Aussie expat Mark Pendelbury granted bail in Phuket murder case

[sir charles IV]

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

[Baerboxer]

That is what you get for carrying a knife and waving it instead of legging it.

Sounds like a clear case of self defence to me.

Not as long as you can get away, if your with your back to a wall fighting an other guy with a knife maybe. This case.. he could have left.. did not state the other guy was armed and he was getting his knife out.

I don't get it all those guys feeling like Rambo going out tooled up. I have NEVER brought weapons with me.. and I NEVER fight I did that when i was a kid. Now I just avoid fights or people avoid me because they don't want to fight me.

Just by carrying a weapon your increasing danger for yourself. This is one of the two bad outcomes when you have a weapon.. you win but kill someone.. that will mean jail-time.. the other outcome you loose and get killed with your own weapon.

Problem with that Rob, from what I read, is that he tried to leave but was followed, set upon and assaulted. He's not a young fit martial artist or body builder / weightlifter. He's been here long enough to know the sort of beatings that bouncers can and do give out to farangs. The knife he used was a modern style small folding pocket knife, carried by many as part of the EDC items. Not a tactical or fighting knife, not automatic, and not purposely designed to fight with.

I have never gone out specifically to look for trouble, although as a young man it was not always possible to avoid. I certainly don't want to fight anyone, but if someone seriously threatens my life, or that of my family, I will take whatever action is necessary, and that includes using anything as a weapon if necessary.

Would I have gone over and started filming - no. Would I have moved on when the bouncer told me to - probably, but don't like people without authority telling me what to do. Would I have reacted if he shoved me, hit me, kicked me or tried to - possibly. Would I have taken out a small pocket knife to defend myself, assuming I had one on me, if several people piled in on me - yes, and anything else I could grab.

I've trained with a lot of weapons - if you are not proficient there's always the danger the weapon will be lost and/or turned back on you; or you lash out and make a fatal wound as in this case. Big difference though between using a small EDC pocket knife and going out tooled up with fighting knife, cut-throat razor or something similar.

This really does look like a genuine self defense against what was shaping to be a serious assault, or even worse, for someone simply filming an altercation in a public place.

[robblok]

That is what you get for carrying a knife and waving it instead of legging it.

Sounds like a clear case of self defence to me.

Not as long as you can get away, if your with your back to a wall fighting an other guy with a knife maybe. This case.. he could have left.. did not state the other guy was armed and he was getting his knife out.

I don't get it all those guys feeling like Rambo going out tooled up. I have NEVER brought weapons with me.. and I NEVER fight I did that when i was a kid. Now I just avoid fights or people avoid me because they don't want to fight me.

Just by carrying a weapon your increasing danger for yourself. This is one of the two bad outcomes when you have a weapon.. you win but kill someone.. that will mean jail-time.. the other outcome you loose and get killed with your own weapon.

Problem with that Rob, from what I read, is that he tried to leave but was followed, set upon and assaulted. He's not a young fit martial artist or body builder / weightlifter. He's been here long enough to know the sort of beatings that bouncers can and do give out to farangs. The knife he used was a modern style small folding pocket knife, carried by many as part of the EDC items. Not a tactical or fighting knife, not automatic, and not purposely designed to fight with.

I have never gone out specifically to look for trouble, although as a young man it was not always possible to avoid. I certainly don't want to fight anyone, but if someone seriously threatens my life, or that of my family, I will take whatever action is necessary, and that includes using anything as a weapon if necessary.

Would I have gone over and started filming - no. Would I have moved on when the bouncer told me to - probably, but don't like people without authority telling me what to do. Would I have reacted if he shoved me, hit me, kicked me or tried to - possibly. Would I have taken out a small pocket knife to defend myself, assuming I had one on me, if several people piled in on me - yes, and anything else I could grab.

I've trained with a lot of weapons - if you are not proficient there's always the danger the weapon will be lost and/or turned back on you; or you lash out and make a fatal wound as in this case. Big difference though between using a small EDC pocket knife and going out tooled up with fighting knife, cut-throat razor or something similar.

This really does look like a genuine self defense against what was shaping to be a serious assault, or even worse, for someone simply filming an altercation in a public place.

I am not going into this one any further.. as I am not sure enough. But the fact was he was part to blame for the escalation. Knives and other weapons give a false sense of security. They will let you do things you would otherwise would not do as you got knife to back you up.

This case it might be justified, I am just against weapons of any kind and have stated the reasons. People always say its for self defense.. but what they think is self defense after some beers (not the case here) or when someone looks at their gf.. who knows.. I rather don't have people around with knives.

They might feel its for their own self defense.. but who knows how they react under pressure or when they have had some beers in their belly. Just bringing a knife is asking for trouble.. even a small knife.

[xerostar]

the alleged knife looks like a bottle opener to me

the defendant tried to defend himself with a bottle opener

case closed

Hang on, he was just stoppin' to open a bottle ..

and this young thug fell on the sharp end of 'is bottle opener .. init.

Every old salty carries some'it sharp from trimmin' the lanyards ..

normal part the ol' kit mate ..

[cup-O-coffee]

And please tell us, what good did Mark actually do?

I hope he gets off the murder charge, as despite him bringing this on himself, he didn't deserve to be chased and beaten, forcing him to defend himself with a knife.

But, the point is, he had no business getting "involved" in the first place.

Had he kept walking, he would have been home in bed at 1am, the tourists probably would have been in Hollywood by 12.45am and a Bouncer would still be alive.

It really quite simple...

Well, I am a bit confused here, to be honest.

Bringing this on, himself:

I have repeatedly pointed to Thai law, which delineates between what people can and can't do. Would you please point me to where it is written in legal terms, that which states it is illegal to film anything I want to film as long as I am not violating a law, and/or as long as I am not going against the express requirement of an officer of the law to cease and desist?

You cannot do that, so as far as I am concerned, you are extending your views to the point that they are entirely wrong and moreover in violation of my right to do so, and anyone else who deems they want to film something in the manner I stated earlier.

Any act on your part to MAKE me stop filming carries absolutely no legal basis in the written law, and therefore you are taking the law into your own hands. At that point, anything (ANYTHING) that happens to you after that is of your own doing. Period. Touching me, grabbing at me, lacerating me, bashing me on the head, physically detaining me, etc etc are all (ALL) of your own choosing, and illegal. There is no written law which grants you the authority to do so.

No business getting "involved"

Please describe to me how Mark was any different from those hundred or so people in all of that crowd? Please keep in mind my first response in the prior two paragraphs.

Your propensity to obsess on Mr. Pendlebury, and apparent lack of interest in anyone else makes me curious as to your intentions is being as objective as you can. This is regrettable, as your views appear to be directed at all expats in Thailand, and how you feel we should all behave.

Moreover, you seem to have some uncanny sense, which seems to make it claer that you know what to do and what not to do to avoid being attacked by a rabid pack of sub human animals and avoid the risk of haveing your skull caved in; for example... do not approach a crowd and stand on the outer fringes of the crowd and begin filming... or even, never do anything, because if you anger a Thai and they endeavor to cave in your skull, you must have had it coming because you got "involved".

"INVOLVED IN WHAT?"

I apologize, but your line of thinking is so skewed, and omits "the other guys" and obsesses on things that foreigners must do and must not do, which I submit are quite impossible, and leave the way wide open for Thais to do anything to us that they wish and still be in your good graces.

The thug was a piece of crap, and so are his accomplices. You might not have done what Mr/ Pendlebury did that night, but that is meaningless as Mr. Pendlebury did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG that can be read to him from ANY law in this land, and that includes ending the life of that rotten to the core puke who tried to kill him over absolutely nothing. Yeah! That's exactly what I think, and I feel quite certain that the Australian authorities are going to ram this down the throats of any Thai who wants to try to use this to nail Mark into a coffin.

Thais cannot accost foriegners for no other reason that the foreigner exercised an action that is not in violation of any written law. If any harm befalls Thai scumbags at the hands of the foreigner, whether in self-defense, and unintentional triggering of an out of control chain of events, or in protection of their property, person or family members, then I say to Hell with the Thais for thinking that they can do this and (in their minds) to Hell with the person they are attempting to harm.

Hence... using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime "BROUGHT IT ON THEIR SELF", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

Using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime should have had enough sense to "NOT GET INVOLVED", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

These are my points...

It's really quite simple... isn't it?

[cup-O-coffee]

I am not going into this one any further.. as I am not sure enough. But the fact was he was part to blame for the escalation. Knives and other weapons give a false sense of security. They will let you do things you would otherwise would not do as you got knife to back you up.

This case it might be justified, I am just against weapons of any kind and have stated the reasons. People always say its for self defense.. but what they think is self defense after some beers (not the case here) or when someone looks at their gf.. who knows.. I rather don't have people around with knives.

They might feel its for their own self defense.. but who knows how they react under pressure or when they have had some beers in their belly. Just bringing a knife is asking for trouble.. even a small knife.

There is no law against filming from a public space, when it is not in violation of any law, or any law enforcement officer demanding that the filming stopped.

You blather on about the knives, but the point is, what caused the necessity for using the knife was not brought on by any illegal act against any Thai native. Period.

There was no alcohol involved on the part of Mr. Pendleton as far as released reports show, however, I can be fairly certain that had Mr. Pendleton had any alcohol in hs system that the Thais would have had this all over the place by now and even managed to print an entire sptry on how the "Drunk Foreigner Stabs to death a Poor Misunderstood Thai".

Your blathering about carrying a weapon for self defense has no teeth.

The point of this story for everyone to see is that it is quite possible (highly possible) that you can be doing just about anything at all which is normal behavior (curiosity in this case) and a Thai may/might/will attack you without provocation and, with his fellow jackals, will endeavor to cave your head in.

You are really trying to convince and pursuade us all that Mark was drunk and did all of this intentionally, and when he popped his knife in his pocket when dressing to go out, he was thinking he was going to stick "Old Bessie" into someone eventually, because he has some kind of self-image or self-esteem problem..

You really ignore the fact that maybe... just maybe people need weapons when they walk in the jungle, because animals do not understand and operate according to the silly rules that you are talking about.

And finally, please stop vicariously making a description of yourself, to all of us, onto other people.

It's really that simple.

Kind regards.

[Blindside]

To all of the selfish cowards and sissies insisting that one should walk away, you are the reason this is a crooked, violent, corrupt place, and you need to put on your big girl panties, get out your own video recording devices, and do something about it. But you won't.

Recently moved to Thailand? Or just visiting now and then?

Agreed.

And 1000% if my boxers are like granny panties and I'm a coward in your eyes so be it.

But let us not confuse getting "YouTube" type footage of two drunken idiots being kicked of a crap nightclub with lets say footage / evidence of a holding camp for trafficked Rohingya refugees.

The right to record on the street would be a civil rights / freedom of speech issue in a first world country. In Thailand, a country which is not ours and which frankly is as difficult as a woman to understand sometimes - it is not. Stick your neck out bud and see what happens....

I hope MP walks, sure went down like he said it did....but did it need to happen?.....nah.

[Linky]

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

Thug played with fire and got his just desserts.

[cup-O-coffee]

People keep on asking, "Did it need to happen?".

If it were possible, I would have liked to ask that thug, who got the surprise of his life, that same question as the light faded out of his eyes. Moreover, maybe it would be even better were his loved ones to stand there at his bedside, and to be intelligent enough to understand the meaning of that question (i.e. from the standpoint of their dying loved one's actions that fated evening), and as they asked him, "Did it need to happen?", he died.

The entire skewed thinking on this is that people are asking this question in the wrong frame of reference: namely, aiming it at Mr. Pendleton, when in fact, it is as ludicrous as asking someone, "Did it need to happen?" when they are lying in hospital after they got in their car and drove to work and hot hit head-on by a Thai minivan driver who fell asleep at the wheel.

The burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney, to prove motive and intent... and I am not describing that lunatic jackal that tried, with his feral pack at his flanks, to murder Mr. Pendlebury.

People keep saying, "This is Thailand, and Mark should have known better."

Maybe the prosecuting attorney will use that as his key point in the case. Yeah! I am sure of it. Did Mark really need to piss off a Thai, and for doing it in ignorance, maybe he will get a few years in jail for claiming the inability to read the minds of Thai people, and he's a daisy if he does.

Regards.

[stevenl]

People keep on asking, "Did it need to happen?".

If it were possible, I would have liked to ask that thug, who got the surprise of his life, that same question as the light faded out of his eyes. Moreover, maybe it would be even better were his loved ones to stand there at his bedside, and to be intelligent enough to understand the meaning of that question (i.e. from the standpoint of their dying loved one's actions that fated evening), and as they asked him, "Did it need to happen?", he died.

The entire skewed thinking on this is that people are asking this question in the wrong frame of reference: namely, aiming it at Mr. Pendleton, when in fact, it is as ludicrous as asking someone, "Did it need to happen?" when they are lying in hospital after they got in their car and drove to work and hot hit head-on by a Thai minivan driver who fell asleep at the wheel.

The burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney, to prove motive and intent... and I am not describing that lunatic jackal that tried, with his feral pack at his flanks, to murder Mr. Pendlebury.

People keep saying, "This is Thailand, and Mark should have known better."

Maybe the prosecuting attorney will use that as his key point in the case. Yeah! I am sure of it. Did Mark really need to piss off a Thai, and for doing it in ignorance, maybe he will get a few years in jail for claiming the inability to read the minds of Thai people, and he's a daisy if he does.

Regards.

Yes, for murder intent needs to be proved. But not for manslaughter, and his defense for that will be difficult. There probably will be mitigating circumstances, but he did kill that man with a knife he brought.

[Linky]

People keep on asking, "Did it need to happen?".

If it were possible, I would have liked to ask that thug, who got the surprise of his life, that same question as the light faded out of his eyes. Moreover, maybe it would be even better were his loved ones to stand there at his bedside, and to be intelligent enough to understand the meaning of that question (i.e. from the standpoint of their dying loved one's actions that fated evening), and as they asked him, "Did it need to happen?", he died.

The entire skewed thinking on this is that people are asking this question in the wrong frame of reference: namely, aiming it at Mr. Pendleton, when in fact, it is as ludicrous as asking someone, "Did it need to happen?" when they are lying in hospital after they got in their car and drove to work and hot hit head-on by a Thai minivan driver who fell asleep at the wheel.

The burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney, to prove motive and intent... and I am not describing that lunatic jackal that tried, with his feral pack at his flanks, to murder Mr. Pendlebury.

People keep saying, "This is Thailand, and Mark should have known better."

Maybe the prosecuting attorney will use that as his key point in the case. Yeah! I am sure of it. Did Mark really need to piss off a Thai, and for doing it in ignorance, maybe he will get a few years in jail for claiming the inability to read the minds of Thai people, and he's a daisy if he does.

Regards.

Yes, for murder intent needs to be proved. But not for manslaughter, and his defense for that will be difficult. There probably will be mitigating circumstances, but he did kill that man with a knife he brought.

I believe manslaughter to be accidental death, no intent. Mitigating circumstances in this instance would probably only be for sentencing. I don't believe self defense is a mitigating circumstance, it would be a total defense.

[ArranP]

a man has died, another beaten, our only weapon is forgiveness, the alternative is violence.

[RigPig]

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

So being a person concerned about his fellow man is playing with fire huh?

So it is OK for thugs to attempt to kill someone who was (probably) going to highlight their despicable criminal actions (why else were they concerned unless he was evidencing something wrong happening?), beat him in to unconsciousness or kill him?

You would just ignore it and pretend that you were not there and it didn´t happen?

I hope you have a problem sleeping ...

[RigPig]

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.

Well in your case I hope that there is Karma and you sow what you reap!!

Protecting yourself with the only thing you have (a bottle opener with a knife attached) in order to survive a gang attack ¨provoked¨ by videoing a wrong doing in the hope of establishing some fairness in a corrupt land whose people either prefer to ignore or just violate the rules designed to protect the majority and then accusing him of bribery because he has got bail for a none case because the letter of the law needs him to prove his innocence.

I find this absolutely reprehensible !!!

As I said in an earlier post, ¨The only thing to allow evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing¨

I suppose you thought Schindler was an idiot too and you wolud have turned a blind eye to what was going on around you? (if you had been around at that time.....).

Defending yourself and attempting to do the right thing while not breaking any laws (as the ones being videoed were probably doing, after all why make a big issue of being videoed if you are doing nothing wrong ?) does not make a murderer any more than a police man or soldier fighting to defend the way of life and the rights most people are either living or striving to live.

nonesense and irrelevant. Self defense using lethal weapons in public places is not on. At home fair enough. Smart people stay away from trouble and not tackle it head on. Evil flourish? Lol. Security guard doing his job vs an idiot swinging knife. Who's the evil? U silly man. Lol

Well I wonder how much the job of beating up people with your gang of supporters for doing nothing pays (as this was obviously his job) !!!

People with no morals or sense of fair play or justice stay away from trouble because they have no conscience or ability to see it could happen to themselves one day...

[RigPig]

To all of the selfish cowards and sissies insisting that one should walk away, you are the reason this is a crooked, violent, corrupt place, and you need to put on your big girl panties, get out your own video recording devices, and do something about it. But you won't.

Recently moved to Thailand? Or just visiting now and then?

Agreed.

And 1000% if my boxers are like granny panties and I'm a coward in your eyes so be it.

But let us not confuse getting "YouTube" type footage of two drunken idiots being kicked of a crap nightclub with lets say footage / evidence of a holding camp for trafficked Rohingya refugees.

The right to record on the street would be a civil rights / freedom of speech issue in a first world country. In Thailand, a country which is not ours and which frankly is as difficult as a woman to understand sometimes - it is not. Stick your neck out bud and see what happens....

I hope MP walks, sure went down like he said it did....but did it need to happen?.....nah.

¨But let us not confuse getting "YouTube" type footage of two drunken idiots being kicked of a crap nightclub with lets say footage.....¨

Seems to me ¨You Tube¨ and Facebook are the only way to achieve ANY sort of justice or fir play here............

[radiochaser]

For every tosser who says sell defence, poor old Mark was just looking after himself, suck this and suck that, did you actually have a look at the knife he was carrying. It is not one that you peel apples with, it is not a knife that you cut shoelaces with, it is what is classed as an offensive weapon, and it is what you would provoke or kill with. Stop defending him...he carried it with full intention of using it if he felt the need arised......wake up kids, he did use an offensive weapon to kill a person, wether or not that was his intention, that was the result. STOP DEFENDING THIS MAN, he killed someone, and that someone could have been you, or your half Thai child, your brother in law or Papa.....HE KILLED SOMEONE.....OK. No argument.....Someone died at his hand because he was carrying a rambo type, short shanked offensive weapon...

Rambo Knife!

[Maggusoil]

Posted on the topic earlier this week and stand by what I said then. I sensed it would come down to this. Mark, unfortunately will regret his decisions, regardless of the back n forth by us all of "who can, should, or would" in such a situation. At 59 and a 10 year resident here, he should know it's best to turn the other direction and exit with pace when he sees impending trouble like this..., not become an active participant.

My heart goes out to him and to the family of the man now deceased. There's nothing but sad written all over this event.

You have to wonder, no matter the intentions. This is Thailand. A very dangerous place. Someone in a fight, a bouncer, gets aggravated by something you are doing, and yells out "stop doing that", what would you do?

He may have been trying to do the right thing, perhaps record a felony, however the right thing to do here is don't come between dogs and their bones.

[Maggusoil]

Rambo-with-big-knife2.jpg

For every tosser who says sell defence, poor old Mark was just looking after himself, suck this and suck that, did you actually have a look at the knife he was carrying. It is not one that you peel apples with, it is not a knife that you cut shoelaces with, it is what is classed as an offensive weapon, and it is what you would provoke or kill with. Stop defending him...he carried it with full intention of using it if he felt the need arised......wake up kids, he did use an offensive weapon to kill a person, wether or not that was his intention, that was the result. STOP DEFENDING THIS MAN, he killed someone, and that someone could have been you, or your half Thai child, your brother in law or Papa.....HE KILLED SOMEONE.....OK. No argument.....Someone died at his hand because he was carrying a rambo type, short shanked offensive weapon...

Rambo Knife!

Good down to earth facts. Silly gambit. Especially here. One of the most dangerous countries on earth.

[JoeLing]

Suppose not many people in this forum have ever heard about civil courage.
I'm very thankful, the world is not made up entirely of such cowards and there
are still enough humans around who do show compassion and occasionally
make other peoples problems be their own problem and do make a difference.

I recon, those people condemning Mark are exactly the same type of people
who would stand watching, how a couple is raped, tortured and killed in front
of their very own eyes and do nothing.

Probably those people who said to look away or it was none of Marks business
to cross the road, are the same people who would turn around and walk away
if anyone in distress needed help but probably they are the first to shout for
castration, incarceration or the death penalty.

As for Mark killing someone. Yes, I'm sure he's very much aware of that and
probably regrets the outcome of that altercation more than everyone else and
sure, that will lie very heavy in his mind for the rest of his life.

Murder? Can't see anything premeditated in the death of that security guard.
Self defense? Maybe but in my opinion, more like an unfortunate accident.

[outboard]

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

So you are defaming him, which in Thailand is not only a civil charge but a criminal one as well, so you are "playing with fire" so you should be run through the courts, spend 10 years in a Thai jail and lose all your worldly possessions to Mark ?

apart from the fact you are insulting a very popular, caring, respectable man with a lot of friends who would like to kick the living sh1t out of you, so you should cop that too and smile because you "played with fire" ?

just asking

because

you know

you think it is fine for him.

[DLock]

And please tell us, what good did Mark actually do?

I hope he gets off the murder charge, as despite him bringing this on himself, he didn't deserve to be chased and beaten, forcing him to defend himself with a knife.

But, the point is, he had no business getting "involved" in the first place.

Had he kept walking, he would have been home in bed at 1am, the tourists probably would have been in Hollywood by 12.45am and a Bouncer would still be alive.

It really quite simple...

Well, I am a bit confused here, to be honest.

Bringing this on, himself:

I have repeatedly pointed to Thai law, which delineates between what people can and can't do. Would you please point me to where it is written in legal terms, that which states it is illegal to film anything I want to film as long as I am not violating a law, and/or as long as I am not going against the express requirement of an officer of the law to cease and desist?

You cannot do that, so as far as I am concerned, you are extending your views to the point that they are entirely wrong and moreover in violation of my right to do so, and anyone else who deems they want to film something in the manner I stated earlier.

Any act on your part to MAKE me stop filming carries absolutely no legal basis in the written law, and therefore you are taking the law into your own hands. At that point, anything (ANYTHING) that happens to you after that is of your own doing. Period. Touching me, grabbing at me, lacerating me, bashing me on the head, physically detaining me, etc etc are all (ALL) of your own choosing, and illegal. There is no written law which grants you the authority to do so.

No business getting "involved"

Please describe to me how Mark was any different from those hundred or so people in all of that crowd? Please keep in mind my first response in the prior two paragraphs.

Your propensity to obsess on Mr. Pendlebury, and apparent lack of interest in anyone else makes me curious as to your intentions is being as objective as you can. This is regrettable, as your views appear to be directed at all expats in Thailand, and how you feel we should all behave.

Moreover, you seem to have some uncanny sense, which seems to make it claer that you know what to do and what not to do to avoid being attacked by a rabid pack of sub human animals and avoid the risk of haveing your skull caved in; for example... do not approach a crowd and stand on the outer fringes of the crowd and begin filming... or even, never do anything, because if you anger a Thai and they endeavor to cave in your skull, you must have had it coming because you got "involved".

"INVOLVED IN WHAT?"

I apologize, but your line of thinking is so skewed, and omits "the other guys" and obsesses on things that foreigners must do and must not do, which I submit are quite impossible, and leave the way wide open for Thais to do anything to us that they wish and still be in your good graces.

The thug was a piece of crap, and so are his accomplices. You might not have done what Mr/ Pendlebury did that night, but that is meaningless as Mr. Pendlebury did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG that can be read to him from ANY law in this land, and that includes ending the life of that rotten to the core puke who tried to kill him over absolutely nothing. Yeah! That's exactly what I think, and I feel quite certain that the Australian authorities are going to ram this down the throats of any Thai who wants to try to use this to nail Mark into a coffin.

Thais cannot accost foriegners for no other reason that the foreigner exercised an action that is not in violation of any written law. If any harm befalls Thai scumbags at the hands of the foreigner, whether in self-defense, and unintentional triggering of an out of control chain of events, or in protection of their property, person or family members, then I say to Hell with the Thais for thinking that they can do this and (in their minds) to Hell with the person they are attempting to harm.

Hence... using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime "BROUGHT IT ON THEIR SELF", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

Using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime should have had enough sense to "NOT GET INVOLVED", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

These are my points...

It's really quite simple... isn't it?

Legal? Thailand? Ha ha ha ha ha....how long have you been here?

As far as I'm concerned anyone that has been here long enough knows to stay away from trouble, and he deliberately walked towards trouble and decided to film it.

No denying the feral thug Bouncers...but they are a known quantity, so why provoke them?

You are confusing Thailand, the law and your Western views.

[DLock]

Suppose not many people in this forum have ever heard about civil courage.

I'm very thankful, the world is not made up entirely of such cowards and there

are still enough humans around who do show compassion and occasionally

make other peoples problems be their own problem and do make a difference.

I recon, those people condemning Mark are exactly the same type of people

who would stand watching, how a couple is raped, tortured and killed in front

of their very own eyes and do nothing.

Probably those people who said to look away or it was none of Marks business

to cross the road, are the same people who would turn around and walk away

if anyone in distress needed help but probably they are the first to shout for

castration, incarceration or the death penalty.

As for Mark killing someone. Yes, I'm sure he's very much aware of that and

probably regrets the outcome of that altercation more than everyone else and

sure, that will lie very heavy in his mind for the rest of his life.

Murder? Can't see anything premeditated in the death of that security guard.

Self defense? Maybe but in my opinion, more like an unfortunate accident.

Bouncers ejecting stupid foreigners for acting the fool is a common occurrence in Thailand and the world.

But you keep telling yourself that you are some sort of hero for your "civil courage"...ha ha ha ha ha.

You guys are awesome.

[Maggusoil]

Suppose not many people in this forum have ever heard about civil courage.

I'm very thankful, the world is not made up entirely of such cowards and there

are still enough humans around who do show compassion and occasionally

make other peoples problems be their own problem and do make a difference.

I recon, those people condemning Mark are exactly the same type of people

who would stand watching, how a couple is raped, tortured and killed in front

of their very own eyes and do nothing.

Probably those people who said to look away or it was none of Marks business

to cross the road, are the same people who would turn around and walk away

if anyone in distress needed help but probably they are the first to shout for

castration, incarceration or the death penalty.

As for Mark killing someone. Yes, I'm sure he's very much aware of that and

probably regrets the outcome of that altercation more than everyone else and

sure, that will lie very heavy in his mind for the rest of his life.

Murder? Can't see anything premeditated in the death of that security guard.

Self defense? Maybe but in my opinion, more like an unfortunate accident.

I find this a bit odd. Equating having an offensive weapon in your hand, sticking it in someone's stomach and killing them with civil courage,

and an unfortunate accident.

All totally avoidable.

A farang's first duty is to get out of the way of the locals.

You should know that, unless you've got a lot of money or insurance. Perhaps he thinks his money protects him. It will to a point.

A beating is taking place, you get involved, you then get your knife out to protect yourself and kill someone.

A ridiculous choice. He must have been drunk.

Alternative action. Watch what's happening. Eye witnesses never had phone cameras until a few years ago.

Put the phone back in your pocket and/ or wait for the police to arrive, and or walk away. Would save us all a lot of time, money and grief for the man's family.

Leave the "peacekeeping" to the professionals.

[cloudhopper]

Leave the "peacekeeping" to the professionals.

The nearest ones are in Singapore.

Good thing there were some brave amateurs around to come to the rescue.

[Maggusoil]

Leave the "peacekeeping" to the professionals.

The nearest ones are in Singapore.

Good thing there were some brave amateurs around to come to the rescue.

Sorry? Someone got rescued here?

There was a small fight. A possible case for assault. I have been assaulted myself 3 times in the last twenty years. No one is dead yet.

Someone in this case was murdered in fact. Someone is dead in fact. One family is in grief and lets say that the perpetrator's life, will never be the same again.

No matter how you look at that, people trying to put a good spin on it are just dreaming. Living in a civil fantasy. Next the falung will be a hero for killing a Thai "bouncer". How ridiculous does this get???

[Maggusoil]

And please tell us, what good did Mark actually do?

I hope he gets off the murder charge, as despite him bringing this on himself, he didn't deserve to be chased and beaten, forcing him to defend himself with a knife.

But, the point is, he had no business getting "involved" in the first place.

Had he kept walking, he would have been home in bed at 1am, the tourists probably would have been in Hollywood by 12.45am and a Bouncer would still be alive.

It really quite simple...

Well, I am a bit confused here, to be honest.

Bringing this on, himself:

I have repeatedly pointed to Thai law, which delineates between what people can and can't do. Would you please point me to where it is written in legal terms, that which states it is illegal to film anything I want to film as long as I am not violating a law, and/or as long as I am not going against the express requirement of an officer of the law to cease and desist?

You cannot do that, so as far as I am concerned, you are extending your views to the point that they are entirely wrong and moreover in violation of my right to do so, and anyone else who deems they want to film something in the manner I stated earlier.

Any act on your part to MAKE me stop filming carries absolutely no legal basis in the written law, and therefore you are taking the law into your own hands. At that point, anything (ANYTHING) that happens to you after that is of your own doing. Period. Touching me, grabbing at me, lacerating me, bashing me on the head, physically detaining me, etc etc are all (ALL) of your own choosing, and illegal. There is no written law which grants you the authority to do so.

No business getting "involved"

Please describe to me how Mark was any different from those hundred or so people in all of that crowd? Please keep in mind my first response in the prior two paragraphs.

Your propensity to obsess on Mr. Pendlebury, and apparent lack of interest in anyone else makes me curious as to your intentions is being as objective as you can. This is regrettable, as your views appear to be directed at all expats in Thailand, and how you feel we should all behave.

Moreover, you seem to have some uncanny sense, which seems to make it claer that you know what to do and what not to do to avoid being attacked by a rabid pack of sub human animals and avoid the risk of haveing your skull caved in; for example... do not approach a crowd and stand on the outer fringes of the crowd and begin filming... or even, never do anything, because if you anger a Thai and they endeavor to cave in your skull, you must have had it coming because you got "involved".

"INVOLVED IN WHAT?"

I apologize, but your line of thinking is so skewed, and omits "the other guys" and obsesses on things that foreigners must do and must not do, which I submit are quite impossible, and leave the way wide open for Thais to do anything to us that they wish and still be in your good graces.

The thug was a piece of crap, and so are his accomplices. You might not have done what Mr/ Pendlebury did that night, but that is meaningless as Mr. Pendlebury did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG that can be read to him from ANY law in this land, and that includes ending the life of that rotten to the core puke who tried to kill him over absolutely nothing. Yeah! That's exactly what I think, and I feel quite certain that the Australian authorities are going to ram this down the throats of any Thai who wants to try to use this to nail Mark into a coffin.

Thais cannot accost foriegners for no other reason that the foreigner exercised an action that is not in violation of any written law. If any harm befalls Thai scumbags at the hands of the foreigner, whether in self-defense, and unintentional triggering of an out of control chain of events, or in protection of their property, person or family members, then I say to Hell with the Thais for thinking that they can do this and (in their minds) to Hell with the person they are attempting to harm.

Hence... using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime "BROUGHT IT ON THEIR SELF", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

Using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime should have had enough sense to "NOT GET INVOLVED", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

These are my points...

It's really quite simple... isn't it?

Legal? Thailand? Ha ha ha ha ha....how long have you been here?

As far as I'm concerned anyone that has been here long enough knows to stay away from trouble, and he deliberately walked towards trouble and decided to film it.

No denying the feral thug Bouncers...but they are a known quantity, so why provoke them?

You are confusing Thailand, the law and your Western views.

Quite agree with this. It doesn't matter where you get your morals and it doesn't matter what charter of rights and wrongs you quote. You are in Thailand. If you cannot adjust your 'views' on morals to suit a jungle, then you become somebody's lunch.

It is quite abhorrent for me to thing that the 'safest' way to attend to an accident victim is to walk away, but in Thailand, a falung should know better.

[Linky]

Leave the "peacekeeping" to the professionals.

The nearest ones are in Singapore.

Good thing there were some brave amateurs around to come to the rescue.

U

Sorry? Someone got rescued here?

There was a small fight. A possible case for assault. I have been assaulted myself 3 times in the last twenty years. No one is dead yet.

Someone in this case was murdered in fact. Someone is dead in fact. One family is in grief and lets say that the perpetrator's life, will never be the same again.

No matter how you look at that, people trying to put a good spin on it are just dreaming. Living in a civil fantasy. Next the falung will be a hero for killing a Thai "bouncer". How ridiculous does this get???

Murdered?

I think you will find the perpetrator is the dead man.

The man is a hero for standing up to thugs. The dead man had a choice not to illegally assault the guy. The thug made the wrong choice to chase a man that was leaving the scene.

Unfortunate he is dead but he was the author of his own demise.

[cup-O-coffee]

And please tell us, what good did Mark actually do?

I hope he gets off the murder charge, as despite him bringing this on himself, he didn't deserve to be chased and beaten, forcing him to defend himself with a knife.

But, the point is, he had no business getting "involved" in the first place.

Had he kept walking, he would have been home in bed at 1am, the tourists probably would have been in Hollywood by 12.45am and a Bouncer would still be alive.

It really quite simple...

Well, I am a bit confused here, to be honest.

Bringing this on, himself:

I have repeatedly pointed to Thai law, which delineates between what people can and can't do. Would you please point me to where it is written in legal terms, that which states it is illegal to film anything I want to film as long as I am not violating a law, and/or as long as I am not going against the express requirement of an officer of the law to cease and desist?

You cannot do that, so as far as I am concerned, you are extending your views to the point that they are entirely wrong and moreover in violation of my right to do so, and anyone else who deems they want to film something in the manner I stated earlier.

Any act on your part to MAKE me stop filming carries absolutely no legal basis in the written law, and therefore you are taking the law into your own hands. At that point, anything (ANYTHING) that happens to you after that is of your own doing. Period. Touching me, grabbing at me, lacerating me, bashing me on the head, physically detaining me, etc etc are all (ALL) of your own choosing, and illegal. There is no written law which grants you the authority to do so.

No business getting "involved"

Please describe to me how Mark was any different from those hundred or so people in all of that crowd? Please keep in mind my first response in the prior two paragraphs.

Your propensity to obsess on Mr. Pendlebury, and apparent lack of interest in anyone else makes me curious as to your intentions is being as objective as you can. This is regrettable, as your views appear to be directed at all expats in Thailand, and how you feel we should all behave.

Moreover, you seem to have some uncanny sense, which seems to make it claer that you know what to do and what not to do to avoid being attacked by a rabid pack of sub human animals and avoid the risk of haveing your skull caved in; for example... do not approach a crowd and stand on the outer fringes of the crowd and begin filming... or even, never do anything, because if you anger a Thai and they endeavor to cave in your skull, you must have had it coming because you got "involved".

"INVOLVED IN WHAT?"

I apologize, but your line of thinking is so skewed, and omits "the other guys" and obsesses on things that foreigners must do and must not do, which I submit are quite impossible, and leave the way wide open for Thais to do anything to us that they wish and still be in your good graces.

The thug was a piece of crap, and so are his accomplices. You might not have done what Mr/ Pendlebury did that night, but that is meaningless as Mr. Pendlebury did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG that can be read to him from ANY law in this land, and that includes ending the life of that rotten to the core puke who tried to kill him over absolutely nothing. Yeah! That's exactly what I think, and I feel quite certain that the Australian authorities are going to ram this down the throats of any Thai who wants to try to use this to nail Mark into a coffin.

Thais cannot accost foriegners for no other reason that the foreigner exercised an action that is not in violation of any written law. If any harm befalls Thai scumbags at the hands of the foreigner, whether in self-defense, and unintentional triggering of an out of control chain of events, or in protection of their property, person or family members, then I say to Hell with the Thais for thinking that they can do this and (in their minds) to Hell with the person they are attempting to harm.

Hence... using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime "BROUGHT IT ON THEIR SELF", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

Using your skewed logic, every innocent victim of a crime should have had enough sense to "NOT GET INVOLVED", when their is no traceable, no written law saying otherwise.

These are my points...

It's really quite simple... isn't it?

Legal? Thailand? Ha ha ha ha ha....how long have you been here?

As far as I'm concerned anyone that has been here long enough knows to stay away from trouble, and he deliberately walked towards trouble and decided to film it.

No denying the feral thug Bouncers...but they are a known quantity, so why provoke them?

You are confusing Thailand, the law and your Western views.

I agree with you about the legal part. It is a joke and moreover tool to utilize for more sordid purposes.

I also agree that one of the more wiser choices is to stay away, yet I do oppose your assumptive interpretation that Mark " ...deliberately walked towards trouble and decided to film it.".

I believe that it is unfair, in this context, to be biased against Mark for crossing the street to film, when we have not had a chance to get his views on this, or even hear him out if he would do this again in the future when it happens again.

I completely understand your views, yet I also suspect (with respect to your person) that you have not mentioned your respect, in turn, for those who do do these things in perfect curiosity and in perfect innocence with regard to their actions and behaviors and do not expect the sort of reaction thus.

I am not, in my view, confusing anything. I do agree with you, yet I also understand that my standards of principles, morals and ethics are far above those of the ones you fail to bring to the light and incriminate for their (THEIR) unjustifiable behavior.

Why Mark did what he did is not a crime, and in no instance anywhere on earth in this day and time can Mark's actions be used as a reason or excuse to justify the kind of reaction he got, unless one decides to dismiss the subject of sub-human behavior and the existence of primordial beings still in existence.

It may be what it is, as you say, but leaving it at that, and moreover ignoring the reaction and telling people to "Don't feed the apes" when the apes are not behind the bars and roaming free, is ludicrous. You are trying to describe a zoo environment, when in fact it is a jungle environment... no cages (self-restraint and fear of repercussions).

I am quite certain that you and I would agree on a lot of points. It is simply that you have lost the desire to hold fast and persist for what is right and what is wrong, and moreover have given up on others. It is alright to give up on yourself, but to sit in the bleachers and toss tomatoes at the other side for hanging in there and fighting the good fight is disingenuous. Why even attend the game if you are going to condone the one side cheating and belabor the other side for hanging in there and fighting... even to the point of using the same tactics that the cheating side uses when the chips are down... and to Hell with the referees?

Apologies for digressing, and respect to your person if I stepped on your toes.

[cup-O-coffee]

Suppose not many people in this forum have ever heard about civil courage.

I'm very thankful, the world is not made up entirely of such cowards and there

are still enough humans around who do show compassion and occasionally

make other peoples problems be their own problem and do make a difference.

I recon, those people condemning Mark are exactly the same type of people

who would stand watching, how a couple is raped, tortured and killed in front

of their very own eyes and do nothing.

Probably those people who said to look away or it was none of Marks business

to cross the road, are the same people who would turn around and walk away

if anyone in distress needed help but probably they are the first to shout for

castration, incarceration or the death penalty.

As for Mark killing someone. Yes, I'm sure he's very much aware of that and

probably regrets the outcome of that altercation more than everyone else and

sure, that will lie very heavy in his mind for the rest of his life.

Murder? Can't see anything premeditated in the death of that security guard.

Self defense? Maybe but in my opinion, more like an unfortunate accident.

I find this a bit odd. Equating having an offensive weapon in your hand, sticking it in someone's stomach and killing them with civil courage,

and an unfortunate accident.

All totally avoidable.

A farang's first duty is to get out of the way of the locals.

You should know that, unless you've got a lot of money or insurance. Perhaps he thinks his money protects him. It will to a point.

A beating is taking place, you get involved, you then get your knife out to protect yourself and kill someone.

A ridiculous choice. He must have been drunk.

Alternative action. Watch what's happening. Eye witnesses never had phone cameras until a few years ago.

Put the phone back in your pocket and/ or wait for the police to arrive, and or walk away. Would save us all a lot of time, money and grief for the man's family.

Leave the "peacekeeping" to the professionals.

Is it possible that you could simply state that Mark did nothing wrong, in the sense of civilized right and wrong, and leave it at that?

Why must you persist in justifying the false incorrectness of a man's natural and normal actions, in an environment more suited to unbridled, bestial and lunatic behavior?

Why focus on explaining why one must tuck tail and hide when the fools run amok and chaos is the flavor of the day?

Moreover, your explanation of the chain of events, as they chronological occurred, and in the short span of time which they occurred, is entirely skewed and omits so many critical factors that I really do not see why you bother to post, other than to express your personal fears of doing the right thing, or doing what comes natural (jumping at your own shadow here) and express anger at those who are not afraid of their shadow and act out accordingly, as any civilized human being would.

I am not saying that you are wrong. It is your express right to hold these beliefs and views, but the thing is, when you pipe up and use your views and beliefs to degrade the normal acts of innocence and curiosity which others engage in, then it more or less shines a light of curiosity upon you, and not the one who was forced to do what he did in order to survive an untimely end.

People seem to overlook the fact that every employee at that disco that night perjured themselves to the senior police officer investigating the crime scene. The video clearly shows that from the time Mark crossed the street up to the time that he tried to walk away three times and the death of the idiot occurred, not even two minutes had expired.

This is hardly enough time for every "witness" to factually state that Mark "had been drunk" and all the other flat out lies they uttered to perjure themselves.

On that alone, this entire case should be thrown out and every one of those witnesses fined and jailed.

I am rambling here. I guess I am saying that your approach is probably the wisest in order to keep one's ass safe and intact, but that reason has absolutely no bearing or legitimacy to be used as a means or method to accuse the innocent and rightful actions of others, no matter the consequences.

I am saying that I respect you for your belief to walk away and cover your ass, but I do not respect you when you refuse to support and champion those who do not walk away and courageously sacrifice their ass to prevent other asses from coming under harm's way in the future.

That is, what I suspect, Mark was doing. He was doing the job that others have forsaken. Objectively, the more coverage the world gets on this despicable behavior, the more people have to choose between right and wrong.

I'll leave it at that for now.

[sir charles IV]

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

So you are defaming him, which in Thailand is not only a civil charge but a criminal one as well, so you are "playing with fire" so you should be run through the courts, spend 10 years in a Thai jail and lose all your worldly possessions to Mark ?

apart from the fact you are insulting a very popular, caring, respectable man with a lot of friends who would like to kick the living sh1t out of you, so you should cop that too and smile because you "played with fire" ?

just asking

because

you know

you think it is fine for him.

hmmm read it a couple times. Still doesn't make sense. I'll try again later.