Footage of Thai govt spokeswoman Sunisa's capture released

[webfact]

Footage Of Govt Spokeswoman's Capture Released
By Khaosod English

BANGKOK: -- The authorities have released CCTV footage showing the moment anti-government protesters captured a governmental spokeswoman who was passing through their rally last month.

The incident occurred on 25 February when Ms. Sunisa Lertpakawat, Deputy spokeswoman of the Prime Minister Office, visited a skin-care clinic near Pathumwan Intersection where anti-government protesters led by the People's Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD) were holding a rally.

News reports indicated that Ms. Sunisa was recognised by one of the PCAD guards and was later escorted to a tent where she was interrogated by a group of protest guards.

Ms. Sunisa was eventually released several hours later. Although protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban was present at the campsite at the time, it is understood that the two did not meet face-to-face during her brief captivity.

The spokesman later told the press she would pursue legal action against the protest guards on charge of illegal detention for violently manhandling her as she was escorted to the guards HQ tent. The charge carries a penalty of maximum 5 years in prison.

Today the Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) released the footage from a CCTV mounted close to the clinic visited by Ms. Sunisa on the day of the incident. In the video, a group of PCAD guards could be seen standing and waiting for Ms. Sunisa before she came into the camera view and walk past them.

One by one, the guards could be seen chasing after Ms. Sunisa, while some pedestrians fled the area in apparent panic. Ms. Sunisa was later briefly seen on the camera again as she was escorted by a large group of PCAD guards.

CMPO said the footage will be used as evidence against at least 9 PCAD guards involved in the incident.

CMPO also claimed that medical report confirmed signs of physical assault on Ms. Sunisa.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1394608949&typecate=06&section=


-- Khaosod English 2014-03-13

[LomSak27]

Not to worry the Courts will do their job and toss out the charges

These are anti goverment protestors after all and as such cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Edited March 12, 2014 by LomSak27

[CelticBhoy]

15 Somchais to grab 1 bird.

And they call themselves guards.

Gnus would be a better word.

[commie Joe]

nice people , kidnappers

enter the Fruitcake supporters to tell us all what a peaceful lot the protesters are

[chooka]

Bloody animals takes all these thugs to capture, assault and intimidate one little woman. These people are nothing more than thugs. If it took all these to handle a woman how many did it take to beat the guy and toss him into the river.

[lemonjelly]

shame the pdrc has to employ those knuckle draggers as guards....... pathetic.

[Yunla]

Like the way the backpack worn on the front displaying the star and circle, like a Sheriff's badge.

And the fact they were actually waiting in ambush for her, makes this a pre-planned abduction which is far more serious than the "we saw her and tried to protect her from our own angry protestors" story we were treated to originally.

Again, shopping areas belong to the public, not political mobs. Every citizen has the right to go there peacefully and shop, without being chased, terrorised and abducted. It is especially traumatising for a lone woman to be chased and grabbed by a gang of men - for obvious reasons. This is not the behaviour we want to see anywhere on Earth.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Yunla

[webfact]

Warrants for 9 guards
Anapat Deechuay
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Police will seek arrest warrants for nine People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) guards on charges of illegal detention and assault after obtaining security camera footage as additional evidence from deputy government spokesperson Sunisa Lertpakawat.

Pol Colonel Charut Sarutyaporn, superintendent of the Pathumwan Police Station, and Sunisa announced this at a press conference that was televised live on Channel 9 and NBT yesterday. Sunisa has filed charges against the nine men in question.

Charut said police had decided to press charges of intimidation, illegal detention and assault against the nine guards after obtaining footage of Sunisa's detention and after medical examination showed she had been physically assaulted.


-- The Nation 2014-03-13

[chooka]

"violently manhandling her"

The minuscule bruise must have been life-threatening.

Were the guards in the wrong?

Yes

Is the complainant grossly exaggerating?

Yes

So if a gang of strangers chased you down and dragged you off against your will, you wouldn't be concerned for your safety. Personally I would be shitting myself and my heart would be beating overtime imagine how a woman would be feeling. No I don't think it is an over exaggeration.

[Suriya4]

"violently manhandling her"

The minuscule bruise must have been life-threatening.

Were the guards in the wrong?

Yes

Is the complainant grossly exaggerating?

Yes

So if a gang of strangers chased you down and dragged you off against your will, you wouldn't be concerned for your safety. Personally I would be shitting myself and my heart would be beating overtime imagine how a woman would be feeling. No I don't think it is an over exaggeration.

[Prbkk]

beasts..

[djjamie]

Change the names of , "anti government" and "government" around in this OP and the red shirt supporters will be defending the actions of these men. I highlighted their hypocrisy yesterday.

Not surprised at all that in one breath they can defend the UDD supporters cheering after hearing about a terrorist attack that killed PDRC supporters and in another breath say this is an absolute travesty of justice making this seem much much worse than the terrorist attack in Trat.

Anyway I am glad they have the CCTV footage and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Edited March 13, 2014 by djjamie

[chooka]

Change the names of , "anti government" and "government" around in this OP and the red shirt supporters will be defending the actions of these men. I highlighted their hypocrisy yesterday.

Not surprised at all that in one breath they can defend the UDD supporters cheering after hearing about a terrorist attack that killed PDRC supporters and in another breath say this is an absolute travesty of justice making this seem much much worse than the terrorist attack in Trat.

Anyway I am glad they have the CCTV footage and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice.

No one could support the actions of these thugs no matter what colour shirt they are wearing. They have showed what cowardly thugs they by ganging up and assaulting a lone woman. Pure animals.

[Yunla]

If a tiny bruise is all the evidence of her "violent" treatment, I would call that exaggeration.

To avoid misogyny allegations, her experience should be considered no different than if she were a man as misogyny is a two-way street.

If i was taken, I would press charges based upon that charge, but I wouldn't embellish the incident with exaggerations that don't reflect the reality of what occurred.

"Her experience should be considered no different than if she were a man" is some rare old nonsense. While I don't like PTP at all, I can see clearly that this is an attractive and indeed tiny young lady, who could offer no resistance to a group of males chasing her down for whatever reason. And the fact she is attractive and a lady means that in many circumstances the group of men might wish to add to the abduction and assault charges by adding rape charges. They would be a lot less likely to do that if she was a big guy.

Most boys learn not to hit girls when they are in primary school. It is considered a gross breach of Playground Cred, and a sign that the boy in question is a coward who targets little girls. In adulthood this principle becomes far more important when the sex angle joins the equation. No means no, and that applies to chasing, hitting or sexually assaulting.

Going further, it is gentlemanly to not instill fear in ladies. A lady can be emotionally scarred for life by being chased up a back street by a gang of men. She might be too frightened to go out shopping for years, or in many cases even go outside her front door. We are not all Rambo, and many of us get frightened and remain frightened for a long time after an assault.

[chrisinth]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quote

"violently manhandling her"

The minuscule bruise must have been life-threatening.

Were the guards in the wrong?
Yes
Is the complainant grossly exaggerating?
Yes

Its not how you see it but how it is seen in law, even in this country. Even putting your hand on someone's shoulder can be deemed as assault in certain cases.

However, as you state, it is wrong plain and simple. The video certainly disproves the original allegations that she approached the 'guards' and verbally abused them...............

Still, maybe she verbally abused by text or phone before her abduction (yes, abduction), but we may never know...................

[chooka]

@Pepsis post 18

I don't know where you come from but I know the people who pay my wages would look at this as a more serious assault the fact that she has received an injury as a result of the assault makes it an indictable offence not a simple unlawful assault by any means. then ad the further of offences of assault in company, unlawful imprisonment and poss kidnapping these guy would be looking at some serious prison time.

[Yunla]

Misogyny doesn't relate to size. Replace your scenario with an equally-sized small man.

The same applies to your "gentlemanly" conduct. If equal treatment is the goal to combat misogyny, it would be no less an affront to instill fear in other men.

Additionally, a man could be traumatized as much as a woman could be from the same scenario.

Not all men are your "Rambo".

To repeat, what these people did was wrong, but I was merely contesting that the incident was somehow made worse because she was a woman. It wasn't.

I agree with you that chasing, assaulting, abducting or raping a man are also terrible crimes. This is just basic common sense.

But the fact is that most men are heterosexual, most likely including several people in the group that assaulted this lady, and therefor the fact that she is a lone attractive woman makes rape a possibility, and her completely terrified fear of this a certainty. If a man has so little respect for a lady that he and his friends would chase her down a back street, assault her physically, rob her of mobile etc. and detain her for almost an hour against her will - there is no telling what that same man would do if it were dark and in a less public place. Violence and abduction are part of rape. And most rapes are against women, especially lone attractive women. For this reason when a lone woman is chased up a back street and injured, held against her will etc. by a gang of men - she will be terrified because of what might come next. My main point is that the psychological damage for a lone woman being chased by a gang of men can last for life, it re-awakens some very ancient fears that all women try to block out in order to live their normal day-to-day lives.

Edit: grammar and add Mister Coffee smiley.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Yunla

[chooka]

@Pepsis post 18

I don't know where you come from but I know the people who pay my wages would look at this as a more serious assault the fact that she has received an injury as a result of the assault makes it an indictable offence not a simple unlawful assault by any means. then ad the further of offences of assault in company, unlawful imprisonment and poss kidnapping these guy would be looking at some serious prison time.

Let's relate to Thai law and the difference between the terminology they use of bodily harm versus grievous bodily harm.

Section 297 Whoever, commits bodily harm, and thereby causing the victim to receive grievous bodily harm, shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to ten years. Grievous bodily harms are as follows:

Deprivation of the sight, deprivation of the hearing, cutting of the tongue or loss of the sense of smelling;

Loss of genital organs or reproductive ability;

Loss of an arm, leg, hand, foot, finger or any other organ;

Permanent disfiguration of face;

Abortion;

Permanent insanity;

Infirmity or chronic illness which may last throughout life

So, yes, bodily harm and not grievous bodily harm.

Which is still a serious offence and not a simple assault which is way down the ladder.

Intentionally cause serious injury (Bodily harm)

Recklessly cause serious injury

Intentionally cause injury

recklessly cause injury

Assault with a weapon

Assault in company

unlawful assault (simple assault)

[DirtFarmer]

Don't ya just love all the TV color mongers here who spin this story with ifs and ifs and ifs..put down the crayons ..leave the Pathom One Classroom and stand up for HUMAN rights.. They should be charged and they should be prosecuted... but most likely will not because some people in this whole mess have certain immunity from prosecution as is plainly evident over the last several months..Regardless it is a cowardly pack animal act and should not be filtered as anything more than that.. String 'em up I say... no matter what the color of your shorts..okay here are your crayons back... go color something else

[Yunla]

All conjecture as no sexual assault occurred. Would love to see your crime stats that "attractive" women are more likely to be raped. Lastly, I would say we disagree on what constitutes attractive in the first place, but I would imagine my standard might be significantly higher.

My point, which you skillfully avoided entirely, is that for a lone woman who is attacked and robbed etc. by a gang of men - the possibility of rape is a very real and terrifying certainty, whether or not it occurs.

I myself am a lone woman and was mugged, robbed and home-invaded numerous times in England. And it terrified me because of the possibility of rape.

Re; attractive, of course it plays a part in rape, for the obvious reasons that are related to sexual arousal in males. What constitutes attractive will obviously vary from person to person, but a highly desireable female means just that - she is an object of desire, willing or forced.

In either case my point remains unchallenged, it is terrifying for a woman to be chased up a back street by a gang of men and I can promise you that what she is most terrified of is not having her mobile phone stolen.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Yunla

[gemini81]

All conjecture as no sexual assault occurred. Would love to see your crime stats that "attractive" women are more likely to be raped. Lastly, I would say we disagree on what constitutes attractive in the first place, but I would imagine my standard might be significantly higher.

My point, which you skillfully avoided entirely, is that for a lone woman who is attacked and robbed etc. by a gang of men - the possibility of rape is a very real and terrifying certainty, whether or not it occurs.

I myself am a lone woman and was mugged, robbed and home-invaded numerous times in England. And it terrified me because of the possibility of rape.

Re; attractive, of course it plays a part in rape, for the obvious reasons that are related to sexual arousal in males. What constitutes attractive will obviously vary from person to person, but a highly desireable female means just that - she is an object of desire, willing or forced.

In either case my point remains unchallenged, it is terrifying for a woman to be chased up a back street by a gang of men and I can promise you that what she is most terrified of is not having her mobile phone stolen.

Total drama queen. Watch the video.

Rape, an entirely separate, unrelated topic, is usually based on a power trip or such, isn't it? Not about who is the most do-able. C'mon.

[ezzra]

Thai society tolerance and forgiveness attitude are coming back to bite them in the

ass... such behavior would not have been tolerated in other societies, but in Thailand

they shoot horses to...

[Artisi]

@Pepsis post 18

I don't know where you come from but I know the people who pay my wages would look at this as a more serious assault the fact that she has received an injury as a result of the assault makes it an indictable offence not a simple unlawful assault by any means. then ad the further of offences of assault in company, unlawful imprisonment and poss kidnapping these guy would be looking at some serious prison time.

Let's relate to Thai law and the difference between the terminology they use of bodily harm versus grievous bodily harm.

Section 297 Whoever, commits bodily harm, and thereby causing the victim to receive grievous bodily harm, shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to ten years. Grievous bodily harms are as follows:

Deprivation of the sight, deprivation of the hearing, cutting of the tongue or loss of the sense of smelling;

Loss of genital organs or reproductive ability;

Loss of an arm, leg, hand, foot, finger or any other organ;

Permanent disfiguration of face;

Abortion;

Permanent insanity;

Infirmity or chronic illness which may last throughout life

So, yes, bodily harm and not grievous bodily harm.

Which is still a serious offence and not a simple assault which is way down the ladder.

Intentionally cause serious injury (Bodily harm)

Recklessly cause serious injury

Intentionally cause injury

recklessly cause injury

Assault with a weapon

Assault in company

unlawful assault (simple assault)

Can you please reference all those variances in the Thai penal code as I only found the two I posted (bodily harm and grievous bodily harm). Afterall, that is the system they will be tried under.

Next he will be calling up Westminster law (what ever that is - but used in one of his previous posting some time back) and the Miranda Rule, also used previously without any real knowledge of its meaning or intent.

[Yunla]

I can appreciate how your own personal experience may have effected how you see things. As for rape, I would have thought you would know it is an act of violence and not one of sexual arousal. That is repeatedly shown when "she was provocatively dressed" gets thrown out as a defense in rape cases.

Anyway, my point remains intact in that it can be just as traumatizing for a man to be the victim of an assault as it is a woman. Equality is across the board.

This is not about how I personally see things, all my female friends would feel exactly the same as me, if we were chased down a back street by a gang of men. I don't see how any sane woman would not be terrified by this, unless she was a combat veteran and/or armed with a gun.

"Provocatively dressed" is not the same as being sexually attractive. And how can you deny sexual arousal of the male in rape cases. Yes it is an act of violence - it is a violent sexual act, the same as "rough play" violent sex between consenting adults, except in the case of rape it is obviously not consenting. But the odds are that if the girl is sexually attractive to the criminal, that increases the risk of them being targeted by that criminal.

Again you miss my point which is that it is terrifying for a lone attractive woman to be chased by a gang of men, and for the reasons I already repeated. A man would not have the same fears unless he was being chased by a gang of predatory gay men - which would be very rare.

Welcome to TVF by the way.

[edgarfriendly]

now we're clearly aware we live among beasts, what is the best way of dealing with these ill-educated monsters and burdens upon society?

[ChrisY1]

She's been the government spokesperson...(those whom she speaks for, don't have the balls to show their faces on tv)....her face has been plastered on National tv in many Thai homes..including the homes of the PDRC people...and likely on many tv sets in the protesters camps.....what do you think she was expecting when she ventured into the enemies area....tea and cake?

[Katipo]

It's very disappointing, but not surprising, that when a bunch of nobodies who suddenly have an over inflated sense of worth think they have the right to do this to someone. Sadly it's not uncommon.

[jackh]

Run with the bad dogs lady, chances are you're gonna get bit!

[MrSlatersParrot]

"violently manhandling her"

The minuscule bruise must have been life-threatening.

Were the guards in the wrong?

Yes

Is the complainant grossly exaggerating?

Yes

So if a gang of strangers chased you down and dragged you off against your will, you wouldn't be concerned for your safety. Personally I would be shitting myself and my heart would be beating overtime imagine how a woman would be feeling. No I don't think it is an over exaggeration.

If a tiny bruise is all the evidence of her "violent" treatment, I would call that exaggeration.

To avoid misogyny allegations, her experience should be considered no different than if she were a man as misogyny is a two-way street.

If i was taken, I would press charges based upon that charge, but I wouldn't embellish the incident with exaggerations that don't reflect the reality of what occurred.

now that it's coming out you reactionary guys are bleating that it wasn't so bad.

Because you're sure it wouldn't happen to your mom or sis back home you can be as callous as you appear to be.

An abduction in broad day light by a bunch of armed (and you see them tucking their weapons into their pants) thugs of a government spokeswoman shows graphically why these people and those who finance them can never again ruin Thailand.

She may not wish to repeat all the offenses committed against her in the public view either.

[DrMe]

You see? you see ??? This is my strawberry mark. ugh .. bad, dangerous anti-government guards, hang them all, kill everyone, who doesn't cry with me ....Finally, red government builds democracy.... or not ???