Bulgary and Theft.

[Chrisswe]

Do anyone know what happens if I beat a theft to death when breaking into my bedroom, as a farang !?

[David48]

.

Is the thief a Thai, Cambodian, Myanmar, Farang or other?

Are we talking a bare fisted beating or a baseball bat?

Did you plan to dump the body at your front gate as a warning to others or ...

'beat him within an inch of his (or her) life' as a lesson and then call the Ambulance?

So many contingencies ...

.

[Guderian]

It all depends on the amount of Thai Baht that you have handy to make any problems there might be go away.

[Morakot]

1. You will find yourself in a court of law.
2. You will have to find adequate legal representation.
3. You will have to have a case made that your actions were necessary, proportionate, without premeditation
4. You will have to have the judge convinced that the above was the case.
5. You may find yourself not bail being granted and housed in unsavoury conditions in a remand prison
6. You may either be found guilty or innocent of manslaughter
7. You may be psychological traumatised by having gone through the judicial process
8. You will have spent vast amount of money, resources, and effort in the judicial process
9. You may be psychological traumatised by having caused the death of a person
10. You may ask yourself what turn has your life taken.

In sum, your life will very likely significantly change (regardless of whether proven guilty or innocent); by contrast people who have been burgled their life will not significantly change.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Morakot

[edwinchester]

• You will find yourself in a court of law.
• You will have to find adequate legal representation.
• You will have to have a case made that your actions were necessary, proportionate, and without any premeditation
• You will have the judge convinced that the above was the case.
• You may find yourself not bail being granted and housed in unsavoury conditions in a remand prison
• You may either be found guilty or innocent of manslaughter
• You may be psychological traumatised by having gone through the judicial process
• You will have spent vast amount of money, resources, and effort in the judicial process
• You may be psychological traumatised by having caused the death of a person
• You may ask yourself what turn has your life taken.

 

In sum, your life will very likely significantly change (regardless of whether proven guilty or innocent); by contrast people who have been burgled their life will not significantly change.

Agree with all your points but not the last paragraph.

We were burgled a year and a half ago and to cut along story short a corrupt drug dealing investigating officer and death threats from the main suspect did change our lives significantly.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Morakot]

• You will find yourself in a court of law.
• You will have to find adequate legal representation.
• You will have to have a case made that your actions were necessary, proportionate, and without any premeditation
• You will have the judge convinced that the above was the case.
• You may find yourself not bail being granted and housed in unsavoury conditions in a remand prison
• You may either be found guilty or innocent of manslaughter
• You may be psychological traumatised by having gone through the judicial process
• You will have spent vast amount of money, resources, and effort in the judicial process
• You may be psychological traumatised by having caused the death of a person
• You may ask yourself what turn has your life taken.

In sum, your life will very likely significantly change (regardless of whether proven guilty or innocent); by contrast people who have been burgled their life will not significantly change.

Agree with all your points but not the last paragraph.

We were burgled a year and a half ago and to cut along story short a corrupt drug dealing investigating officer and death threats from the main suspect did change our lives significantly.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Absolutely agree. What I meant the difference is an order of magnitude in terms of changes.

Sorry to hear about the awful experience you had.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Morakot

[Dancealot]

Suppose next week a burglar is found dead in your apartment, do you still think it's a bright idea to have posted this?

Edited July 1, 2013 by Dancealot

[Chrisswe]

Selfdefence in my own bedroom !!?

[Morakot]

Selfdefence in my own bedroom !!?

This is what you need to tell the judge.

As your Non-Attorney I advise you to be careful about what you say in public without adequate representation.

[thaicbr]

Selfdefence in my own bedroom !!?

Self defense is one thing. Beating someone to death is another.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[WaywardWind]

The availability of self defense ends when the threat to you or a third person no longer exists. If you hit a burglar and he is down and out (not dead but incapable of any further attacks), the fight is over.

[Morakot]

The availability of self defense ends when the threat to you or a third person no longer exists. If you hit a burglar and he is down and out (not dead but incapable of any further attacks), the fight is over.

Who said the burglar was attacking anyone?

I call for recess; assault is a newly emerged fact your Honour!

[WaywardWind]

The availability of self defense ends when the threat to you or a third person no longer exists. If you hit a burglar and he is down and out (not dead but incapable of any further attacks), the fight is over.

Who said the burglar was attacking anyone?

I call for recess; assault is a newly emerged fact your Honour!

Well, if the burglar flees when confronted, then the need for any force has evaporated, yes? The phrasing of the OP indicates that a burglar is in his bedroom, not fleeing.

Anyway, here's what the Thai Penal Code has to say about justification:

Section 67 Any person shall not be punished for committing any offence on account of necessity:

1. When such person is under compulsion or under the influence of a force such that such person cannot avoid or resist; or
2. When such person acts in order to make himself or another person to escape from an imminent danger which could not be avoided by any other means, and which such person did not cause to exist through his own fault. Provided that no more is done than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Section 68 Any person is to commit any act for defending his own right or other person's right in order to except from a danger arising out of violence tortuous to the law and such danger to be imminent, if reasonably having committed under the circumstance, such act is a lawful defense, and such person shall not have a quilt.

Section 69 In the cases as provided in Sections 67 and 68, if the act committed is in excess of what is reasonable under the circumstances or in excess of what is necessary, or in excess of what is necessary for the defense, the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence. But, if such act occurs out of excitement, fright or fear, the Court may not inflict any punishment at all.

In short, use the force necessary to end the danger, and no more.

[Morakot]

Merely being in another person's bedroom does not necessarily present immediate danger to chattel or to body.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Morakot

[krisb]

The law is the same as Australia. Nationality regardless, if they have broken in and in self defense you kill them, you have the right to.

[WaywardWind]

Merely being in another person's bedroom does not necessarily present immediate danger to chattel or to body.

You're right - the thief could be there just to watch a little TV, or read a book, or maybe play a few hands of Solitaire on your computer. Nothing to worry about, just roll over and go back to sleep.

[Morakot]

Merely being in another person's bedroom does not necessarily present immediate danger to chattel or to body.

You're right - the thief could be there just to watch a little TV, or read a book, or maybe play a few hands of Solitaire on your computer. Nothing to worry about, just roll over and go back to sleep.

Could have been a repairman who accidentally walked through the wrong door. Who said it was at night? Sorry all just speculation no facts yet.

[Basil B]

The availability of self defense ends when the threat to you or a third person no longer exists. If you hit a burglar and he is down and out (not dead but incapable of any further attacks), the fight is over.

Who said the burglar was attacking anyone?

I call for recess; assault is a newly emerged fact your Honour!

Well, if the burglar flees when confronted, then the need for any force has evaporated, yes? The phrasing of the OP indicates that a burglar is in his bedroom, not fleeing.

Anyway, here's what the Thai Penal Code has to say about justification:

Section 67 Any person shall not be punished for committing any offence on account of necessity:

1. When such person is under compulsion or under the influence of a force such that such person cannot avoid or resist; or
2. When such person acts in order to make himself or another person to escape from an imminent danger which could not be avoided by any other means, and which such person did not cause to exist through his own fault. Provided that no more is done than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Section 68 Any person is to commit any act for defending his own right or other person's right in order to except from a danger arising out of violence tortuous to the law and such danger to be imminent, if reasonably having committed under the circumstance, such act is a lawful defense, and such person shall not have a quilt.

Section 69 In the cases as provided in Sections 67 and 68, if the act committed is in excess of what is reasonable under the circumstances or in excess of what is necessary, or in excess of what is necessary for the defense, the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence. But, if such act occurs out of excitement, fright or fear, the Court may not inflict any punishment at all.

In short, use the force necessary to end the danger, and no more.

This is a translation, and to be accurate, the case will be heard in a Thai Court, with evidence in spoken and written Thai and the law will apply as it was written in Thai, most translations are inaccurate and often you can find many examples of the same legislation translations that contradict.

[pattayadingo]

He fell down the stairs, your honour, and broke his neck.

Next.

[Payboy]

I would put on my prosthetic legs and shoot the fecker when he goes to my bathroom to answer that unfortunately urgent call of nature in the middle of his burglary.

[manarak]

1. You will find yourself in a court of law.
2. You will have to find adequate legal representation.
3. You will have to have a case made that your actions were necessary, proportionate, without premeditation
4. You will have to have the judge convinced that the above was the case.
5. You may find yourself not bail being granted and housed in unsavoury conditions in a remand prison
6. You may either be found guilty or innocent of manslaughter
7. You may be psychological traumatised by having gone through the judicial process
8. You will have spent vast amount of money, resources, and effort in the judicial process
9. You may be psychological traumatised by having caused the death of a person
10. You may ask yourself what turn has your life taken.

In sum, your life will very likely significantly change (regardless of whether proven guilty or innocent); by contrast people who have been burgled their life will not significantly change.

or you might "convince" the police office in charge of the investigation that the burglar committed suicide in your room. maybe the easier route.

[Morakot]

I would put on my prosthetic legs and shoot the fecker when he goes to my bathroom to answer that unfortunately urgent call of nature in the middle of his burglary.

Make sure Honey is within sight...

[Payboy]

I would put on my prosthetic legs and shoot the fecker when he goes to my bathroom to answer that unfortunately urgent call of nature in the middle of his burglary.

Make sure Honey is within sight...

Oops, too late!

[Spalpeen]

.

Is the thief a Thai, Cambodian, Myanmar, Farang or other?

From the thread title it seems that the dead guy was Bulgarian.

[WaywardWind]

Merely being in another person's bedroom does not necessarily present immediate danger to chattel or to body.

You're right - the thief could be there just to watch a little TV, or read a book, or maybe play a few hands of Solitaire on your computer. Nothing to worry about, just roll over and go back to sleep.

Could have been a repairman who accidentally walked through the wrong door. Who said it was at night? Sorry all just speculation no facts yet.

Quote from the OP:

Do anyone know what happens if I beat a theft to death when breaking into my bedroom, as a farang !?

Doesn't sound like any repairman that I have ever heard of....

[WaywardWind]

The availability of self defense ends when the threat to you or a third person no longer exists. If you hit a burglar and he is down and out (not dead but incapable of any further attacks), the fight is over.

Who said the burglar was attacking anyone?

I call for recess; assault is a newly emerged fact your Honour!

Well, if the burglar flees when confronted, then the need for any force has evaporated, yes? The phrasing of the OP indicates that a burglar is in his bedroom, not fleeing.

Anyway, here's what the Thai Penal Code has to say about justification:

Section 67 Any person shall not be punished for committing any offence on account of necessity:

1. When such person is under compulsion or under the influence of a force such that such person cannot avoid or resist; or
2. When such person acts in order to make himself or another person to escape from an imminent danger which could not be avoided by any other means, and which such person did not cause to exist through his own fault. Provided that no more is done than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Section 68 Any person is to commit any act for defending his own right or other person's right in order to except from a danger arising out of violence tortuous to the law and such danger to be imminent, if reasonably having committed under the circumstance, such act is a lawful defense, and such person shall not have a quilt.

Section 69 In the cases as provided in Sections 67 and 68, if the act committed is in excess of what is reasonable under the circumstances or in excess of what is necessary, or in excess of what is necessary for the defense, the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence. But, if such act occurs out of excitement, fright or fear, the Court may not inflict any punishment at all.

In short, use the force necessary to end the danger, and no more.

This is a translation, and to be accurate, the case will be heard in a Thai Court, with evidence in spoken and written Thai and the law will apply as it was written in Thai, most translations are inaccurate and often you can find many examples of the same legislation translations that contradict.

To be sure the translation of legal language can be incredibly problematic.

However, the query was related to using what in the West is called "deadly physical force" in defense of one's home, and the proper answer is that one can use only that amount of force necessary to stop the burglary - not one inch more. The Thai Penal Code seems to cover this, although it is a bit hazy in places.

In some jurisdictions which do not subscribe to the castle doctrine, an individual in such a situation is legally obligated to avoid the use of force in any respect if it can be accomplished without danger to one's person.

[Morakot]

However, the query was related to using what in the West is called "deadly physical force" in defense of one's home, and the proper answer is that one can use only that amount of force necessary to stop the burglary - not one inch more. The Thai Penal Code seems to cover this, although it is a bit hazy in places.

In some jurisdictions which do not subscribe to the castle doctrine, an individual in such a situation is legally obligated to avoid the use of force in any respect if it can be accomplished without danger to one's person.

The OP has disappeared.

Invoking a castle doctrine would not exonerate him from proving necessity; it would not magically free him from being the defendant in a manslaughter case.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Morakot

[NanLaew]

About 30 years ago, a friend of mine shot and injured a burglar as he was climbing over the wall, trying to leave his property in Pattaya. He called his 'go to' local cop for advice first and was told to make sure the felon/victim was still inside the property boundary (he was) or else my friend would be in for a mountain of woe. As it happened, the burglar was detained inside the property by the police before being arrested and taken to hospital but the ensuing 'case' (and every bugger in uniform having his hand out) had him wishing he had only fired the gun over the buggers head and not actually hit him. It was his wife's firearm, legal and registered but it opened a huge can of worms.

[Dancealot]

.

He aimed to miss, so it was an accident. Nice to read a good report about the superior forces. In all fairness, he asked for the worms to come..

Good story, NanLaew, thanks!

Edited July 1, 2013 by Dancealot

[Basil B]

About 30 years ago, a friend of mine shot and injured a burglar as he was climbing over the wall, trying to leave his property in Pattaya. He called his 'go to' local cop for advice first and was told to make sure the felon/victim was still inside the property boundary (he was) or else my friend would be in for a mountain of woe. As it happened, the burglar was detained inside the property by the police before being arrested and taken to hospital but the ensuing 'case' (and every bugger in uniform having his hand out) had him wishing he had only fired the gun over the buggers head and not actually hit him. It was his wife's firearm, legal and registered but it opened a huge can of worms.

I think you hit the nail on the head, even if the OP was to be within the law, it would be a lot of "inconvenience" and expense.