MURDER

Top court rejects killer's plea

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the Appeals Court's sentence of 13 years and six days imprisonment given to a former Chulalongkorn University engineering teacher assistant for shooting dead a food vendor who urinated into a canal in front of his home on March 30, 2005.

After failing in his appeal for a lighter sentence, the 53-year-old defendant, Santilak Thanyahan or Pattarawat Thanyahanrungroj, is now considering asking for a royal pardon. The court was told vendor newsjsSuthan Itthisurasing, 45, had attended his niece's birthday party at a rented house near Santilak's building and was seen urinating in front of Santilak's home. After Santilak fired a gun skywards twice, Suthan shouted at him, a heated argument ensued and Santilak fatally shot Suthan in the chest.

Santilak claimed Suthan and a knife-carrying friend started the argument and Santilak produced the gun. The friend struggled for it and the weapon went off, killing Suthan.

The primary court in November 2006 initially sentenced Santilak to 18 years in prison for murder plus nine additional days for firing a gun in public. It then lowered the punishment to 12 years and six days.

The primary court added a one-year jail term for Santilak's parole violation from a previous case of assault on his wife Sirinrat, making a total of 13 years and six days in jail.

The Appeals Court in March 2009 upheld the ruling, after which Santilak appealed to the Supreme Court.

-- The Nation 2013-01-31

12 years for killing a guy taking a piss......1 year for bashing his wife....should be a lot more, but at least he's locked up for now.

No doubt unfortunately, "Good Behaviour" will reduce this in a year or so.

9 days in the slammer for firing a gun in public. Seems reasonable

This one confuses me:

The primary court added a one-year jail term for Santilak's parole violation from a previous case of assault on his wife Sirinrat, making a total of 13 years and six days in jail.

Had he committed a prior crime and was serving parole and shot the man while on parole?

Or, had he violated the parole and served out his time and was released, and then shot the man?

What was the previous case?

Whatever the case may be, it seems this man has violent tendencies. Yet if he served his time for a prior case, and this was used against him as a form of discrimination, it begs one to question if he was reformed, or still considered a risk, and hence the one year added. Can the Thai courts convict a man who has already been convicted and served out his time? Doesn't Thailand have Double Jeopardy laws?

How does the Nation expect to ever get respect for its investigative reporting with such lackluster information? Were I the editor, I would have told this reporter to finish the story and give a little more background on the man simply on the basis of that prior quote. Perhaps a bit of briefing on Thai law would suffice as well.

"After Santilak fired a gun skywards twice, Suthan shouted at him, a heated argument ensued and Santilak fatally shot Suthan in the chest."

But he was only enjoying his Second Amendment rights ... oops, sorry, that's only a defence in one of the "more advanced" western countries.

"After Santilak fired a gun skywards twice, Suthan shouted at him, a heated argument ensued and Santilak fatally shot Suthan in the chest."

But he was only enjoying his Second Amendment rights ... oops, sorry, that's only a defence in one of the "more advanced" western countries.

What an ignorant and degrading post.

This one confuses me:

The primary court added a one-year jail term for Santilak's parole violation from a previous case of assault on his wife Sirinrat, making a total of 13 years and six days in jail.

Had he committed a prior crime and was serving parole and shot the man while on parole?

Or, had he violated the parole and served out his time and was released, and then shot the man?

What was the previous case?

Whatever the case may be, it seems this man has violent tendencies. Yet if he served his time for a prior case, and this was used against him as a form of discrimination, it begs one to question if he was reformed, or still considered a risk, and hence the one year added. Can the Thai courts convict a man who has already been convicted and served out his time? Doesn't Thailand have Double Jeopardy laws?

How does the Nation expect to ever get respect for its investigative reporting with such lackluster information? Were I the editor, I would have told this reporter to finish the story and give a little more background on the man simply on the basis of that prior quote. Perhaps a bit of briefing on Thai law would suffice as well.

I don't understand why you are having trouble with the "parole" bit???

Maybe serves 2-3 years and kills again for someone jaywalking in front of him.

Had he committed a prior crime and was serving parole and shot the man while on parole?

Or, had he violated the parole and served out his time and was released, and then shot the man?

What was the previous case?

Whatever the case may be, it seems this man has violent tendencies. Yet if he served his time for a prior case, and this was used against him as a form of discrimination, it begs one to question if he was reformed, or still considered a risk, and hence the one year added. Can the Thai courts convict a man who has already been convicted and served out his time? Doesn't Thailand have Double Jeopardy laws?

How does the Nation expect to ever get respect for its investigative reporting with such lackluster information? Were I the editor, I would have told this reporter to finish the story and give a little more background on the man simply on the basis of that prior quote. Perhaps a bit of briefing on Thai law would suffice as well.

When you are on parole, its technically because you've served some time and have been released with restrictions, hence parole. (For hitting his wife, you cant get parole unless you've served time)

So, having fired the gun and committed a new offense violates the terms of the parole hence the addt`L year for parole violation.

Pretty clear, now, yes?

"After Santilak fired a gun skywards twice, Suthan shouted at him, a heated argument ensued and Santilak fatally shot Suthan in the chest."

But he was only enjoying his Second Amendment rights ... oops, sorry, that's only a defence in one of the "more advanced" western countries.

What an ignorant and degrading post.

Good point. Guns dont kill people. People with guns kill people.

"After Santilak fired a gun skywards twice, Suthan shouted at him, a heated argument ensued and Santilak fatally shot Suthan in the chest."

But he was only enjoying his Second Amendment rights ... oops, sorry, that's only a defence in one of the "more advanced" western countries.

What an ignorant and degrading post.

Good point. Guns dont kill people. People with guns kill people.

Where are you from anyway Kananga ?

Fantasy, bash USA land ?

Excellent point, Kananga. SouthernMan? Don't need him around anyway.