Erawan Shrine Destroyed

[dan10400]

That is why we have laws and a judicial system.

The case was clear cut and people were enraged. I doubt anyone even thought about judicial system, and people here don't have much faith in it anyway. I think obligations to protecting religion, especially in a shocking case like this, stand higher than civil laws for many people here in Thailand.

It's nice to sit here and weigh various options, but, like one of the previous poster said - if you ask what will happen to someone who commit such an offence in Thailand, ten out of ten people would say you'll get lynched on the spot. That's the reality.

you can't just pick and choose where you want to apply the law and where you do not.

you are one of the most adamant protagonists that Thaksin should be held accountable for his actions under the law (and rightly so). However, here, your proposition is that this is the way it is, and there is nothing we can do about it (and it is actually for the better good to ignore the civil code). By that same logice, Thailand should just accept the fact that corruption, lack of freedom of speech, etc. are all just institutionalized here and should just be accepted irregardless of the constitution.

Edited March 24, 2006 by dan10400

[StateSix]

That is why we have laws and a judicial system.

The case was clear cut and people were enraged. I doubt anyone even thought about judicial system, and people here don't have much faith in it anyway. I think obligations to protecting religion, especially in a shocking case like this, stand higher than civil laws for many people here in Thailand.

It's nice to sit here and weigh various options, but, like one of the previous poster said - if you ask what will happen to someone who commit such an offence in Thailand, ten out of ten people would say you'll get lynched on the spot. That's the reality.

Why was the case clear cut? How many of the people involved actually witnessed him smashing it, and how many were told what had happened, and got caught up in the blood lust?

I stated earlier that I would have expected him to be assaulted if he did this. I also said it was wrong to react that way. I would also expect anyone who did react in such a way to be dealt with under the law

You cannot deny that he was murdered by a bunch of vigilantes, half of whom probably werent fully aware of the facts of the case. That is wrong.

[ColPyat]

But - I will err on the side of my team - and if the attacker dies, too bad.

Your violent fantasies are slightly disturbing.

Especially because i so far have not read one single post of yours in the news forum that does not contain your wish to kill or seriously harm someone you don't agree with.

You better be careful walking around with that attitude here in Bangkok. You know the old saying - 'be careful what you wish for...'. In the wrong neighborhood you might easily meet folks who are only waiting for a chance to oblige your violent fantasies.

There would be some irony in there, when one day we read about Indo-Siam being hospitalised by an angry mob.

Edited March 24, 2006 by ColPyat

[Thaipwriter]

life is cheap here, get used to it.

[Crushdepth]

It's nice to sit here and weigh various options, but, like one of the previous poster said - if you ask what will happen to someone who commit such an offence in Thailand, ten out of ten people would say you'll get lynched on the spot. That's the reality.

The other part of the reality is that the lynchers will also get charged with murder because wontonly killing people is against Thai law.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Crushdepth

[Plus]

Why was the case clear cut? How many of the people involved actually witnessed him smashing it

Enough to alert the taxi drivers and identify the man. Fortunately it wasn't the case of mistaken identity.

You cannot deny that he was murdered by a bunch of vigilantes, half of whom probably werent fully aware of the facts of the case.

That's quite a stretch, I think they all knew why the man was beaten. I doubt that anyone joined just for the fun of it, or that they were roaming the streets looking to assault someone. That was fast and furious street justice. The matter was too serious and too deeply personal to wait for fingerprints identification.

you can't just pick and choose where you want to apply the law and where you do not.

Right, and we all know - do not mess with Royals or Religion, people might not wait for the law to arrive. If the guy managed to climb up a tree and police arrived on time, he could have lived.

Now, as I said earlier, if the guys overstepped reasonable limits they should accept their punishment. Rewards for "protecting the religion" and punishment for killing the perpetrator might not cancel each other, they might be held in different accounts. I still think they would be exonerated under Thai laws.

Thaksin should be held accountable for his actions under the law

Ultimately yes, but since Thaksin subverted the laws, higher principles should apply - at the moment Thaksin hasn't done anything wrong legally. The situation and legal interpretations might change after he resigns.

No matter how important Thaksin's case is for the country, it's not in the same league as destroying shrines, though. Royalty and Religion are the sacred concepts here, PMship isn't.

[jdinasia]

That is why we have laws and a judicial system.

The case was clear cut and people were enraged. I doubt anyone even thought about judicial system, and people here don't have much faith in it anyway. I think obligations to protecting religion, especially in a shocking case like this, stand higher than civil laws for many people here in Thailand.

It's nice to sit here and weigh various options, but, like one of the previous poster said - if you ask what will happen to someone who commit such an offence in Thailand, ten out of ten people would say you'll get lynched on the spot. That's the reality.

Why was the case clear cut? How many of the people involved actually witnessed him smashing it, and how many were told what had happened, and got caught up in the blood lust?

I stated earlier that I would have expected him to be assaulted if he did this. I also said it was wrong to react that way. I would also expect anyone who did react in such a way to be dealt with under the law

You cannot deny that he was murdered by a bunch of vigilantes, half of whom probably werent fully aware of the facts of the case. That is wrong.

Well ... the reports say that the Garbage truck guys were right there to see it ... they have been charged with murder ... so what is your point?

[TAWP]

If any of you know how important that shrine is you will understand the reaction of the Thai's.

Although sad the man died it does not surprise me in the least as to his fate........ And as far as the killers go they did what was the only expected reaction in that situation...... Total outrage and instant action, I hope they are vindicated of the crime this is clearly a case of diminished responsibility in my book.

Mess with sacred religeous shrines and thats what happens......... What do you think would have happened in a large number of other countries? ...........Possibly most depending on the shrine.

Congrats, you have just said that any muslim that burns down an embassy in the middle east due to a couple of drawings should be exhonorated of any charges.

[TAWP]

And Indo-Siam and Plus is defending terrorism.

As long as it's defending religion...

[zzap]

I am absolutely stunned at the pattern of thought expressed throughout this long posting thread. A violent criminal - possibly with some mental problems (but I have yet to see a shred of evidence suggesting that he was ever diagnosed mentally ill by a qualified professional) gets heaps of sympathy and undesrtanding, but two ordinary men - not gangsters, but simple, hard-working street sweepers assigned to clean up around the Erawan shrine - respond courageously agaisnt an armed, violent maniac - to try to protect their place of work - and to aprehend the violent criminal before hecan harm anyone - and the perpetrator is still armed and dangerous - and to protect themselves, the two minor city employees strike back at him - and the perpetrator dies - and then the posters on this board crucify the poor workers.

I just wonder - what altternate universe do most of you people live in?

.....

blahblah

I am absolutely stunned at the clever rhetoric used to justify the beating to death of someone fleeing the scene of a crime without any apparent motive other than outrage and revenge.

Do you think a long time about your words, or does it come naturally, Indo-Siam?

Your posts have been noted for escalating conflicts, hatemongering and violence-promoting.

[Plus]

And Indo-Siam and Plus is defending terrorism.

As long as it's defending religion...

The guys haven't been charged with terrorism. Should they be?

I was always under the impression that Thais will put their lives on line if the King or Buddhism is offended, and I don't see why I should change my mind now. That's the way they are and I'm not going to try and change them on that.

Let's see how the case unfolds.

[TAWP]

And Indo-Siam and Plus is defending terrorism.

As long as it's defending religion...

The guys haven't been charged with terrorism. Should they be?

I was always under the impression that Thais will put their lives on line if the King or Buddhism is offended, and I don't see why I should change my mind now. That's the way they are and I'm not going to try and change them on that.

Let's see how the case unfolds.

No, but Your and Indo-Siams defence on the murder that followed the act of vandalism is in many replies a direct defence of any terrorist-groups actions against anyone that 'offends' their beliefs.

Not your intensions, since you most likely aren't _really_ supporting them. I mean, just look at how Indo-Siam always spout his hate against muslims here. But still, using the same retoric that they use when defending actions that he 'consents'.

[Plus]

Do we really need to bring terrorism in the picture?

[ColPyat]

I was always under the impression that Thais will put their lives on line if the King or Buddhism is offended, and I don't see why I should change my mind now. That's the way they are and I'm not going to try and change them on that.

Well, you may have been all along living under a slightly false impression.

This is a generalisation that simply does not hold up to reality. In private conversations with good friends you might get a different picture. A hint: in my house hangs no picture of the royals, and that is my Thai wife's decision. The only Buddha images in our house are the ones from my own collection of old Buddhas.

Do we really need to bring terrorism in the picture?

Yes, isn't it the same social mechanics? Fundamentalist Muslims defend the killing of unbelievers, you, and especially that Indo Siam bloke, defend the lynch murder of a disturbed person who as destroyed a Brahma image (that is even not Buddhist).

This was nothing else than a mob of compassionless humans who have lived out their lowest instincts and brutally slaughtered another human. I have no idea how that could ever be judged as "defending Buddhism", or righteous punishment.

In Buddhism all sentient life cannot be harmed, there is no exception. Even the thought of doing that will draw karmic repercussions.

And all for a garish, ugly, Brahma statue that can be replaced in a day. It wasn't even old, for christ's sake. At a shrine at which some of the worst taxidrivers of Bangkok hang out to cheat their fares.

Every second highrise here has exactly the same sort of shrine in front, and dancers can be hired as well.

[britmaveric]

Desecrating a sacred shrine is not the same as vandalism I'm afraid. Did the lad deserve to be killed over this, probably not. However I think the same would happen anywhere if a similiar religious icon was fked with and the perpatrator was seen doing it.

Just look at the golden mosque in Iraq - look how many people took out their vengeance for that incident?

[ColPyat]

However I think the same would happen anywhere if a similiar religious icon was fked with and the perpatrator was seen doing it.

Well, yes, unfortunately.

But that only proves to me that humanity as a whole is not that far away from the Neolithicum.

Well, and that the teachings of all the great religions concerning compassion and the sacrednes of life were so far pretty much a waste of time.

[englishoak]

Desecrating a sacred shrine is not the same as vandalism I'm afraid. Did the lad deserve to be killed over this, probably not. However I think the same would happen anywhere if a similiar religious icon was fked with and the perpatrator was seen doing it.

Is spot on unfortunately there are lot of posters here who don't get it.

[TAWP]

Ignorance of others are no excuse.

[Patex]

...However I think the same would happen anywhere if a similiar religious icon was fked with and the perpatrator was seen doing it...

It is all about the power, when my ancestors burned down the synagogues the Jews and the rest of the world could do nothing.

Nowadays it is very unbelievable that an angry mob would slaughter a mentally ill moslem on the steps of the dome in cologne for destroying a altar- piece... but who knows? Civilization isn't selfevident .

[StateSix]

That is why we have laws and a judicial system.

The case was clear cut and people were enraged. I doubt anyone even thought about judicial system, and people here don't have much faith in it anyway. I think obligations to protecting religion, especially in a shocking case like this, stand higher than civil laws for many people here in Thailand.

It's nice to sit here and weigh various options, but, like one of the previous poster said - if you ask what will happen to someone who commit such an offence in Thailand, ten out of ten people would say you'll get lynched on the spot. That's the reality.

Why was the case clear cut? How many of the people involved actually witnessed him smashing it, and how many were told what had happened, and got caught up in the blood lust?

I stated earlier that I would have expected him to be assaulted if he did this. I also said it was wrong to react that way. I would also expect anyone who did react in such a way to be dealt with under the law

You cannot deny that he was murdered by a bunch of vigilantes, half of whom probably werent fully aware of the facts of the case. That is wrong.

Well ... the reports say that the Garbage truck guys were right there to see it ... they have been charged with murder ... so what is your point?

Plus initially said the case was clear cut. I was arguing that there were more than the 2 arrested who were involved in the assault. The suspects were reported in the Bangkok Post as saying they did it but were part of a larger group. How many of this group actually saw it, and how many came across a group of people saying he did it, and then got caught up in the anger? That is why I asked why it was clear cut. Some people involved were not aware of all the facts, yet still decided that the man deserved to be assaulted

[aaaaaa]

Well aaaaaa, interesting side-topic, but I disagree with the conclusions you draw from your own quotations:

Your quotation defining "Federal republic" says "ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters"

Then your definition for a Democracy says "a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people".

Therefore, from your evidence, USA is a democracy (and the same arguments can be applied to the parliamentary democracy of the UK - I'll leave that as an exercise for you to do at home ).

it is not MY definition(s) or statements.

and netiher my colculsions, or assessments. read the source.

and then, perhaps stetement "Constituion based Federal Republic" might not be phrased exactly "not Democracy" - but neither it says otherwise, that IT IS. does it ?

jdinasia, thanks for nice reply - getting better and better: first there was only mild rebuke "silly", now it is stronger - "idiotic" you can do only that much?

and what a nice new signature you have:

the most prized quote from recent days on TV is ... "The USA isn't a Democracy it is a Republic"

<<someone needed a civics lesson!>>

let me guess, who that "someone" might be, huh ? and then, who needs lesson, may be you?

friend, you attach text "flaming fellow members" (pls read Forum rules) in your signature, which would be displayed in each and every your post ? I doubt that what signature option was meant for !

oh, and perhaps you could bother to EDIT quotes and save admins a bandwidth space, as well as fellow members endeavours to scroll it - because anyone can easily find and read full post you quote ? it is easy, you know - just leave what you realy comment on.

anyway, whether US is a Democracy or not, it is irrelevent here, as whole twisted fallacious (and quite fussy) point you make of it.

[jdinasia]

keep guessing :-)

[aaaaaa]

your definition for a Democracy ....

it is not MY definition(s) or statements.

phibunmike,

if all is the same according to your conlusions - why it is not named and defined so ?

Federal (Federative) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs;

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

if you don't see those small nuances (in above definitions: some, not all; a degree = part, fragement, to some extent / limit/ level - not full(y); desions by representative(s) - not directly all people) then perhaps you should pay more attention first, before making your conclusions. Or if you see them but so easily dismiss them as insignificant, then surely same principle of dissmissing can be applied and said that USA is not a democracy in full sense or proper way - not all of USA and not on all levels, neither in full sense (directly).

tell me, why founder-fathers of US made it a point NOT to define it as democracy but as a Federal republic, huh ? perhaps they were not so clever or even silly (surely not idiotic) ?

one of reason - because they were aware of potential danger of "majority power" (mob rule - trusting of the instincts and power of large groups - no consistent civics at all; there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force - might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision.) over minority, which would limit freedom in such a way, according to them. other issues were at hand, used as reasons for that decision.

and then, why so many real scholars and specialists on this matter don't draw conclusions same as you? would you deny they (never mind me !) have done their "homework"?

have you bothered to give it a thought ? you might try, you know !

and why such an official government source would bother to discriminate and provide so many different definitions of Government forms - if all are same, no need for that, much easier to call them all Democracies, right ? even all the democratic sub-species - why bother with all nuances and subtleties, huh? one word Democracy would surely suffice ? there is whole branch of science made (nicely mentioned by our friend jdinasia in his signature) called civics or "comparative government" / comparative politics.

"ultimate power" - in real life and modern times translate as "supposed power". and epxecially its execition - is not always and fully done/ allowed to be by people.

direct democracy - decisions made directly by citizens without guidance or moral suasion...

Direct democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty was lodged in the assembly of all citizens. ... Where the assembly elected officials, these were executive agents rather than representatives. This is different from a representative republic where sovereignty is held by a subset of the people, the subset most often chosen by election.

Modern direct democracy is characterized by three pillars:

- Initiative

- Referendum including binding referenda

- Recall

The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.

Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels.

Another distinctive example comes from the United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, over half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures" or "ballot questions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referenda.

There are now a total of 34 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components ...

as you can see, there is sufficient difference:

1) direct democracy (with all imperative components) on local levels, not on Federal level; and since Federal level by Consituion prevails over regional, being a central government - means government is not Democratic (as officially stated in mentioned government source itself about its own goverance form).

2) out of what, 54 states? 34 have components of direct democracy. not ALL. 34 out of 54 is more than 50%, yes, but not 100%

3) federal executive power represanted by elected president can be much more powerfull than local decision-makers.

The working executive are called heads of government (British Prime Minister, Japanese prime minister.) It is their responsibility to enact law, direct the bureaucracy and interact with the legislative branch and in some government interact with the judicial branch NOTE Some governments have one executive that holds both positions. The President of the United States is one such executive.

Most governments have chief executives who are at the top of the branch, main formulators and executors of policy

United States, French, Chinese executives are powerful, capable of individual decision making, rather than collective decision making British executive is more collective, except in times of war/emergency

yeah, may be 34 out of 54 - is sort of "half full or half empty glass" debate. in this case for me it is obvious that 34 is not 54 (what about other 20, who might not agree with 34 ?), and on federal level there is no direct democracy. and I repeat - apperently for many specialists in civics or government officials it is not the same either, otherwise thye'd dimsiss such differences as minor and insignificant. may be USA is deliberative democracy (decisions made by locally-grouped citizens obligated to participate in consensus decision making process) - but not Direct Democracy in all 54 states and on federal level as well.

I can say, at least about those who say it is silly - they have what is called "shallow thinking" - superficial and judgemental (often sentimatally patriotic and brainwashed). usually they like to teach others - be it civics or what - while they themselves never bother to learn properly. they rather prefer to attack a person than a point, about which they simply keep quite, neither admiting they are wrong, nor trying to prove they are right. because to attack person is much easier !

at least, thank you phibunmike for proper conduct, unlike some (guess who that might be ?) people, adressing and arguing the points and issues, not level of my sanity or other sides of my personality. I am nobody - why concentrate on me?

yes, you are right to say that it is an interesting side-topic and might be worth discussing in decent and respectfull way. and it is very technical and complicated, so many opinions exist by very expert in this field people who would be able to provide loads of arguments and contra-arguments. I have tried to merely show possible alternatives.

that is not important as proper conduct in discussion, which such forum supposed to be.

but to simplify and generalise, calling anyone who thinks differently, in other way, alternatively, and label as silly or idiotic - is not proper and democratic ! such simplification is worse than thievery ! and more like "might is right" and "brute force prevails" (as evident in certain foreing policies) principles of MOB RULE - which we were talking about here recently by the way !

now, go ahead, call me silly, or idiotic, or one with unprepared "homework" - whatever !

perhaps I'll also make some signature, huh ? like "BEWARE ! some people are brainwashed, zombied and hysterically paranoid ! "

Edited March 25, 2006 by aaaaaa

[jdinasia]

oi

Someone else deal with this insane babbling .

Edited March 25, 2006 by jdinasia

[chuchok]

oi

Someone else deal with this insane babbling .

i got a headache reading the first few lines.I wonder what it looks like from his side?

[jdinasia]

Pedants are just that way .... hijack a thread about a shrine being destroyed and the things that happen later and make it into this ..... oh well. Maybe this can settle it and let the thread get back to its original topic.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1)Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2)A political or social unit that has such a government.

3)The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4)Majority rule.

5)The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

or

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE

Function: noun

Inflected Form: plural -cies

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb

source:Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

or

n 1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: republic, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Now back to the sad events that happened at the Erawan shrine

[aaaaaa]

I think better be a pedant than twist matters and make personal attacks for supporting such trwisted points.

and I think you have tried to hijack it first by making those irrelevent and irresponsible statements.

common, who started first by mentioning Democracy at all ? that time you didn't that subject of this thread is different ?

so, what else do you have in your arsenal of "arguments" - silly, idiotic, babble, pedant....

[jdinasia]

oi ... guess not .... but could you please translate this for me? " that time you didn't that subject of this thread is different ?

but it was smart of you to skip the definitions ... having read through your posts ... you fit the 2nd definition for TiT (troll in training)

So .... back to the topic

Anyone have a guess as to the fate of the 2 garbage truck guys? I do not expect to see 1st degree murder/death penalty being brought against them successfully. Do cases in Thailand allow for a lesser conviction if they choose to try them for Capitol Murder?

Edited March 25, 2006 by jdinasia

[AmeriThai]

There are now a total of 34 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components ...[/size][/color]

as you can see, there is sufficient difference:

1) direct democracy (with all imperative components) on local levels, not on Federal level; and since Federal level by Consituion prevails over regional, being a central government - means government is not Democratic (as officially stated in mentioned government source itself about its own goverance form).

2) out of what, 54 states? 34 have components of direct democracy. not ALL. 34 out of 54 is more than 50%, yes, but not 100%

3) federal executive power represanted by elected president can be much more powerfull than local decision-makers.

now, go ahead, call me silly, or idiotic, or one with unprepared "homework" - whatever !

What does all this have to do with the destruction of the Erawan Shrine?

The United States has 50 states, not 54.

You're unprepared because you haven't done your homework.

[jdinasia]

lol ... I never even read that swill ..... missed that entirely ....

But I still want to know about the legal issues the 2 guys that were caught may face.