I hate to spoil the party, but without the CCTV footage no one on either side can be sure how the Irish fellow ended up getting wacked and the same arguments are going around and around in circles.

Maybe we will never see any footage..

btw, a bit off topic and speculating, i noticed a few times our gracious hosts getting incensed when hearing the f word, even when not directed at them..

I noticed as well some nationality's people using that word frequently, and mostly in a jokingly way, without intentions to offend anyone..

Maybe just a misunderstanding at the beginning of the confrontation, which escalated dramatically.

I think you are right on about the F word ... very bad choice of a word to use here when displaying anger.

But its ok to walk around Thailand with the phrase " f*kc off" emblazened on a t-shirt ?

Edited April 10, 201214 yr by Soutpeel

An off topic post has been removed.

I hate to spoil the party, but without the CCTV footage no one on either side can be sure how the Irish fellow ended up getting wacked and the same arguments are going around and around in circles.

Maybe we will never see any footage..

btw, a bit off topic and speculating, i noticed a few times our gracious hosts getting incensed when hearing the f word, even when not directed at them..

I noticed as well some nationality's people using that word frequently, and mostly in a jokingly way, without intentions to offend anyone..

Maybe just a misunderstanding at the beginning of the confrontation, which escalated dramatically.

I think you are right on about the F word ... very bad choice of a word to use here when displaying anger.

Actually, a very bad word to use in Asia in general. In most Asian societies (and in those Western societies that I know of), vulgarities, profanities and obscenities reflect the (usually) poor (not in a financial sense but in a value sense) upbringing of the individual. There are exceptions of course; I personally know a few western hi-so kids who use profanities as part of their regular speech. In Asia, one's speech tends to reflect one's background, rightly or wrongly.

I hate to spoil the party, but without the CCTV footage no one on either side can be sure how the Irish fellow ended up getting wacked and the same arguments are going around and around in circles.

Maybe we will never see any footage..

btw, a bit off topic and speculating, i noticed a few times our gracious hosts getting incensed when hearing the f word, even when not directed at them..

I noticed as well some nationality's people using that word frequently, and mostly in a jokingly way, without intentions to offend anyone..

Maybe just a misunderstanding at the beginning of the confrontation, which escalated dramatically.

I think you are right on about the F word ... very bad choice of a word to use here when displaying anger.

But its ok to walk around Thailand with the phrase " f*kc off" emblazened on a t-shirt ?

Sadly, if true, a result of over exposure to western values. Every Thai family I know would be horrified if their kids wore this openly.

I hate to spoil the party, but without the CCTV footage no one on either side can be sure how the Irish fellow ended up getting wacked and the same arguments are going around and around in circles.

Maybe we will never see any footage..

btw, a bit off topic and speculating, i noticed a few times our gracious hosts getting incensed when hearing the f word, even when not directed at them..

I noticed as well some nationality's people using that word frequently, and mostly in a jokingly way, without intentions to offend anyone..

Maybe just a misunderstanding at the beginning of the confrontation, which escalated dramatically.

I think you are right on about the F word ... very bad choice of a word to use here when displaying anger.

But its ok to walk around Thailand with the phrase " f*kc off" emblazened on a t-shirt ?

Wouldn't know. In all the walking around I have done, I have never noticed such a shirt being worn or sold and even if done, what a very few do in a country of near 70-million is not reflective of standards in that society but regardless, as I mentioned ... very bad choice of a word to use here when displaying anger.

Edited April 10, 201214 yr by Nisa

Congratulations and thank you for this post.

Real Thainess is to abuse as much people of a lower social level as possible and getting away with it. You can observe it in everyday's life.This real Thainess has an extremely ugly face many of us foreigners refuse to see.

Kow Tow society at it's most accurate. Not it's best.

Just this is the logical end product of this type of indoctrinated culture.

3 very generalising posts.

If your education brought you to look down on a whole country's people, that education is flawed IMHO.

btw, never heard that "Thainess" is "abusing lower rank people" ; it happens everywhere when the boss is a idiot.

Nothing more than applying anthropological and sociological observation to the culture.

If the observation offends, that is not my intent nor fault.

You, not I, impose some implied looking down element.

In my opinion the worst part of Thai culture that causes the most Thais the most problems in life is Kow Tow, passed on for millennia by the Chinese, and implemented in a particularly Thai fashion here.

And Kow Tow is tied directly to Face and how all facets of the society interact.

It was clearly in play in this incident.

You may call it kow tow or krenjai but it could as easily be respect.

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

Edited April 10, 201214 yr by F4UCorsair

Anyone found a sign yet?

Anyone found a sign yet?

Get over it -- the Irish guy had a very bad day and probably one of his worst moments in life being regretfully captured on tape for all to see .... no sign was going to change this. He rode the BTS earlier w/balloons and he simply flipped when at this station he was told he could not. The rest is history.

I suspect you think the incident would have went down like this if a sign was pointed out to him .... "Khap Khoon Kkrap for pointing out the sign to me because otherwise I would have ignored all of you security guards & station manager and believed it wasn't a rule and I was entitled to use force and violence to enter the station and even if you attacked me and hit me up side the head a number of times, I still wouldn't believe it was a rule or that it applied to me. Thankfully you are pointing out a pretty sign with a picture because as a highly educated person and teacher, that is the only way I'm able to communicate."

Edited April 10, 201214 yr by Nisa

wow over 700 replies!

At the end of the day what difference does a sign make?

The security stated a rule.......one option.... comply

If we are looking for a sign what next? Does it also need to be in braille?

I mean just in case

At the end of the day what difference does a sign make?

The security stated a rule.......one option.... comply

If we are looking for a sign what next? Does it also need to be in braille?

Anyone found a sign yet?

Get over it -- the Irish guy had a very bad day and probably one of his worst moments in life being regretfully captured on tape for all to see .... no sign was going to change this. He rode the BTS earlier w/balloons and he simply flipped when at this station he was told he could not. The rest is history.

I suspect you think the incident would have went down like this if a sign was pointed out to him .... "Khap Khoon Kkrap for pointing out the sign to me because otherwise I would have ignored all of you security guards & station manager and believed it wasn't a rule and I was entitled to use force and violence to enter the station and even if you attacked me and hit me up side the head a number of times, I still wouldn't believe it was a rule or that it applied to me. Thankfully you are pointing out a pretty sign with a picture because as a highly educated person and teacher, that is the only way I'm able to communicate."

Personally, I would imagine it would go down like this:

"Show me where it says I can't carry balloons on the trains. "It is stated/shown right here."" Oh well, there you have it!" I believe the station manager was after the fact, part of episode #2. Episode #1 is still missing.. ;-)

Actually, if there was a sign, the balloons possibly would have already been dealt with, at the first station.

In this case, we don't know what transpired during the initial encounter. All we have seen is the emotional aftermath. Maybe Mr. Behan was out of line. Maybe the guards went off unprovoked. We don't know.

Some say "The guard had spoken!", and that is that. Some of us don't chose to blindly capitulate to authority.

"Everyone knows" there is a rule against taking balloons on the BTS. Yet, no one can point me to where I can actually see this regulation posted. When asked, even the ever vigilant guards couldn't show me! At this point in time, after reading everything I can, walking some stations and asking authorities, the only evidence of this rule is a photograph of a sign, a picture that could have been taken anywhere.

Actually, the sign is very important.

Since this entire situation exists because of this "regulation", it is the most important factor. Not only would such a sign be required, it would be required at the stations in question, stations which we have been told that no such sign exists.

Had this encounter happened in the States, Mr Behan would have hundreds of attorneys trying to get rich off this case. Without such notification, not only are we talking discrimination, we are talking possible assault and battery. The "regulation" is the only thing that the BTS has for defense. All the "he started it" rhetoric is simply rationalization.

I often come to TV to find things I can't find elsewhere. Many members are very knowledgeable about Bangkok. As a whole, it's one of the best informed sites about this city.

Yet, no one can point out this sign. Isn't that amazing. Kinda makes one think .........

If BTS just terminate the guard for using excessive force while carrying out his duty, the case will close, and discussion will stop.

Such violence people do not even deserves to be compensated for being made redundant.

Just imagine, if it is not the Farang head that bleeds, but the head of the wee girl.

I wonder if they check the blood of the guard for alcohol or Ya Ba (drug).

Inflammatory conjecture posts and obfuscation posts have been removed.

Nothing more than applying anthropological and sociological observation to the culture.

If the observation offends, that is not my intent nor fault.

You, not I, impose some implied looking down element.

In my opinion the worst part of Thai culture that causes the most Thais the most problems in life is Kow Tow, passed on for millennia by the Chinese, and implemented in a particularly Thai fashion here.

And Kow Tow is tied directly to Face and how all facets of the society interact.

It was clearly in play in this incident.

You may call it kow tow or krenjai but it could as easily be respect.

Nope, kreng jai is giving up your seat on a bus to an older person because you want to, kow tow is doing the same thing but thinking that you have to..... not the same.

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

I do believe you've got it F4Corsair. For the last two weeks you have been giving us your very slanted opinion and now you realise you have nothing to base in on, as you were not there and have not spoken to any witnesses, and have misinterpreted a video which was actually presented by a Thai national who was horrified at what happened to the teacher. I love this 'Road to Damascus' conversion.

Now will Nisa see the light without boring us with 'balloon signs' and taking stories from another site and totally misinterpreting them.

I have just come back on this site. Much more worrying than the actions of the teacher are the activities or bored foreigners in Thailand craving an audience for their opinions on almost anything and believing we care. Its an old story. Move on. The presentation of the CCTV video will not help any party in this matter but I can confirm it shows a premeditated ambush on the teacher concerned as he tried to board a train and that would be enough in any country to have the guards removed. Correct action was taken. The company can sue me if I am wrong.

I didn’t think I would ever say this, but I am actually feeling sorry for Mr. Behan. It is not because I think he was in the right, not at all, but because of the lobby that has been formed to defend what they believe was an injustice taken against him.

I hope the lobby realize that through their arguments they are keeping this subject in the spotlight and on Mr. Behan and his family, going against the wishes of the family as stated in his television interview when he blamed the internet for his bad portrayal. Arguing the subjective and speculative facts like you are doing is helping nobody.

To date, through the three main threads on this story there have been 1,908 posts! The story has been running on TV since the 22^nd March, about a father, a child, some balloons a confrontation with security officials employed by the BTS at Prompong Station.

Mr. Behan has already publically admitted that he was wrong. That excessive force was used will come to light when the police conclude their investigation. The statement by K. Anat Arbhabhirama on the 22^nd March claims the guard was acting in self defence:

“According to Anat, Behan argued heatedly with the security guards, pushing one in the chest and kicking the chief of the station. In self-defence, a security guard hit the passenger with a scanner.”

Certain posters are claiming that eye witness statements conflict with this account. I haven’t seen these official statements (not do I want to).

We now have a major issue with the sign of “No Balloons” being visible at the station. I didn’t see any replies to my post #675 about observation from the lobby side on that.

As for the alleged death threats, this for me has come about initially because of the posted video clip on U-Tube and probably the attention this minor incident has had on the various forums.

Let it lie and give the Irish guy and his family a break. When the CCTV video is released, there will be another thread, you can be sure of that. My personal view is that wrong was done on both sides (nothing like fence-sitting) and I hope a sensible conclusion is reached by both parties.

Remember, every story has three sides; for, against and the truth.

That excessive force was used will come to light when the police conclude their investigation.

Hopefully the inept Thai cops will conclude their "investigation" in our life time. How long does it take to "investigate" a fem minutes of video? Maybe they are too busy looking to collect fines from helmet-less motorbike riders.

We now have a major issue with the sign of “No Balloons” being visible at the station. I didn’t see any replies to my post #675 about observation from the lobby side on that.

As I have stated, if confronted with a "regulation", with which I have a question, I question it. I have done so many times. I have been shown the regulation, and complied. I have also found the "authorities" at a loss and proceeded.

As I said, everyone says this is the regulation. But, besides a third party post, on the internet, no one seems to know where they got this information.

This thread has been built on rhetoric and speculation. I simply ask for the one piece of evidence that should be available for us.

I don't know what happened during the initial encounter. None of us do. I am not speculating who is at fault.

I would like to think that I would not have been involved in such a melee. I have always been very good at handling such encounters.

But, then again, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT DOWN DURING THE INITIAL ENCOUNTER.

If left to me, it would have been resolved at the first gate. But, if set upon with an unprovoked attack, it would have never gotten to the second gate.

Although, unless completely blindsided, caring for a kid might tend to temper my principles.

Bottom line is that no one really knows what happened. And, in situations such as these, few know what their reaction will be.

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ... or in the case the gentleman who became irate while refusing to follow direction of those in charge of enforcing security and safety at the BTS and then continued on a path of using physical force and intimidation to trespass into a public transportation facility. All over balloons in front of his 7-year old daughter ... who by the way you can see in the video walk over and hand her balloons to the station manager right before her father, being restrained by a colleague, throws a kick into the the station manager's chest.

Of course some believe this is not what the story is about and we should ignore his actions and solely focus on the way guards may have handled his outburst, rule breaking, refusal to follow direction and then his assaults on non-threatening staff while he illegally forced his way into the facility and up to the train.

Clearly the guards didn't handle this right but any attempt to excuse this guy's behavior is very odd ... especially when trying to make this about a racial feelings Thai security may have had against a westerner. Any psychologist would clearly see this as a transfer of ones own feelings on to others.

The only conclusion I can draw is that some farangs are outraged that they are not being treated as superior and above the law. Don't the Thais know that farangs rule the world? If not for the farangs, the Thais would still be living in trees and caves and eating raw meat and fish instead of McDonalds and KFC. How dare these sub-human Thais question the rights and actions of any farang who has condescended to visit this country and spend their very valuable money here, who has taken many a poor abject Thai female out of poverty and shown her the good life, the civilised life. The Thais should be grovelling at the farangs feet instead of challenging them.

unbelievable., do you actually believe that drivel you have just put out there for all to see??

Oh I get it, its sarcasm, phew for a minute there i thought you was being serious.

No sarcasm.

haha you are brilliant, you have got me twice now, double sarcasm haha

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

“According to Anat, Behan argued heatedly with the security guards, pushing one in the chest and kicking the chief of the station. In self-defence, a security guard hit the passenger with a scanner"

That would say different.

But again, as earlier stated, it is claimed that eye witness statements conflict with this account. Unless you have been privy to the official statements, how can you say that "Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted"?

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

Which part of "no, you are not allowed to bring balloons onto the train" don't you understand?

I wonder if they check the blood of the guard for alcohol or Ya Ba (drug).

I think it would have been far more productive to check Behan's blood for alcohol, he left Surasak on the BTS and got off at Phrompong "to eat" after which he tried to re-board the BTS System, again at Phrompong.

There are at least 2 British and 1 Irish Pubs within a short walk of the BTS Station.

Patrick

I wonder if they check the blood of the guard for alcohol or Ya Ba (drug).

I think it would have been far more productive to check Behan's blood for alcohol, he left Surasak on the BTS and got off at Phrompong "to eat" after which he tried to re-board the BTS System, again at Phrompong.

There are at least 2 British and 1 Irish Pubs within a short walk of the BTS Station.

Patrick

... brilliant, Inspector Patrick, just brilliant! ... a keen observer of human behavior, you are.

... prior to seeing this video, if you had seen this man walking to the BTS Station, you would have seen him at about 7.00 in the evening ... he would have been walking with his 6-year-old daughter, carrying balloons and bags of gifts, joined by his friend and his wife (I believe).

... a person with normally developed cognitive thinking would likely have judged that this was a family out to celebrate a child's birthday.

... but you, Inspector Patrick! ... "far more productive to check Behan's blood for alcohol"!? ... you would judge him as a likely drunkard!?

... so, okay, let's take your position ... what do you think? ... maybe a 1-in-1,000 chance he would leave his school after work, collect his familiy and go get blasted out of his mind by 7.00p, all on his daughter's birthday ... please, Inspector Patrick ... is this more likely, or less likely? ... illuminate for us the erudite rationale.

... and you offer this up after the fact, now knowing that he is a school teacher who has held a job for years here ... you will have a hard time arguing that he is just another heavy-drinking farang.

... would you give it better than "far more productive" odds, that something else would cause a man to react to something so violently ... would an over-reaction by an untrained minimum wage security guard resulting in an unwarranted potentially deadly assault with a bludgeon do that?

... what do you make those odds, Inspector Patrick? ... this being Thailand, and considering the general cultural values of the parties and the situation they were in, I would reasonably venture far lower than your 1-in-1,000 "he's out getting blasted with the family on his daughter's brithday" explanation.

... critical thinking ... human nature ... Occam's Razor ... try them on, Inspector Patrick.

I wonder if they check the blood of the guard for alcohol or Ya Ba (drug).

I think it would have been far more productive to check Behan's blood for alcohol, he left Surasak on the BTS and got off at Phrompong "to eat" after which he tried to re-board the BTS System, again at Phrompong.

There are at least 2 British and 1 Irish Pubs within a short walk of the BTS Station.

Patrick

... brilliant, Inspector Patrick, just brilliant! ... a keen observer of human behavior, you are.

... prior to seeing this video, if you had seen this man walking to the BTS Station, you would have seen him at about 7.00 in the evening ... he would have been walking with his 6-year-old daughter, carrying balloons and bags of gifts, joined by his friend and his wife (I believe).

... a person with normally developed cognitive thinking would likely have judged that this was a family out to celebrate a child's birthday.

... but you, Inspector Patrick! ... "far more productive to check Behan's blood for alcohol"!? ... you would judge him as a likely drunkard!?

... so, okay, let's take your position ... what do you think? ... maybe a 1-in-1,000 chance he would leave his school after work, collect his familiy and go get blasted out of his mind by 7.00p, all on his daughter's birthday ... please, Inspector Patrick ... is this more likely, or less likely? ... illuminate for us the erudite rationale.

... and you offer this up after the fact, now knowing that he is a school teacher who has held a job for years here ... you will have a hard time arguing that he is just another heavy-drinking farang.

... would you give it better than "far more productive" odds, that something else would cause a man to react to something so violently ... would an over-reaction by an untrained minimum wage security guard resulting in an unwarranted potentially deadly assault with a bludgeon do that?

... what do you make those odds, Inspector Patrick? ... this being Thailand, and considering the general cultural values of the parties and the situation they were in, I would reasonably venture far lower than your 1-in-1,000 "he's out getting blasted with the family on his daughter's brithday" explanation.

... critical thinking ... human nature ... Occam's Razor ... try them on, Inspector Patrick.

I wonder why you don't launch the same diatribe against the poster who suggested that the guard might be high on alcohol or Yaba. Double standards?

That excessive force was used will come to light when the police conclude their investigation.

Hopefully the inept Thai cops will conclude their "investigation" in our life time. How long does it take to "investigate" a fem minutes of video? Maybe they are too busy looking to collect fines from helmet-less motorbike riders.

Sincerely doubt there will be a investigative conclusion to this matter. Generally a conclusion shows a party at blame. This is not the Thai style. So I think this event will quietly fade away, like so many other polarizing events. So if you are looking for a headline next month saying the case has been solved, and the causative factors have been found , you will be waiting for a long time.

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

“According to Anat, Behan argued heatedly with the security guards, pushing one in the chest and kicking the chief of the station. In self-defence, a security guard hit the passenger with a scanner"

That would say different.

But again, as earlier stated, it is claimed that eye witness statements conflict with this account. Unless you have been privy to the official statements, how can you say that "Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted"?

read the statement from the Burmese woman, this happened after Behan had already been assaulted

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

Which part of "no, you are not allowed to bring balloons onto the train" don't you understand?

This is not the dispute, the dispute is whether the guard was correct to hit him numerous times, the balloons or the ability to take them on the BTS (despite him having already travelled with them that day, despite many people taking balloons on the BTS and despite the lack of signs about balloons) is really a side issue, I was not there but I can guess the guard said no, I can guess behan said he had already traveled with the balloons that day, and I can guess the guard lost face/temper/the ability to think rationally and according to the witnesses the guard became aggressive and struck Behan, followed by further assaults.

My question to you is this and a simple answer will suffice, is it rational for a guard to hit a man that was not a danger to either him or anyone else during a verbal exchange about the BTS rules that are not clear or certainly open to interpretation? this is the crux of the issue here, there is plenty of misdirection in the thread but should disobeying a minor order that you are unsure about after being spoken to rudely by the guard warrant a crack on the head followed some time later by a group attack?

carra said, "The issue here is not whether Behan got a bit lippy, the issue is that he was assaulted a number of times, and from the witness statement this assault was not justified as he was not a direct threat to anyone. If anyone thinks this is acceptable behaviour to beat someone around the head because of a minor argument they need to have a long hard look at themselves. In fact deep down they probably already know this but are now too entrenched in their defence of everything Thai they have developed the Thainess of losing face disease which stops them from now backing away from their stance and starting to talk some sense on this matter. "

You're quie right carra, it's not about Behan becoming a bit 'lippy'. It's about Behan wanting to take balloons onto the train against specific instructions not to do so, and the subsequent action required by guards to prevent him doing so. It's as simple as that.

If the witnesses were anything like you, against authority in any form, of course they'd 'colour' their statements to favour the guard.

You don't know, and can't say, that he wasn't a direct threat to anyone (apart from himself, it appears!!) because at the time the gas in the balloons was not determined, and it's not the guard's job to make that determination.

I'm yet to see the full CCTV footage showing what Behan did before and after the short 'phone video. When we've seen that, then let's form an opinion. Until then, the facts are that Behan acted against specific instructions, and became violent. Guards used limited force to prevent him traveling with balloons.

oh I am far from being anti authority as people that know me can attest to, for certain reason that I won't divulge here, I do believe however that 'authority' comes with responsibilty and this instance the guards were not responsible and over reacted. how hard is this for people to understand?

Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted, he was not attacking the guards, he was not attacking passengers, and what we can say is that after being hit I also doubt very much that he was in a normal frame of mind either, I know i wouldnt be aftyer just getting hit for no reason. although i guess you would just accept the assault and slink off with your tail between your legs.

“According to Anat, Behan argued heatedly with the security guards, pushing one in the chest and kicking the chief of the station. In self-defence, a security guard hit the passenger with a scanner"

That would say different.

But again, as earlier stated, it is claimed that eye witness statements conflict with this account. Unless you have been privy to the official statements, how can you say that "Behan was not a direct threat at the time he was assaulted"?

read the statement from the Burmese woman, this happened after Behan had already been assaulted

Hi carra,

Don't take this as being directed at you, but I really don't care! Please see my post #739.

After that post, I was stupid to have responded. I promise, this is my last post on this thread.