Red Bull Heir Worrayuth Faces Charge: Hit-And-Run Crash

[softgeorge]

I have been reading all these responses on what is murder and what is manslaughter and some are quite funny really. Quite amusing to someone who has had 20+ years in policing. Carry on guys.

I admit I may have got a bit sidetracked by all the talk about it being murder. The point I was trying to make was that just because you have drunk too much alcohol and are driving too fast doesn't mean that you planned to kill someone. Of course I have no idea about the law in Thailand about these matters but I was assuming others were posting based on their own view relating to their own country. There's also the point I made about language as the charge wouldn't be murder or anything else in English and translation can alter the original meaning.

I would think that in the UK that it might be causing death by dangerous driving but that's just a guess. Other countries I'm not sure about.

I notice that your 20+ years experience in policing has enabled you take the following action: Find it funny and amusing. Well done. I can't help thinking you should be able to get a job in the Thai police with that very helpful and enthusiastic performance.

Sorry about my rudeness. Will 200 baht get me off a severe reprimand?

+1

I thought it (in fact I bet a lot of us have), you wrote it

Thanks.

An informed comment from someone with experience would be helpful in these cases but instead you get those who know nothing telling you the facts with complete conviction or apparent experts boasting about their knowledge without imparting any of it. I usually put my point in a civilised manner rather than get angry but sometimes I just need that little bit more so I resort to sarcasm even if it's not always understood.

I've just done the same for "frankbrunner66" with my post #81.

It fills in the time waiting for the Thai justice system to give us a verdict we can all argue about.

My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular, just commenting on some saying it is murder and others saying it is manslaughter. From my experience there are so many variables to be factored in and it would be negligent to say with any degree of certainty what charge would fit. I am not involved in the investigation. Looking at what has been presented tho from my experience in Australia the charge would be culpable driving (manslaughter with vehicle) Why? Because he fled the scene, that is the main point for laying the charge. If you flee a scene and leave an injured person to die it is automatically cupable driving regardless of any other circumstances. Had he stopped and tried to render some assistance then the charge may be different but without knowing all the facts I can't say 100%. Had he remained and a drink driving charge is proven in court then culpable would stand also. If speed was proven then culpable would stand.

[softgeorge]

I notice that your 20+ years experience in policing has enabled you take the following action: Find it funny and amusing. Well done. I can't help thinking you should be able to get a job in the Thai police with that very helpful and enthusiastic performance.

Why stop there.

If the Thai government had any sense ie wanted to save money, and solve every crime or suspected crime in the Kingdom, it should outsource everything to the investigative, CSI and pathology experts that sit around all day wasting their skills and experience posting on TVF.

Perhaps George could get a %.

Now that is the very reason as to why I did not offer my opinion in the 1st instance, I know personaly that it would be wrong speculate without know all the facts. I only gave my opinion when it was asked for.

[MaxYakov]

Thought this might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia....icular_homicide

(I understand that this has little or nothing to do with Thai law or this specific situation, but it does give an overview of California law - if Wiki can be trusted in this case.)

CALIFORNIA

In the state of California depending on the degree of recklessness and whether alcohol was involved, a person could be charged with progressively more serious offenses: vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or second-degree murder. In any of these cases, the prosecution must prove that the driver committed some wrongful act (which could be a felony, a misdemeanor, an infraction, or a lawful act that might cause death) and that the wrongful act caused the accident and the death of the victim. Murder charges are usually reserved for the most egregious cases, such as a convicted DUI offender who drives recklessly and while intoxicated and thereby causes a fatal accident.

[ttelise]

Thought this might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia....icular_homicide

(I understand that this has little or nothing to do with Thai law or this specific situation, but it does give an overview of California law - if Wiki can be trusted in this case.)

CALIFORNIA

In the state of California depending on the degree of recklessness and whether alcohol was involved, a person could be charged with progressively more serious offenses: vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or second-degree murder. In any of these cases, the prosecution must prove that the driver committed some wrongful act (which could be a felony, a misdemeanor, an infraction, or a lawful act that might cause death) and that the wrongful act caused the accident and the death of the victim. Murder charges are usually reserved for the most egregious cases, such as a convicted DUI offender who drives recklessly and while intoxicated and thereby causes a fatal accident.

The degrees of murder/homocide can bit a bit convoluted, especially when trying to piece together various statutes and simple definitions contained in Wiki and etc. This is perhaps an ineffective manner of evaluating mens rea for defining a grade of homocide.

No offense to softgeorge, but in my experience cops have very little understanding of the grades of offense and proper charges unless very bright lines are met. Even trial judges, DA, Defense attorneys, juries charged with complex pattern instructions and etc. are prone to mistakes when facts are convoluted.

Upon graduating law school in 1995, I clerked for an Intermediate court of appeals judge for about a year and half. My job was to review criminal convictions for appellate error, including a determinations as to whether proper crimes and lesser includeds were charged and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. My next 2 years were spent clerking for a Supreme Court Justice reviewing the Court of Appeals decisions for error and, in my state, all death penalty case have mandatory review by Supreme Court. Suffice to say, I reviewed a lot of murder convictions for error.

The degree of homocide is defined by the mes rea of the defendant. The analysis can become even more convulted because of transfered intent. Use of DUI/reckless driving statutes is not really helpful. Those statutes are more applicable when drunk is involved in a basic traffick accident causing death. If the drunk is engaging in intentional reckless behaviour such as intentionally driving at a high rate of speed, intentionally playing chicken with oncoming traffick, racing another vehicle, or perhaps just having fun by swerving at other cars to scare them . . . we then have a mens rea for a higher grade of crime and the use of the DUI causing death statute is no longer really needed except maybe as to a lesser included offense to be charged to a jury.

One can use a vehicle as a murder weapon and the intent to use the vehicle as amurder weapon can evolve at anytime during one's commute or use of the car. One can be in a great mood and not intent to murder when getting into car. While driving around, they see someone they hate walking down the sidewalk. They get angry, turn the car around and run over that person. Those facts could support a finding of premeditation.

In an effort to try and keep this simple . . .

(1) If dude was driving speed limit and accidentally ran into back of cop while drunk, he did not flee and cop died (DUI manslaughter or negligent homocide type of classification);

(2) If dude was intentionally driving recklessly (defined as over 21 mph above speed limit here), drunk, hit cop, killed cop, and did not leave or try to drive off (third degree and possibly second degree depeding on speed and how reckless the behaviour). Can use a transferred intent here. Knowingly and intentionally engaging in conduct that he knew or should have known could cause death and causes death even though he did not mean to cause death. If you intend the reckless behaviour, that intent can be transferred to the death so to speak.

(3) If dude was driving speed limit while drunk, hit cop, motorcycle flies on top of car and cop falls under car, he hears cop screaming, and then makes a DECISION to drive off knowing cop is alive an under car, . . . (2 scenarios - (1) second decond murder depravity of mind or transferred intent mens rea applicable - (2) premeditation if drove off or over cop with intent to kill him or or get rid of him as a witness).

It really comes down to degree and specific facts. If cop under car and dude kept driving, the determning factor could be how far he drug him, whether there was evidence cop would have survived if he did not continue driving with him under the car, whether witnesses report cop screaming to stop and etc.).

Not commenting on facts. Just commenting on possibilities.

In US, he would probably get charged with 1st degree just because he killed a cop and the jury would likely convict of second degree depravity of mind. BTW, he would be death elgible in my state if facts supported premeditation and he killed an on duty cop. That is an aggravating circumstance to make crime death elgible.

[GentlemanJim]

Thought this might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia....icular_homicide

(I understand that this has little or nothing to do with Thai law or this specific situation, but it does give an overview of California law - if Wiki can be trusted in this case.)

CALIFORNIA

In the state of California depending on the degree of recklessness and whether alcohol was involved, a person could be charged with progressively more serious offenses: vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or second-degree murder. In any of these cases, the prosecution must prove that the driver committed some wrongful act (which could be a felony, a misdemeanor, an infraction, or a lawful act that might cause death) and that the wrongful act caused the accident and the death of the victim. Murder charges are usually reserved for the most egregious cases, such as a convicted DUI offender who drives recklessly and while intoxicated and thereby causes a fatal accident.

The degrees of murder/homocide can bit a bit convoluted, especially when trying to piece together various statutes and simple definitions contained in Wiki and etc. This is perhaps an ineffective manner of evaluating mens rea for defining a grade of homocide.

No offense to softgeorge, but in my experience cops have very little understanding of the grades of offense and proper charges unless very bright lines are met. Even trial judges, DA, Defense attorneys, juries charged with complex pattern instructions and etc. are prone to mistakes when facts are convoluted.

Upon graduating law school in 1995, I clerked for an Intermediate court of appeals judge for about a year and half. My job was to review criminal convictions for appellate error, including a determinations as to whether proper crimes and lesser includeds were charged and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. My next 2 years were spent clerking for a Supreme Court Justice reviewing the Court of Appeals decisions for error and, in my state, all death penalty case have mandatory review by Supreme Court. Suffice to say, I reviewed a lot of murder convictions for error.

The degree of homocide is defined by the mes rea of the defendant. The analysis can become even more convulted because of transfered intent. Use of DUI/reckless driving statutes is not really helpful. Those statutes are more applicable when drunk is involved in a basic traffick accident causing death. If the drunk is engaging in intentional reckless behaviour such as intentionally driving at a high rate of speed, intentionally playing chicken with oncoming traffick, racing another vehicle, or perhaps just having fun by swerving at other cars to scare them . . . we then have a mens rea for a higher grade of crime and the use of the DUI causing death statute is no longer really needed except maybe as to a lesser included offense to be charged to a jury.

One can use a vehicle as a murder weapon and the intent to use the vehicle as amurder weapon can evolve at anytime during one's commute or use of the car. One can be in a great mood and not intent to murder when getting into car. While driving around, they see someone they hate walking down the sidewalk. They get angry, turn the car around and run over that person. Those facts could support a finding of premeditation.

In an effort to try and keep this simple . . .

(1) If dude was driving speed limit and accidentally ran into back of cop while drunk, he did not flee and cop died (DUI manslaughter or negligent homocide type of classification);

(2) If dude was intentionally driving recklessly (defined as over 21 mph above speed limit here), drunk, hit cop, killed cop, and did not leave or try to drive off (third degree and possibly second degree depeding on speed and how reckless the behaviour). Can use a transferred intent here. Knowingly and intentionally engaging in conduct that he knew or should have known could cause death and causes death even though he did not mean to cause death. If you intend the reckless behaviour, that intent can be transferred to the death so to speak.

(3) If dude was driving speed limit while drunk, hit cop, motorcycle flies on top of car and cop falls under car, he hears cop screaming, and then makes a DECISION to drive off knowing cop is alive an under car, . . . (2 scenarios - (1) second decond murder depravity of mind or transferred intent mens rea applicable - (2) premeditation if drove off or over cop with intent to kill him or or get rid of him as a witness).

It really comes down to degree and specific facts. If cop under car and dude kept driving, the determning factor could be how far he drug him, whether there was evidence cop would have survived if he did not continue driving with him under the car, whether witnesses report cop screaming to stop and etc.).

Not commenting on facts. Just commenting on possibilities.

In US, he would probably get charged with 1st degree just because he killed a cop and the jury would likely convict of second degree depravity of mind. BTW, he would be death elgible in my state if facts supported premeditation and he killed an on duty cop. That is an aggravating circumstance to make crime death elgible.

And on that note can all wanabee Petrocelli's give it a rest

ttelise

Can you offer us all on here the same amount of advice/consultancy if we get in the sh*t ourselves I have you bookmarked !

[softgeorge]

Thought this might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia....icular_homicide

(I understand that this has little or nothing to do with Thai law or this specific situation, but it does give an overview of California law - if Wiki can be trusted in this case.)

CALIFORNIA

In the state of California depending on the degree of recklessness and whether alcohol was involved, a person could be charged with progressively more serious offenses: vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or second-degree murder. In any of these cases, the prosecution must prove that the driver committed some wrongful act (which could be a felony, a misdemeanor, an infraction, or a lawful act that might cause death) and that the wrongful act caused the accident and the death of the victim. Murder charges are usually reserved for the most egregious cases, such as a convicted DUI offender who drives recklessly and while intoxicated and thereby causes a fatal accident.

The degrees of murder/homocide can bit a bit convoluted, especially when trying to piece together various statutes and simple definitions contained in Wiki and etc. This is perhaps an ineffective manner of evaluating mens rea for defining a grade of homocide.

No offense to softgeorge, but in my experience cops have very little understanding of the grades of offense and proper charges unless very bright lines are met. Even trial judges, DA, Defense attorneys, juries charged with complex pattern instructions and etc. are prone to mistakes when facts are convoluted.

Upon graduating law school in 1995, I clerked for an Intermediate court of appeals judge for about a year and half. My job was to review criminal convictions for appellate error, including a determinations as to whether proper crimes and lesser includeds were charged and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. My next 2 years were spent clerking for a Supreme Court Justice reviewing the Court of Appeals decisions for error and, in my state, all death penalty case have mandatory review by Supreme Court. Suffice to say, I reviewed a lot of murder convictions for error.

The degree of homocide is defined by the mes rea of the defendant. The analysis can become even more convulted because of transfered intent. Use of DUI/reckless driving statutes is not really helpful. Those statutes are more applicable when drunk is involved in a basic traffick accident causing death. If the drunk is engaging in intentional reckless behaviour such as intentionally driving at a high rate of speed, intentionally playing chicken with oncoming traffick, racing another vehicle, or perhaps just having fun by swerving at other cars to scare them . . . we then have a mens rea for a higher grade of crime and the use of the DUI causing death statute is no longer really needed except maybe as to a lesser included offense to be charged to a jury.

One can use a vehicle as a murder weapon and the intent to use the vehicle as amurder weapon can evolve at anytime during one's commute or use of the car. One can be in a great mood and not intent to murder when getting into car. While driving around, they see someone they hate walking down the sidewalk. They get angry, turn the car around and run over that person. Those facts could support a finding of premeditation.

In an effort to try and keep this simple . . .

(1) If dude was driving speed limit and accidentally ran into back of cop while drunk, he did not flee and cop died (DUI manslaughter or negligent homocide type of classification);

(2) If dude was intentionally driving recklessly (defined as over 21 mph above speed limit here), drunk, hit cop, killed cop, and did not leave or try to drive off (third degree and possibly second degree depeding on speed and how reckless the behaviour). Can use a transferred intent here. Knowingly and intentionally engaging in conduct that he knew or should have known could cause death and causes death even though he did not mean to cause death. If you intend the reckless behaviour, that intent can be transferred to the death so to speak.

(3) If dude was driving speed limit while drunk, hit cop, motorcycle flies on top of car and cop falls under car, he hears cop screaming, and then makes a DECISION to drive off knowing cop is alive an under car, . . . (2 scenarios - (1) second decond murder depravity of mind or transferred intent mens rea applicable - (2) premeditation if drove off or over cop with intent to kill him or or get rid of him as a witness).

It really comes down to degree and specific facts. If cop under car and dude kept driving, the determning factor could be how far he drug him, whether there was evidence cop would have survived if he did not continue driving with him under the car, whether witnesses report cop screaming to stop and etc.).

Not commenting on facts. Just commenting on possibilities.

In US, he would probably get charged with 1st degree just because he killed a cop and the jury would likely convict of second degree depravity of mind. BTW, he would be death elgible in my state if facts supported premeditation and he killed an on duty cop. That is an aggravating circumstance to make crime death elgible.

No offence taken. As I said I was refering to my experience as a cop in Australia. U.S Laws ard Australian laws are diffenrent and we do not have various degrees of murder or manslaughter ours are more cut and dried. like apples and oranges and a lot less complex. Also as I said in my post there are a lot of variables to be considered in laying a charge and you pointed out a few, I just kept my post short for others. So again no offence taken.

P.S Aussie cops do have a pretty good idea to when it comes to laying a charge. it takes 4 years of study to fully qualify as a cop.

Edited September 11, 2012 by softgeorge

[ALFREDO]

Pol Lt Col Akkharawint Sukhonthawit, said the importer of Ferraris told police he was not able to acquire data from the luxury coupe's "black box" to determine the speed or navigational details before and after Worrayuth's car hit Wichean.

Not surprising that since the family own a stake in the business..

Now is the time to Boycott Red Bull!!

http://www.facebook....310917865673962

Why?

Red Bull is a totally different company to the one this family owns. (yes he did sell his formula to Red Bull)

Sorry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull

It was until recently,

49 % of Red Bull Company in the hands of the now deceased Grandfather of the accused Ferrari driver,

2 % in the hands of the father of the drunk brat and

49 % in the hands of our Austrian biggest Inventors and Business man since long, Mr.Mateschitz.

Now its 51 % in the hands of the father of the young driver. Still 49 % with Mr.Mateschitz.

[ALFREDO]

You are all sick and mentally retarded! Very sorry. Intellectually like a thai hooker!

You needed nearly a year to realize that? You are Member since last year!

[spidermike007]

I vote negligent (vehicular) homicide if his speed was excessive or his driving was erratic, etc. with additional penalties for drunk driving if applicable. We should have a wager as to whether or not Ferrari (here or in Italy) are able do dump the Event Data Recorder.

A lot of folks replying seem to think that policeman was dragged some distance by the Ferrari (even underneath!) indicating premeditation (from early reports, apparently). This conflicts with a recent, previous article where it was stated that his body was found about 64 meters from the crash site. It also conflicts with the obvious damage to the hood and (especially) the windshield which would make it less likely that the policeman was dragged underneath. If he was somehow otherwise dragged by the Ferrari, there is the 64 meter distance to explain.

At 200k m/h (reported, but disputed) the Ferrari was travelling over 55 meters/sec. Also, don't overlook that at time of impact, the airbag deployed and it must have really startled and interfered with the driver for a few seconds at least. If he was really moving it was amazing that he didn't lose control - especially if the motorcycle was still embedded in the front-end (apparently it was).

With all articles, I have to say to myself: "Yes, but is it true?" on every point. Every point should be weighed for plausibility / violating common sense as well.

Negligent vehicular homicide? How do you spell that? They would require a foreign police representative to even explain that one to them. Do you think such a law even exists on the Thai books? Do you think anyone has ever been convicted of it, that had alot of cash? Come on. Let's get real. What are the chances of that happening? When the Thai government dismisses (actually transferred is the way they put it) the most effective anti-corruption official they have had in the past 10 years of so, due to the fact that he was getting close to some of the insects in power, do you really think there is any chance of this pissant getting convicted? Any chance at all? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[harrry]

You are all sick and mentally retarded! Very sorry. Intellectually like a thai hooker!

Mods, can't there be a sticky thread for the best ever first postings on TV. Our Frank ere as to go right up there with the best of um.

Frank, dear chap, I am puzzled by your sentence structure, are you apologizing to us because you have the intellectual ability of a Thai hooker? There are just so many ways of reading it. be a good chap and clarify for all of us mentally retarded types.

Don't encourage him for goodness sake. You may have a bit of a wait. It's taken since Christmas Day last year to come up with that first little gem of his. Could be a troll I suppose, or a Christmas elf.

Just to get back to somewhere vaguely near the topic is a Ferrari a suitable vehicle for Thai roads? They're OK a lot of the time on the main routes but you can still come across really big holes in major roads as well as places where the surface has been pushed up into raised hump which could overturn a car or rip it's underside.

He is just a bit slow....he started typoing that on New Years Day.

[Jim walker]

I think once the compensation mater is sorted out with the policeman’s family I can see baby Red Bull Boy getting a hefty fine for all this charges and that will be that’ don’t do that again.

[Tchooptip]

So the butler didn't do it ?

Probably not... but not sure sure

[cekipa]

The real issue is "drivers". Most people who have a license to drive in Thailand, shouldn't be driving in the first place. If you look at the 'driving tests' for example (and I use that term loosely), a monkey could pass it. The fact is they drive around with that attitude "what will be, will be, that's karma". Not to mention that they barely look, use their side mirrors or rear view mirror when they drive. They pretty much drive the same way the walk, head down buried in a cell phone or just plain looking in the direction they are going, with little or no worries about what is around them. Not everyone should drive, not even on a motorbike. People like that driving a Ferrari equals to great public menace. The present driving licence tests look like to fit the requirements of ox carts, not car drivers. Not to mention a Ferrari !....... keeping the situation like it is, the Minister of Transport shouldn't bother to employ staff for "testing". Just placing the driving licence in a pack of mama's noodles at 7/11 will certainly do......

....Ah, and one more thing ! To "crack down" car accidents, police can force mama's noodle producer to place on top of the lids pictures of agonizing and dismembered people involved in car crashes.......

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I got my emailed news feature today from what used to be BK Magazine re their latest online content, and it included a link to an article dated Sept. 6, 2012, that seems to talk about the teen-age son of a high-ranking Army general running down a couple of citizens with his Porsche.

I can't quite tell what to make of the online article. No names, doesn't say where it happened. The article almost reads like a joke, considering some of the comments attributed to the police (and there's even an allusion in the report to the Ferrari case with the policeman victim). But around these parts lately, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between jokes and the real thing.

At any rate, I couldn't find any mention of such an episode via a search here on ThaiVisa... Anyone have any idea what to make of this report?

http://bk.asia-city.com/city-living/column/poor-kid

[canuckamuck]

I am with you, I can't tell if it is a joke either.

It is quite witty if intended as a joke, but puke worthy if the comments are real and the event actually occurred.

50/50 it is real.

[cekipa]

...At any rate, I couldn't find any mention of such an episode via a search here on ThaiVisa... Anyone have any idea what to make of this report?

http://bk.asia-city....column/poor-kid

... given the last 2 llines and the highly prefessional journalistic way of its coverage, I wouldn't really bother making a search at all

[Thai at Heart]

Why do so many people refer to Worayuth as a kid or boy? He is 27 years old and a man by every definition. A stupid looking cap doesn't make him a boy He is just an immature Hi So living in a fantasy world with a monetary equivalent of royal superiority and privilege.

My take on the photo is that the motorcycle was hit straight on from behind at Sukhumvit 47 and the motorcycle veered left and did the damage to the left bumper and fender as it was pushed to the side by the car at Sukhumvit 49. The police officer was ejected on impact from his seat and flew straight back into the windshield. There were reports of some pieces of his uniform insignias and badge were embedded in the windshield. It appears that the officer wasn't dragged but was actually on the hood and windshield until he fell off the car. "The expert said the policeman's body fell from the car 64.8 metres from the crash site (Suk 47) as there were more bloodstains at that spot. The policeman appeared to have died there, the source said. The source said the suspect might have swerved the car at about 200 metres from the crash site (probably past Suk 49?) to shake off the stuck motorcycle. The machine was found about 200 metres away from the crash site at (probably past?) the corner of Sukhumvit Soi 49."

GoogleEarth measures about 150 meters between Suk 47 and 49 and 280 meters between Suk 49 and 53. News reports vary as to what happened and where.

Possible conclusions:

1 Premeditated murder if Worayuth intentionally rammed the officer because he was about to be stopped for speeding.

2 Premeditated if it was an accidental ramming and the officer was still alive while on the windshield and hood and Worayuth was intentionally trying to get away. It was reported that the officer died 64.8 meters from from the crash site.

At 100 kph, 64.8 meters = 2.33 seconds from crash to where the body was dropped from the car.

3 Homicide (unlikely) if it was an accidental ramming and the officer was already dead on the windshield before Worayuth made his escape.

Most likely speeding at more than 100 kph and not more than 2.33 seconds to have died. Even a broken neck would take longer than that to die that "instantly".

Fact: 100 kph = 27.778 meters per second

Rumour has it he is not quite dealing from a full deck.

[maidu]

Rumour has it he is not quite dealing from a full deck.

One way or another, he'll get off relatively lightly, even if his attorneys have to use some soggy excuse like, 'he's not smart' or 'he passed out' or 'the policeman's motorbike didn't have its lights on,' or......

Whichever way you slice it, a very rich man's son in Thailand, can not get in serious trouble, no matter what he does. My guess, after daddy fattens several peoples' wallets, the son will get about 6 weeks in remand in a cushy pseudo-prison, and even that might be suspended.

[ALFREDO]

-Thai at Heart-

""Rumour has it he is not quite dealing from a full deck"".

But drives a FERRARI?

[oops]

[harrry]

Maybe a Maserati would be better.

[Samedeepwaterasyou]

One more proof that there will never be a rule of law in Thailand .

[KhunMoo]

I got my emailed news feature today from what used to be BK Magazine re their latest online content, and it included a link to an article dated Sept. 6, 2012, that seems to talk about the teen-age son of a high-ranking Army general running down a couple of citizens with his Porsche.

I can't quite tell what to make of the online article. No names, doesn't say where it happened. The article almost reads like a joke, considering some of the comments attributed to the police (and there's even an allusion in the report to the Ferrari case with the policeman victim). But around these parts lately, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between jokes and the real thing.

At any rate, I couldn't find any mention of such an episode via a search here on ThaiVisa... Anyone have any idea what to make of this report?

http://bk.asia-city....column/poor-kid

You are kidding -right? Please tell me, that i'm a idiot. For not seeing the sarcasm in your post..?

No one "dealing from a full deck" can be in doubt, about the content, in that article...

[tomyummer]

Maybe a Maserati would be better.

Absolutely. Maserati would not have left a trail......

[Curt1591]

And here I thought this was forgotten:

http://www.nationmul...t-30192708.html

I'm sure he was called away to an important business meeting!

Edited October 19, 2012 by Curt1591