Family Of Man In Skytrain Scuffle Threatened

[Nisa]

No matter how noisy he got, he doesn't deserve a group-beating after receiving a head injury.

From that point he was off the leash as many of us would be after being cold-cocked in the head.

Once he got a concussion there is no telling how rational he was able to be.

But that is not the case with Security personal who have NO WOUNDS to show at all.

Must have been one of those Gilligan Island concussions that required he be hit in the head again to regain his senses since it took a 2nd beating upstairs until he complied with the rules.

Clearly he was under some kind of brain injury or he wouldn't be attacking security and the station manager who were posing no threat to him and were in fact on a separate side of a barrier he was told not to cross. Clearly one of those head injuries where you have all your motor skills but feel a need to kick the station manager in the chest after your 7-year old daughter tries to end the situation by walking over and handing him the balloons.

By the way, should we apply the same logic to not seeing security injuries to the security guards assaulting this guy? Does it mean because we haven't seen this then it can't be true?

Bottom line is there is no defense for this guys actions on the tape and if he was assaulted by security, there is no excuse for that either as well as there being absolutely no excuse for this guy believing he was above listening to and obeying security and rules of the BTS regardless if they were posted or not since he was told and understood.

[Curt1591]

... Clearly ...

Clearly, there is nothing clear about this whole mess.

[carra]

wow, new to the foum and just read some of the garbage in here.

A blow to the head followed up by a group attack is not reasonable unless you are in imminent danger, insulting someone does not then mean that someone can smack you over the head, and then attack you again in a group.

Unless the security guard felt threatened that he was about to be attacked with the balloon sword. (joke)

Some of you in this thread need to get a grip of yourselves, the security here is 100% in the wrong and severly over reacted to a simple matter caused by their own inconsistencies. Some of you are blaming Behan for causing this,. however how far back do we want to take the chain, the security would be to blame for allowing him to carry balloons on the BTS on he previous journey that day setting a precedent that caused confusion when he tried to get on the BTS again. There was no signs here saying that balloons are not allowed on the BTS and I have seen balloons on the BTS many times so I wonder how many of you actually knew this rule.

One other thing, someones mentions you should follow the orders of people in uniform, well even for police officers it has to be lawful order, and as for security guards they are following a set of rules thats should not be subjective, and when they are allowed to be subjective we get situations like this.

Don't get confused between laws and rules also and who has the authority to uphold or enforce such things.

If the BTS wants to say they are protecting passengers from terrorist attacks I look forward to the setting up of a system where all bags are searched prior to entry to the BTS, horror of horrors someone might have a balloon in their rucksack with intent to make their children happy.

the character assasination from some posters in here aimed at behan just shows what a small minded, bitter, twisted group of people we have on here and in their desire to praise everything or everyone thai has has accussed him of many things, drunkeness, aggressivness, questioned his abilities as a parent etc etc etc, all because he tried to get a BTS,carrying the same items he has already had on the BTS that day only to be stopped by an agressive guard (how do I know he was agressive, well I would suggest hitting someone during a verbal dispute pretty much shows his demeanour).

I wonder when the next attack will be and for what? refusing to go in a tailors shop, not admitting to dropping litter in the street even though you have not, using the wrong door entering Paragon, being in possession of a foreign face on the MRT etc etc etc. I know, I am over eggagerating here, but make no mistake the attack on Behan was out of order as I am pretty sure the cctv will show IF it ever gets released.

There has to be limits, this guard/guards overstepped them.

Edited April 4, 2012 by carra

[GuestHouse]

I hope that they do release that CCTV footage. I find it very difficult to believe that this guy was attacked by security without asking for it in some way.

You mean you hope they release the footage and that it contains evidence that supports your preconceived ideas about what happened during an incident that you did not witness.

Edited April 4, 2012 by GuestHouse

[swillowbee]

But he was not a policeman! Everyone and their dog wears a uniform in Thailand! you think you should obey them all?

That's exactly what I mean,

we have to listen to men in uniforms (Police, immigration...)and despite we are not always agree with them we obey them because they have the authority which can be frustrated for some of us.

Then we have those other people in uniform with no authority and there of course a lot of us feel superior and tend not to obey them because they just do not have the authority.

And there is the problem with these other men in uniform, knowing that despite their fancy uniform they have no kind of authority and these can lead to some frustations as well.

... correct ... the security guard was not a uniformed policeman ... he was private security guard, without police authority, which can only be vested by the state ... in Thailand, that mean he is a low-wage, low-skill worker ... and his training? ... we need not guess ... the security guard chose to use potentially deadly force, in what appears as a situation that quickly escalated well beyond what we would expect for a family birthday outing for their child.

... many of the Thais and some of the farang commenting here are victims of the submission to authority behavior demanded of a pathological pacified Thai population ... that "authority" could be a baseless as a privileged last name ("Do you know who I am?"), or a car brand (a Mercedes driven by a Thai commands right of way over pedestrians, police, security, everyone) … or, an empty uniform.

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

...Thais are taught to reflexively salute anything and anyone in a uniform ... and those "authorities" expect unconditional compliance! ... the penalty meted out for questioning (much less resisting) their authority merits physical assault (e.g. the Suvarnabhumi Airport official's outrageous assault of a security officer last month), or being mercilessly run over (e.g. rich hi-so Thai kid who drove his father's Mercedes into a crowded bus stop in anger a couple of years ago).

... it is no wonder that Thais on the forum simply do not get that ... the long history of Thai society is evidence of cultural values quite different, at their very core, from most modern societies ... submission to authority is one of them, and it persists today ... it is one reason why high-placed Thais get away here with murder (I mean than literally) ... their authority supercedes any rule of law.

... c'mon ... any farang who have been here long enough will recall the posters of political candidates in fake uniforms appearing authoritative and commanding ... lower caste, pacified Thais buy that.

... this is text book Pavlovian behavior ... any simple-minded animal can be conditioned to salivate when they hear a bell, or to cower in fear in the presence of a buffoon in uniform.

Edited April 4, 2012 by swillowbee

[carra]

One thing is clear from all of this is that the BTS is an easy target for terrorism, and the nonsense shown here by individual guards and G4S just amplifies that.

To be fair with the lack of searches it has always been open for terrorism, but now, lets just say I have something and one guard does stop me, then I just walk away, no fuss, and walk to the next station where the guard may let me on using his discretionary powers where he makes things up as he goes along.

Edited April 4, 2012 by carra

[luckyluke]

the security guard was not a uniformed policeman

,

So we are agree about the order given, only not about the person who gave it, if it had been a uniformed policeman, we can admit that Mr. Behan would have obligingly obey the order.

[PaulBax]

Thank god many of the posters on here are not in any position of authority!!!!!

The word "lynch mob" come to mind where the majority are prepared to condem a person without being in possesion of the facts!

Remember you reap what you sow and when you are on the wrong side of a beating you shoud remember that you said it was OK to use violence instead of reasonable behaviour!

[whybother]

Thank god many of the posters on here are not in any position of authority!!!!!

The word "lynch mob" come to mind where the majority are prepared to condem a person without being in possesion of the facts!

Remember you reap what you sow and when you are on the wrong side of a beating you shoud remember that you said it was OK to use violence instead of reasonable behaviour!

It would have been good if BOTH Behan and the security guards had used reasonable behaviour.

[carra]

Thank god many of the posters on here are not in any position of authority!!!!!

The word "lynch mob" come to mind where the majority are prepared to condem a person without being in possesion of the facts!

Remember you reap what you sow and when you are on the wrong side of a beating you shoud remember that you said it was OK to use violence instead of reasonable behaviour!

It would have been good if BOTH Behan and the security guards had used reasonable behaviour.

and if both had used equal behaviour rather than the guard using excessive behaviour way above and beyond what was required.

[carra]

the security guard was not a uniformed policeman

,

So we are agree about the order given, only not about the person who gave it, if it had been a uniformed policeman, we can admit that Mr. Behan would have obligingly obey the order.

No, an order given by a police officer must be a lawful order and not just on a whim, baring in mind there are no signs saying balloons are not allowed and the fact that Behan had already travelled on the BTS carrying the balloons he is correct to question the order as it would appear to be at the whim of the guard. What happened after he was struck by the guard bares no relevance as to whether he should have been hit or not so people talking about his demeanour after being hit is not relevant, the point is should he have been hit, was he an immediate threat to either the guard or others that would require to be physically subdued and the scant evidence would suggest he wasn't. Like I say after being hit no doubt he was angry and confused, any of us would be.

This situation is akin to being asked by the guard to get him a coffee, you refusing, and him hitting you (or rather in the mind of Behan it would be, who was not aware based on signs or precedent set only that day that it was an order based on authority and not just at the whim of the guard).

Soon some of you will be advocating a queue to bend over and take it up the wrong 'un from the guards, as they are in uniform and are therefore able to do as they please when they please.

[Kilgore Trout]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

[whybother]

It would have been good if BOTH Behan and the security guards had used reasonable behaviour.

and if both had used equal behaviour rather than the guard using excessive behaviour way above and beyond what was required.

OK. Next time I am told that I can't do something, I'll just start yelling and kicking over bins.

I agree that Behan shouldn't have been hit prior to going through the turnstyles, but he shouldn't have been kicking over bins either.

[p_brownstone]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

I would certainly agree, however one does not "rationally question" anything by kicking at Security Guards - including a female Guard - and repeatedly screaming "<snip> you"" in public.

There is as yet no firm evidence as to what happened prior to the incident shown in the Video, much less any confirmation of what is alleged to have happened on the Platform after he barged past the barriers in defiance of the Guards instructions.

My own main question remains - why has the Farang, shown prominently in the Video desperately restraining a clearly out of control Behan, not come forward to give an account of what happened prior to and after what we have all seen in the Video? He was there from start to finish and, to me, his absolute silence on the matter can only mean that whatever he may have to say is not to Behan's advantage.

Patrick

Edited April 4, 2012 by metisdead
Profanity removed.

[Thaddeus]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

My own main question remains - why has the Farang, shown prominently in the Video desperately restraining a clearly out of control Behan, not come forward to give an account of what happened prior to and after what we have all seen in the Video? He was there from start to finish and, to me, his absolute silence on the matter can only mean that whatever he may have to say is not to Behan's advantage.

Patrick

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

[Ulysses G.]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

If you refused to listen to a security guard who tells you that you are violating a rule in a subway back home you would probably end up getting arrested. As far as there not being signs that forbid balloons, there are no signs that tell you not to jump over the turnstile to save a few baht either, but it is still against the rules.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

I hope that they do release that CCTV footage. I find it very difficult to believe that this guy was attacked by security without asking for it in some way.

You mean you hope they release the footage and that it contains evidence that supports your preconceived ideas about what happened during an incident that you did not witness.

I don't know. It would be pretty interesting to see footage of some guy with his family innocently walking into the subway and 20 rabid security guards suddenly start pounding on him for absolutely no reason.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[katana]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

My own main question remains - why has the Farang, shown prominently in the Video desperately restraining a clearly out of control Behan, not come forward to give an account of what happened prior to and after what we have all seen in the Video? He was there from start to finish and, to me, his absolute silence on the matter can only mean that whatever he may have to say is not to Behan's advantage.

Patrick

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

[Nisa]

... okay ... so ... let's just call it a cultural misunderstanding ... Thais respond to a command by unconditionally submitting ... most of the rest of the world responds to a questionable command by rationally questioning it.

If you refused to listen to a security guard who tells you that you are violating a rule in a subway back home you would probably end up getting arrested. As far as there not being signs that forbid balloons, there are no signs that tell you not to jump over the turnstile to save a few baht either, but it is still against the rules.

Your point is right on but the thing is that there are signs. I have seen them years ago and clearly recall the "No Balloon" icon mixed in with the other forbidden items and things because at the time I didn't understand why there were no balloons.

Regardless of signs or not, what if he didn't see the sign? Does this mean his actions would be justified? Do they need to have people sign a rule book and swear under oath they understood all the rules of the MRT before riding? Odd the lengths some will go to try to excuse this guys actions ... including his getting assaulted. The tape clearly shows his determination to be above the rules and get onto the train and clearly is attacking anyone he perceives as trying to stop his illegal actions which is at minimum trespassing since he wasn't entering after he told he couldn't.

No excuse if guards (20 as one poster speculates) assaulted this guy without legally justified reasons but a) we haven't seen that video yet and b ) it is mind boggling to see the lengths some will go to try to excuse and justify this guy's behavior that he himself admits was wrong.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Nisa

[Nisa]

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

[chrisinth]

Let the BTS and the Irish bloke sort it out; they are the ones that count.

So the alleged death threats don't matter then?

The alleged death threat came from the fact that people used the incident for their own gain by posting on u-tube and making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill. If it was allowed to run as only the minor incident it was, then this wouldn't have happened, IMHO.

My last post was just saying that I don't think there is anymore new input into the subject; it has been discussed to the point of it being repetitive now. Sensationalism over stories like this?

There are many more stories out there at the minute like the recent bombings down south, let this one rest.

Purely personal view, but I am sure many others would agree

... chrisinth ... I am certainly not one of who agrees with you ... if a brutal assault has been purpetrated, then it needs to be exposed ... Thailand is not yet society or nation in which its institutions may be trusted to protect the innocent, weak, aged, poor, young ... you know that.

...if an attacker (whether the farang, or the guard) is not held accountable, no consequences are suffered by the attacker... if no consequences are suffered by the attacker, no change in behavior will happen ... if no change in behavior happens, a brutal assault will occur again ... and guess what? ... tens of thousands of potential future victims ride the BTS every single day ... Thais and farang.

... if the BTS' security tapes show that the guard was wrongly fired, you may expect a similar outrage in his defense, from the very same people on this forum who are incensed by the BTS's irresponsible behavior.

... you want to close your eyes and buy into the whole Thai culture of passivity, blind obedience, kreng jai, mai pen rai and fatalism, that is your privilege ... still, you can count on others to stand for you if you are one day horribly wronged here, and find yourself alone against an interminably corrupt system ... this is what civilized people do ... they stand-up against wrong, no matter its nationality, language, or culture.

... if you are wronged here, you can count on us to stand for you, chrisinth. ... you might find you have no one else to whom to turn.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-- Martin Niemoeller

I don't think you got the point I was trying to get across. Certainly action should be taken, but it should be left to the legal system to deal with it. You will hear no objections to that from me.

We are not the jury. It really baffles me when people today react like this, as if it is their given right to be privy to everything that happens and the teddy bears and rattles come out of the pram, in this instance, when footage is with-held from the public.

As far as I am aware, the police are still conducting inquiries and legal action is being taken by both sides? Why would they possibly want to release the footage to those that aren't concerned in the case/s?

[p_brownstone]

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

Exactly my point.

If this "friend" of Behan's had come forward immediately after the incident - or even a few days after that - we would have been spared pages of speculation and interpretations of the Video which - to repeat again - shows only what happened between the first alleged assault on Behan and the (again) alleged assault on him on the Platform.

If Behan was indeed blameless, was assaulted without provocation in the first instance, then certainly if I was the "friend" I would be giving vociferous interviews on Channel 3 TV, Bangkok Post, The Nation and Posting on Forums like this, wherever, in his defence.

His total silence is, to me, deeply significant.

Patrick

[katana]

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

A lot of ifs, buts and conjecture stated as fact there

[Nisa]

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

A lot of ifs, buts and conjecture stated as fact there

What is not fact?

The Irish Guy did wrong as he has admitted?

The friend wasn't restraining him while guards neither posed a threat or were trying to harm him?

That he entered a secured area, where the staff he was attacking in the video were, after he was told he couldn't?

If the friend tells the truth it will obviously have to include negatives towards his friend from getting loud, swearing & kicking a garbage can in response to be told to ditch the balloons or find another mode of transport to his refusing to obey the rules and then entering into an area he was barred and being so out of control he needed restraining?

As far as I know, these are all facts. Lots of facts we don't know but these are ones we do.

[Nisa]

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

Exactly my point.

If this "friend" of Behan's had come forward immediately after the incident - or even a few days after that - we would have been spared pages of speculation and interpretations of the Video which - to repeat again - shows only what happened between the first alleged assault on Behan and the (again) alleged assault on him on the Platform.

If Behan was indeed blameless, was assaulted without provocation in the first instance, then certainly if I was the "friend" I would be giving vociferous interviews on Channel 3 TV, Bangkok Post, The Nation and Posting on Forums like this, wherever, in his defence.

His total silence is, to me, deeply significant.

Patrick

This is purely speculation but one thing that caught my attention from the start was that the person with the video trained his camera on the Irish fellow during the entire episode. Any time I have seen video of a crime or person assaulting others, the video is always on the aggressor/attacker or the one where you expect more action to come from and NOT on the victim unless the perpetrator has fled. What we do know without question is that from the start of this video to the end of this video it is the Irish guy misbehaving very badly in front of his young daughter. What we don't know is what happened before or after this 3 minutes or so. However, I am from the US and expect security at a public transport to use force, if needed, to prevent somebody from entering who is not obeying the rules. What is clear in this video is that this guy was not responding to verbal orders and if it took some knocks up on the platform to keep him from boarding then I have no problem with that ... whatever force is needed is okay in my book but this is Thailand and will defer to their culture in terms of what is appropriate. No idea what happened before this video but I suspect a guard over reacted and should not have hit him with any kind of weapon but what I suspect is that if the guard hit him with his scanner that the guard was hit or pushed first though this would almost certainly not justify an assault with a weapons.

I find it almost comical that people here want to believe they guy got smacked with a scanner and attacked by up to 20 guards for simply carrying balloons. All day long people are asked to throw away things before entering, including bottles of water without incident. Unless this guard had a melt down (like the Irish Guy did) then it is almost certain he didn't just hit this guy without warning or being provoked ... regardless if the contact was excessive or not.

[animatic]

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

Would you come forward if it was your friend and you would clearly have to admit your friend was out of control attacking security that posed him no threat after he refused to obey the rules that were explained? Regardless of what negative he can say about security, he would have to bury his friend too. His actions in the video clearly show he knows his friend is the one that needs restraining (not protection).

Exactly my point.

If this "friend" of Behan's had come forward immediately after the incident - or even a few days after that - we would have been spared pages of speculation and interpretations of the Video which - to repeat again - shows only what happened between the first alleged assault on Behan and the (again) alleged assault on him on the Platform.

If Behan was indeed blameless, was assaulted without provocation in the first instance, then certainly if I was the "friend" I would be giving vociferous interviews on Channel 3 TV, Bangkok Post, The Nation and Posting on Forums like this, wherever, in his defence.

His total silence is, to me, deeply significant.

Patrick

If you discount the death threats Behan has received to silence him.

I know them to be real, and I assume his friend is privy to the same info.

What do they fear him saying if he was totally at fault???

Why has BTS apologized to Behan publicly???

Edited April 4, 2012 by animatic

[Nisa]

If you discount the death threats Behan has received to silence him.

I know them to be real, and I assume his friend is privy to the same info.

What do they fear him saying if he was totally at fault???

Why has BTS apologized to Behan publicly???

What death threat(s) were received to silence him? I only read about a threat that was relayed to the police by the wife and assuming the info was relayed to her by her husband who had it relayed to him by his employer who the unknown caller made the threat to be relayed. The threat was supposedly for both him and his Thai wife (who wasn't even involved) to leave the country or they would be hurt. Sounds like some nutter who was just angry.

Do you really believe the threat came from the BTS, Guard Company or some other entity trying to silence him? The wife made clear she wanted compensation. Don't you think that that would be a much more easier way to silence them as opposed to calling his work and leaving a threatening message with somebody else?

The wife also said they didn't receive an apology but the BTS apology could be taking responsibility for what they should have, but didn't, do differently in the situation or simply expressing regret over the situation as I might tell somebody I am sorry they are sick. Regardless, when the wife complained about not receiving compensation, she also complained of them not receiving an apology even though it was reported days earlier the BTS made the apology.

Just because a guard acted badly doesn't mean the Irish guy didn't also act badly. Even though we only have clear evidence and admission of the Irish Guy acting badly it certainly doesn't mean the guard(s) didn't act badly too. However, unless somebody is a very young child, we all know two wrongs don't make a right even if one of the wrongs is more bad.

A question to go along with yours ...

Why did the Irish guy and the wife say they are not pressing charges against the guard and don't want any guard fired? The only charges they leveled have been against the guard company and BTS seeking compensation.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Nisa

[Thaddeus]

He probably wants to avoid the special attention that Mr Behan is getting, I know I would.

I seem to recall that according to Behan's wife, he's apparently a colleague at the same school, so as you say, with all that's gone on, he might not want to jeopardise his job there.

Would you come forward if it was your friend

Friend, mate, or work colleague.

In this situation.

First yes, second maybe, third probably not.

Most people have very few friends.

[Thaddeus]

A question to go along with yours ...

Why did the Irish guy and the wife say they are not pressing charges against the guard and don't want any guard fired?

There may just be a slight chance that they prefer peace over justice.

[Nisa]

A question to go along with yours ...

Why did the Irish guy and the wife say they are not pressing charges against the guard and don't want any guard fired?

There may just be a slight chance that they prefer peace over justice.

Might be plausible if they weren't going after the companies for compensation and doing interviews.

But the point was that neither this nor an apology from the BTS or an admission of fault by the Irish guy is not saying the other side didn't didn't do wrong nor does it tell us who started or escalated the incident. Reading into these things anymore is silly.

My "guess" is the Irish Guy probably wants to put this all behind him after cooling down and realized both him and the guards were out of line but somebody has put something in his head about compensation ... while he is forgetting that there is no real punitive damages to be got here and best he could likely expect is to be paid for a day of work (if he missed one), the inexpensive hospital visit and if lucky (or not?) a couple free passes on the BTS.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Nisa