do so by the police and she chose to ignore it. This does not justify the accidental killing of the child however, but we reap what we sow, a suspected drug dealer chose to flee when legally requested to stop by the police, and we all see the results of that in this basically 'law unto themselves' country. I believe you are incorrect. This happened during the so-called "war on drugs". Police forces and provincial governors were given a hit list of people to eliminate in their province. Governors and police who declined to expedite extrajudicial killings were moved from their post. The goal was to kill the suspects and then later it would be presented to the press as a shootout in which the suspects allegedly fired first. A handgun would be placed in one hand of the corpse and a bag of speed tablets in his/her pocket. 'Cept this one didn't go to plan. Is this just a belief or do you actually have evidence that happened because if you do then I suggest you keep it to yourself and keep your head down, THEY ARE STILL OUT THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 An inflammatory post and responses to it have been deleted. Let's keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artisi Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) I would suggest that <deleted>would sum it up nicely. Edited July 29, 2011 by Artisi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now