yardrunner Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Unless I'm missing something here, the Thai security guard had no legal right to tell anyone to do anything, including to stop filming, while out on the sidewalk or public street in front of the club. That's public property, not the same as private property inside the club. If the guard started a confrontation with Pendlebury over that, then he was in the wrong. And if the guard further escalated that to a physical assault on Pendlebury after he refused to stop filming, then he was even more in the wrong. The question is... why was Pendlebury so quickly charged with murder when there's certainly at least the appearance of a valid self-defense claim here??? so a physical assault and someone pulls a knife and stabs the other person, it may not be murder but is certainly manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Pulled out pocket knife and waved it? A psycho pendlebury.Did he hand in his passport? A runner maybe loose soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvr181 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 .............. This will teach bouncers a lesson for the future. Nah, they're too thick to understand. Once a bully boy, always (likely) a bully boy! Perhaps it is a cultural or educational or I.Q. problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinmaew Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 "Pendlebury said he pulled out his pocket knife and waved it back and forth to defend himself" Someone else said that he was a vet and "Knew about arm to arm combat" - Seems the arms were not used much to defend but rather a knife which was a big mistake. I think if you have to carry a weapon around with you during the course of your daily perambulations then perhaps its time to reconsider your living arrangements and lifestyle. Just shows how one moment of madness can turn a lifetime into shit. 10 years running a boating biz and a TGF all set mate and now.... well if he is lucky he will lose most of his wealth paying off the police and judicial system so reset to 0 at 60 all in minutes and kitty will likely run away back to momma now that the money has run out. Who gives a rats if two security guards are throwing some other guys out? Tip: Unless its your family member or loved one or best mate, WALK AWAY and don't get involved because no one gives a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenBravo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 He was given bail as he wasn't deemed a flight risk. Business, wife and child in Phuket, plus, he is of proven good character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oziex1 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I absolutely don't condone anyone carrying a knife. that said, in answer to all the suggestions that he run away? Na. That's not the Australian way. Have a go, and stand up for what's right. Ok wimps, unleash yourpussy replies on me. Haha. I do understand that this is not for everyone. But why bag someone who has the balls to have a go. He was in fact running away, they caught him beat him and he fought back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 He was given bail as he wasn't deemed a flight risk. Business, wife and child in Phuket, plus, he is of proven good character. He would also have to surrender his passport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven100 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The fact that he had stopped filming and attempted to leave the scene, then was chased and set upon by 6-7 thugs .... clearly demonstrates that the police have a pretty soft case ... they know that the act of self defense was initiated by this guy and they know that there is a flaw in their case ... a) You cannot imply a charge of murder if it is deemed as ' self defense ' or when your life is threatened. a.1) It is considered to be ' self defense ' when your life is in danger or threatened. The fact that he was chased by 6-7 thugs is indication that he acted in ' self defense ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robblok Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Reason I am against people having.. knives and guns is simple.. give them a bit of alcohol or make them angry and they might come out and hurt other people with it. If they did not have a knive they would have used something less damaging. Sorry I still feel people with knives as idiots and endangering others. Not everyone is totally under control always.. they snap they have a knife and before you know it you get stabbed. If this guy was running away and got cornered pulled it out and then.. sure I can see this as self defense. However often just having a knife makes you stop and pull it out to use it when running would have been better. So while it might be right in this case I am still against people with knives. (or guns). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 And where in a thailand will he find a good Lawyer? The new Australian Honorary Consul in Phuket (Michelle). Though I'm not sure if she is allowed to operate with 'both hats' on, lawyer and Consul. Unless she has Thai citizenship, she will not be allowed to represent him in a Thai court. If she is a foreign lawyer the best she can do is to give advice to a Thai lawyer, but that's about all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 the alleged knife looks like a bottle opener to me the defendant tried to defend himself with a bottle opener case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenBravo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The thing that people are not taking into account here, is that when you are threatened with impending serious harm, like being stomped by six thugs, conscious thought goes out of the window and the survival instinct takes over. Natures way of self-preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwide Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 the alleged knife looks like a bottle opener to me the defendant tried to defend himself with a bottle opener case closed Whether I kill you with a letter opener or a machete, you'll still be dead and I'll still be a murderer. People kill one another in prison with sharpened toothbrush handles - would you like to have those cases closed too ? Hopefully the Thais have a slightly better understanding of concealed weapons than you've displayed here, and hopefully someone will come forward with video evidence of the Thais allegedly attacking Mark. That grainy CCTV footage is useless, IMO, but it does seem to show Mark making the crucial mistake of crossing the street and putting himself in harm's way : that's the point where we need to see decent video not the news mishmash which has been posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwide Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The thing that people are not taking into account here, is that when you are threatened with impending serious harm, like being stomped by six thugs, conscious thought goes out of the window and the survival instinct takes over. Natures way of self-preservation. No argument, but my self-preservation instincts would have kicked in before I crossed the street and put myself in the middle of a violent situation. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but people fight on a regular basis here in Pattaya - not once have I felt the desire to video any of it. Watching Thai women throwing chairs at one of the combatants here a month or so ago, its not hard to see the primate kick in : it's feral and I want no part of it. Ten years, one mistake and his life is potentially ruined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestBitterPhuket Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I wish him the best of luck and hope he is cleared of the charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenBravo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It was only "harms way" because he was attacked by a pack of rabid dogs. Crossing a public street and taking a video in a public street is still legal. Attacking a person in a dog-pack is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLock Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 As a long time resident, he should have known that violence here is sudden, random and can often turn on innocent bystanders. But for whatever reason, he wanted to take pictures or video of feral "bouncers" ejecting some tourists. Why? To liven up his Facebook page. Anyone who has been here a while should have known to just keep walking and not cross the street to get a better view of trouble. What he legally in the right? Yes. But anyone with any "Thai sense" should know better. Avoid, avoid, avoid. It's not worth taking some biffo, or possibly hurting someone in "self defense" as it appears in this case. I'm glad he is out on bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelepulse Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 As a long time resident, he should have known that violence here is sudden, random and can often turn on innocent bystanders. But for whatever reason, he wanted to take pictures or video of feral "bouncers" ejecting some tourists. Why? To liven up his Facebook page. Anyone who has been here a while should have known to just keep walking and not cross the street to get a better view of trouble. What he legally in the right? Yes. But anyone with any "Thai sense" should know better. Avoid, avoid, avoid. It's not worth taking some biffo, or possibly hurting someone in "self defense" as it appears in this case. I'm glad he is out on bail. To give you a bit of background information that will answer your question as to why he was filming. A few months ago a handicapped man in a wheelchair was set upon by 6 locals in Patong and the result was said victim "Fred" was in the hospital for two months after this brutal attack. Mark the Aussie was planning on taking Fred out for a sail on Thursday after attending a rotary meeting together and which just so happened Mark took Fred home after the meeting. Upon dropping off Fred, Mark witnessed two tourists being assaulted outside of Taipan, and knowing what happened to Fred, he wanted to document the abuse and assault of these tourists getting beaten up by these Thai thugs. He said he conscious wouldn't allow him to stand by and do nothing. At least the above is what he told a local news website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tingtongtourist Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Post deleted as previous poster did answer my questionn..thankyou. even though the intention seems honourable enough it is taking a huge risk of taking pics in that situation. seeing the guy has lived here many years he should have known to take pics only if he was at vantage point where the bouncers couldnt see him this day and age you have to be carefulnin any country taking pics of others. To do it in view of a group of stirred up thai bouncers is completely stupid. If you are going to do that at least pic a vantage point where they cant see you. silly and pointless actions on both sides i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csabo Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Unless I'm missing something here, the Thai security guard had no legal right to tell anyone to do anything, including to stop filming, while out on the sidewalk or public street in front of the club. That's public property, not the same as private property inside the club. If the guard started a confrontation with Pendlebury over that, then he was in the wrong. And if the guard further escalated that to a physical assault on Pendlebury after he refused to stop filming, then he was even more in the wrong. The question is... why was Pendlebury so quickly charged with murder when there's certainly at least the appearance of a valid self-defense claim here??? Your own words are the answer. A "defense" is raised in court to defend ones self from the charge. If a person has a valid self defense claim it will be determined by the court not the local police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir charles IV Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sugar coat it all you like. Bottom line is he's a murderer. The only reason he got bail was he had $$$. Look forward to his punishment either by law the victims mates which I believe will be the latter. Wait for the headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwide Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It was only "harms way" because he was attacked by a pack of rabid dogs. Crossing a public street and taking a video in a public street is still legal. Attacking a person in a dog-pack is not. No it bloody well wasnt only because he was attacked by said pack - the initial report claimed he was filming a fight between an Indian and a Frenchman, the later report claims those two were being ejected from the bar by your rabid pack - in either case, he walked straight into some very fired up people and started taking video from directly in front of the entrance, with the name of the bar presumably within the field of his camera. That's speculation on my part, but what little I CAN discern from that grainy CCTV footage is that the front of that bar was a melee before Mark decided to cross the road. Whatever concern he had for his friend should have remained with his friend - we all know the security staff are animals, and no amount of Youtube videos will change that. I'm sorry, but from where I'm sitting a 59 year old with 10 years in Thailand and a family to support should have put his own hide ahead of the fate of two men who - unless I missed something in the original report - were not seriously injured. No way of knowing how that would have panned out if he hadnt intervened, but how many times have we read about a Good Samaritan becoming the victim in Thailand ? Short of a friend or relative being attacked, I will just keep walking here or in any other city you care to name : the odds are always on the locals side and sadly that's compounded by the Thai justice system. I wish Mark every success in his defence, but I stand by what I said - he made a fundamental error of judgement and it has cost him dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWorldwide Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sugar coat it all you like. Bottom line is he's a murderer. The only reason he got bail was he had $$$. Look forward to his punishment either by law the victims mates which I believe will be the latter. Wait for the headline. No sugarcoating - its either self-defense, manslaughter or murder and thankfully that's for the courts to decide. As for your 'looking forward' to payback from the Thais, thats as despicable as 'the Thais have had it coming' rants earlier in this thread. Two families minus a breadwinner and you're engaging in some bizarre payback fantasy ? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 It was only "harms way" because he was attacked by a pack of rabid dogs. Crossing a public street and taking a video in a public street is still legal. Attacking a person in a dog-pack is not. Unfortunately for Mark I fear also defending himself with a knife against that pack will be considered illegal and 'over the top' by the courts. So I fear he will be convicted for manslaughter with mitigating circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir charles IV Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sugar coat it all you like. Bottom line is he's a murderer. The only reason he got bail was he had $$$. Look forward to his punishment either by law the victims mates which I believe will be the latter. Wait for the headline. No sugarcoating - its either self-defense, manslaughter or murder and thankfully that's for the courts to decide. As for your 'looking forward' to payback from the Thais, thats as despicable as 'the Thais have had it coming' rants earlier in this thread. Two families minus a breadwinner and you're engaging in some bizarre payback fantasy ? Please. i don't think u have adequate intellectual hp to comprehend the big picture. Forget minor irrelevant details. A young man's life (bread winner as u put it) was unnecessarily terminated as a result of a foolish act by a fool. The guy was doing his job. Had it not been for the old guy's arrogance (im better than u how dare u tell me what to do) attitude he would not be looking over his shoulder waiting to be hit by stranger. In fact he'll regret getting out on bail (unless he has a plan to flea ASAP) as the safest place for him now is in a cell with guards watching. I know a little more about this than letting out. Watch this space. [emoji12] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emster23 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 When they beat up the drunks from the bar, I did nothing, because I don't drink When they beat up the man videoing assaults, I did nothing, because I don't shoot video When they beat up the man sleeping on the beach, I did nothing, because I don't sleep on the beach When they beat me up, no one was there to give me aid. Some of us have empathy for our fellow man, and are outraged over injustice. ML King said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". If Mr. P made a mistake (in the minds of many posters) it is that he had compassion for others, unlike those who find him at fault for being chased by a pack of thugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
car720 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sounds to me like self defense. He will walk. This will teach bouncers a lesson for the future. Thats bullsuger mate, he killed a person. HE KILLED A PERSON, wether or not you people class Thai people as persons, I am sorry, I do. My wife is Thai, my sister in laws are thai, and my brother in law, and inlaws are, Thai. Dont you understand????? He didnt kill a Thai. He killed a brother, an uncle, a son, a friend, a PERSON!!!!!!! and he had no right to take that life.....Not at all. He didn't kill a person he protected himself by killing an animal. Nothing more and nothing less. If these people want to behave in this fashion towards another person then they deserve what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cup-O-coffee Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Sounds to me like self defense. He will walk. This will teach bouncers a lesson for the future. agree , he will have a very good lawyer to represent him and they will throw this out ... And where in a thailand will he find a good Lawyer? "He is a very good man, and also in our community is a very good lawyer, so things are in as good shape as they could possibly be,” the friend said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cup-O-coffee Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Bail when charged with murder? Amazing Thailand! Why, any one with a bit of status or money always gets bail, regardless the crime in Thailand Why does it seem that you are musing on something that has nothing to do with a decent, charitable and caring member of the cexpat community on Phuket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cup-O-coffee Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Unless I'm missing something here, the Thai security guard had no legal right to tell anyone to do anything, including to stop filming, while out on the sidewalk or public street in front of the club. That's public property, not the same as private property inside the club. If the guard started a confrontation with Pendlebury over that, then he was in the wrong. And if the guard further escalated that to a physical assault on Pendlebury after he refused to stop filming, then he was even more in the wrong. The question is... why was Pendlebury so quickly charged with murder when there's certainly at least the appearance of a valid self-defense claim here??? so a physical assault and someone pulls a knife and stabs the other person, it may not be murder but is certainly manslaughter Thailand Penal Code (Thai laws specifying crimes and punishment) TITLE X: OFFENCE AGAINST LIFE AND BODY ------------------------------ CHAPTER 1: OFFENCE CAUSING DEATH Section 294 Whoever, in as affray among three persons upwards, and any person, whether such person to be participant in such affray or not, to be death, shall be imprisoned not out of two years or fined not out of four thousand Baht, or both. If the participant in such affray can show that oneself has acted so as to prevent such affray or to prevent lawfully, such participant shall not be punished. Manslaughter equates to negligence, and has nothing to do with using any means necessary to stop someone, if the victim feels that they are going to die. As I stated before, the thug/animal instigated the attack, carried the attack to Mr. Pendlebury twice, and his animal cohorts would have carried it ot Mr. Pendlebury a third time had the foreign Indian tourists not stepped in and held them at bay. Watch the film. Mr. Pendlebury immediately walked away after warding of the thug. and then was stalked down the street several meters, where he was assaulted. The thug/animal could have backed off any time. Mr. Pendleton never got that chance. Not once. He tried two times and succeeded on the third time only because of assistance from good Samaritans. It's all on the film if you follow the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.