Hong Kong photographer arrested in Bangkok for trying to carry bulletproof vest onto flight

[Asheron]

"which prohibits the possession of military equipment without a licence."

But what if it is civilian body armor which can be bought? I would say having valid press credentials should be the license. Will be interesting how this plays out.

Why "valid press credentials"? I mean... shouldn't we mere mortals allowed to have body armour on us for whatever reason that may be?

[MiKT]

When I lived in Hong Kong...I know...it's not here...so what....I wanted to get

better body armour than the news bureau I worked with had imported into HK.

I consulted a few expat coppers i knew and even though it was possible to

legally own body armour it was not without great difficulty obtaining it...legally.

I was intrduced to an arms dealer who carried not only firearms but much better

body armour...Level IIIA- Level IV. The dealer happened to have the carrier

(vest) and two L3A plates on hand so I paid the money, he handed me the

paperwork and thus began 3 weeks of footwork on my part.

Doing the stuff at RHKPD was a breeze and was accomplished within a few

days. It was HM Customs that took the time. Three interviews, two visits to

my flat and a ream of paperwork to be filled out. The only item I needed

to buy after the purchase of my set of body armour was a steel locker

suitable for the storage of firearms...that was rather pricey as it's construction

is very much unlike a metal gym locker but also quite like one in looks.

The firearms locker is made of steel armour plate and weighs a heap of kilos.

After the purchase of the locker and getting it delivered to the flat I had to

set up a time with both RHKPD & HM Customs to view my "installation".

That was accomplished in a day or two and the visit happened, a few

photos were taken, papers were signed appropriately and in the end I

had a license for my passive body armour & went to pick up the goods

from my new friend, the arms dealer.

I was sent two registered letters for the final cards that allowed me to

transport the body armour from flat to office to airport or flat to airport

and one was the "license".

Under the laws of HK at the time...and many other countries out here,

a set of body armour even though passive is still considerd an offensive

weapon. Why? It was explained to me that it would be fairly easy to rob

a bank and facilitate a good getaway whilst getting shot at wearing one.

That was just for starters

So it's a connundrum according to the law...and that's probably why the

HK photog got popped...sad really. I used to keep mine in checked

luggage...never carry on...mainly because old L3A & L4 was kinda heavy.

Never had a problem transporting this way...which is the proper way to

transport when flying.

Lucky Ned Kelly never decided to pop over for a cold tinny in soi 4.

[zaphod reborn]

You can buy a gun in US without a permission, try to do that in UK.

In US its legal to gamble, that's illegal in Thailand and my home country Sweden.

In US it's legal with prostitutes, in Thailand it's actually against the law! If they would follow that law to 100% then Pattaya and Pukhet would be clouded for business!

I don't have a problem with the main point of your post, and there are reasons for prohibitions on civilian use of military-grade body armor.

However, the statements I have quoted above are incorrect statements of the law in the U.S. The U.S. is a federal system, which means the states retain the right to legislate with respect to gun ownership, prostitution and gambling, except where such laws would violate the supremacy clause of the constitution.

With respect to gun ownership, in 1994, the federal government passed legislation requiring background checks to purchase guns. This only applied to retailers, not private sales and gun fairs. States are allowed to adopt stricter gun control laws, as long as they aren't ruled to be an unjustified infringement on the 2nd amendment's right to firearms. So, for the most part, you do need permission in the US to buy a gun.

With respect to gambling, it also is a mixed bag. Two states have legalized casino gambling, Nevada and Louisiana. Mississippi and New Jersey have legalized casino gambling in a small city area (Tunica and Atlantic City, respectively). River-boat gambling has also been legalized in a few states. However, there is a federal prohibition against any sports gambling, except for Nevada, which was allowed to keep its sports books as they were "grandfathered" in. As of 1988, states were allowed to make agreements to permit gambling on Indian reservations. There are a variety of gambling activities which are legal in some states, and not in others (racetracks, bingo, and lotteries). Online gambling has pretty much been banned, but loopholes still exist.

Prostitution is illegal everywhere in the U.S., except in Nevada, and there it is illegal in Clark and Washoe counties. Also, there is an old federal law called the Mann Act which makes it illegal to transport a prostitute across state lines to engage in sex for pay.

Edited August 24, 2015 by zaphod reborn

[AlQaholic]

I always wear a winterjacket or thick vest in the plane because it's cold there, i don't see the difference with a bulletproof vest.

People wearing mouthmasks in the plane worry me more because i don't know the reason they wear it.

In the same shining logic applied by the Thai authorities, mouth masks and winter jackets should be illegal as they are weapons, i.e. they are used to protect oneself, thus providing a tactical advantage if used in an attempt to overtake the plane.

Edited August 24, 2015 by AlQaholic

[jasonsamui55]

Great! At least someone is finally arrested in connection with the Erawan shrine bombing! Kudos to the police for excellent work.

[Asheron]

From Wikipeidia:

Australia[edit]

In Australia, it is illegal to import body armour without prior authorisation from Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.^[72] It is also illegal to possess body armour without authorization in South Australia,^[73]Victoria,^[74] Northern Territory,^[75] ACT,^[76] Queensland ^[77] & New South Wales.^[78]

Canada[edit]

In all Canadian provinces except for Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba, it is legal to wear and to purchase body armour such as ballistic vests. Under the laws of these provinces, it is illegal to possess body armour without a license (unless exempted) issued by the provincial government. Nova Scotia has passed similar laws, but are not yet in force.

The Netherlands[edit]

The civilian ownership of body armour is unregulated in the Netherlands and body armour in various ballistic grades is sold by a range of different vendors, mainly aimed at providing to security guards and VIP's. The use of body armour while committing a crime is not an additional offense in itself, but may be interpreted as so under different laws such as resisting arrest.

The Netherlands[edit]

The civilian ownership of body armour is unregulated in the Netherlands and body armour in various ballistic grades is sold by a range of different vendors, mainly aimed at providing to security guards and VIP's. The use of body armour while committing a crime is not an additional offense in itself, but may be interpreted as so under different laws such as resisting arrest.

So different rules in different countries and that is a thing we have to accept, just because it's legal in our home country doesn't mean that it's legal in the rest of the world.For example:

You can buy a gun in US without a permission, try to do that in UK.

In US its legal to gamble, that's illegal in Thailand and my home country Sweden.

In US it's legal with prostitutes, in Thailand it's actually against the law! If they would follow that law to 100% then Pattaya and Pukhet would be clouded for business!

And finally just for laughs: http://yesiyesighana.com/new-us-visa-rules-bulletproof-vests-required/

What are you talking about? It's very much LEGAL to gamble in Sweden... how can you not have heard of ATG and Svenska spel if you are from Sweden?

[oneday]

Would someone please explain how a bullet-proof vest can be used as a weapon.

This country is so quick to arrest people on pathetic and illogical charges. You won't find these kinds of laws in any free country in the world, but when it comes to real criminals...well, as an old commercial in the US said, "Where's the beef". Has anyone been brought to trial, much less convicted, with regard to all the recent trafficking arrests? What about the bombing at the mall in Koh Samui? The railroaded Koh Tao dual...well it's just easier to shoot fish in a barrel rather than do actual work.

You just have to shake you head and wish this JOURNALIST well.

[kannot]

Retard government, best not come to Thailand, whats this the "revenge" for the POLICEMAN who carried an effin gun on to a plane.

[kannot]

I always wear a winterjacket or thick vest in the plane because it's cold there, i don't see the difference with a bulletproof vest.

People wearing mouthmasks in the plane worry me more because i don't know the reason they wear it.

In the same shining logic applied by the Thai authorities, mouth masks and winter jackets should be illegal as they are weapons, i.e. they are used to protect oneself, thus providing a tactical advantage if used in an attempt to overtake the plane.

Keep going, ban condoms too, hey and the army Im mean they are here to protect us

[Equalizer]

While I enjoy a good bashing of Thai police as much as the next guy, I think it is important to realize there is a valid argument for this. You can argue the merits of it, but you should not deny its existence. Take this same thought to its extreme. A country develops an effective shield against nuclear missles. This is a purely defensive thing, just like a bullet proof vest. Do you think every other country would sit by and say, "That's OK."

Heck no, they wouldn't. They would scream bloody murder about how much this destabilized the global order and made use of nuclear weapons more likely. In the same way, possession of armored vests by certain groups increases the probability of the use of assault rifles. You can reasonably make the argument that he is just a journalist, but what if his illegal vest is stolen while he is in the country?

This is not the cut and dried ridiculous notion that most would naively believe. These types of defensive devices are categorized as weapons for a reason. It may not be a great reason, but it is a valid one in some circumstances.

All well and good but hey ''HE IS A JOURNALIST/PHOTOGRAPHER'' if his vest was stolen in Thailand we would be looking for a thief, also if my mum had balls she would be my dad. It is clearly obvious in this case why foreign media should wear protection, after all, the Thai media are saying it was a foreigner who has done it. Plus this guy may have witnessed Thai soldiers blasting holes into foreign photographers in the not so distant past!!!!

[kannot]

I always wear a winterjacket or thick vest in the plane because it's cold there, i don't see the difference with a bulletproof vest.

People wearing mouthmasks in the plane worry me more because i don't know the reason they wear it.

Stupidity thats why they wear them, they dont even seal fully to the face, total waste of time.

[Nemesis7]

"which prohibits the possession of military equipment without a licence."

But what if it is civilian body armor which can be bought? I would say having valid press credentials should be the license. Will be interesting how this plays out.

Isn't Thailand truly amazing? The Police officer carrying gun on board with live ammunition ( by mistake or not???) that's ok in the eyes of Thai authorities and seeking pardon from a foreign government but a journalist trying to cover a report which could some how be dangerous and its prohibited to carry body Armour like bullet proof jacket???

and seriously is it prohibited to carry suck jacket on board? The TSA, FAA has no restrictions on carrying Bullet proof vest on board.

[aripengu]

Can't find those behind the bombings, but yeah arrest a foreign journalist for wanting to protect himself from situations created by police incompetence. That will look very good in the international press.

[mikemac]

Maybe he thought Comronwit Toopgrajank, the infamous ex-Thai cop and gun smuggler, was on the same flight.

[mikemac]

"which prohibits the possession of military equipment without a licence."

But what if it is civilian body armor which can be bought? I would say having valid press credentials should be the license. Will be interesting how this plays out.

Isn't Thailand truly amazing? The Police officer carrying gun on board with live ammunition ( by mistake or not???) that's ok in the eyes of Thai authorities and seeking pardon from a foreign government but a journalist trying to cover a report which could some how be dangerous and its prohibited to carry body Armour like bullet proof jacket???

and seriously is it prohibited to carry suck jacket on board? The TSA, FAA has no restrictions on carrying Bullet proof vest on board.

"that's ok in the eyes of Thai authorities"

That's ok ? Who said it was ok ? I would like to know where you got that information from.

[Baerboxer]

What about the actual weapons being sold eveywhere here. Switchblades Swords mace spray stun guns......

They're for private use in your own home!

Keep some implements handy in case of visitors in the night - dialing the police, even if you get an answer, and speak Thai, might not get the response you expect.

But, don't carry those around or be found with them in your car.

This is nuts though. Big issue about body armor but the retired cop, on a business jaunt, can get away carrying a gun and ammo.

Wild west with Eastern logic.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Baerboxer

[Emster23]

While I enjoy a good bashing of Thai police as much as the next guy, I think it is important to realize there is a valid argument for this. You can argue the merits of it, but you should not deny its existence. Take this same thought to its extreme. A country develops an effective shield against nuclear missles. This is a purely defensive thing, just like a bullet proof vest. Do you think every other country would sit by and say, "That's OK."

Heck no, they wouldn't. They would scream bloody murder about how much this destabilized the global order and made use of nuclear weapons more likely. In the same way, possession of armored vests by certain groups increases the probability of the use of assault rifles. You can reasonably make the argument that he is just a journalist, but what if his illegal vest is stolen while he is in the country?

This is not the cut and dried ridiculous notion that most would naively believe. These types of defensive devices are categorized as weapons for a reason. It may not be a great reason, but it is a valid one in some circumstances.

Sorry, but the analogy doesn't quite measure up. Assume countries have offensive weapons, right? If country had no offensive weapons, and this was plain for all to see, then neighbors wouldn't care. Reporter is assumed to have no weapons also, other than pen being mightier than the sword sort of idea...he was going back to Hong Kong, not bringing it in. Police if worried should be happy it is leaving, removing chance that it could be stolen.

[englishoak]

This place just keeps on giving and giving atm ..

Couldnt make it up

Sorry for the poor guy looking at 5 years, maybe he should ask the thai cop with a gun arrested to have a word in someones ear... preferably the same one as got that clown off

Edited August 24, 2015 by englishoak

[Matt K]

So much fail here...I don't require permission to protect my life...free men don't need permission, slaves do. If you think you're in a better position to make decisions about what's best for me, congratulations-YOU are the problem.

[CanInBKK]

Are well still allowed to wear protective jackets and helmets while riding motorbikes in thailand?

Unbelievable this will get the HK tourists back.

What a ridiculous thing to post. You either have poor reading comprehension or are just trolling.

Ballistic vests are designed to offer protection from bullets and are devices which must be authorized for possession. Whether or not you agree with the law is not the point of the original article.

Thailand is not the only country that does this, in this thread alone, Hong Kong and the U.S. also implement something similar.

The irony here is that it would seem the journalist in question doesn't have the proper paperwork for possession in HK as was described in detail by another poster.

Did you read post #44?

The post where a police officer was doing his job? (Props to the officer by the way, for knowledge of laws regarding body Armour). I would equate what the officer did in post #44 to giving a breathalyzer test to someone suspected of DUI.

This thread is actually talking an actual violation of the law, whether or not the law is sensible is irrelevant to the action.

Edited August 24, 2015 by CanInBKK

[Shiver]

I always wear a winterjacket or thick vest in the plane because it's cold there, i don't see the difference with a bulletproof vest.

People wearing mouthmasks in the plane worry me more because i don't know the reason they wear it.

That always gets me too, they are supposed to prevent the spread of airborne virus and other germs, although it is those who are sick who should be wearing them, as opposed to those who do not wish to get sick.

I thought the mask thing was more of a courtesy, to warn others on the street that you have a cold/flu type condition. For sure they won't have any practical use other than as a large particle dust mask. Then again, if I saw the street full of people wearing N95 or N100 masks I'd be a little perturbed - I want to see all those pretty smiles and am willing to risk catching a cold.

[Don Mega]

possesion of bullet proof clothing does not = possesion of offensive weapon what ever country you are from.

In Australia A bulletproof vest or protective body vest or body armour designed to prevent the penetration of small arms projectiles is classed a category E weapon under the firearms act.

[DrTuner]

I thought bulletproof vests are standard issue tourist garments in Thailand. Or was it the bomb squad suit?

[phantomfiddler]

Master the Stephen Seagal "Pinkie Chop" and you do not need to worry about any threats of violence

[casualbiker]

What's the difference between a flak jacket and military grade bulletproof vest?

[GerdT]

A friend of mine in the RTP due to be sent to the south... His Police issue Flack Jacket / Bullet Proof Vest was in his words, useless. He asked if I could bring over a European Vest.

Of course, I couldn't - I knew it was illegal to transport such items.

My point here - as a civilian with no need for such an item I was aware of some restrictions on it.

Why was a reporter not aware ?

Yes, on the surface the idea that these items are purely protective is reasonable, however, restrictions / control of the transport of these items is based around other factors such as what they are used in conjunction with (i.e. weapons)... the fact that these items are associated with warfare is why they are restricted.

This case will be interesting to follow - Kamronwit was let off after attempting (mistakenly or not) to carry his gun from Japan.

This seems like a far less severe issue with justifiable and understandable reasoning behind it.

Maybe the two journalists that have been killed during the Red Shirt protest in Bangkok would express a different view on a bullet proof vest and what it can do for journalists.

Edited August 24, 2015 by GerdT

[Kerryd]

Edit - (Hmmm - looking at the 2 news articles again it doesn't say he was wearing or even carrying it so it's hard to tell if he did have it in his luggage. The headline here says he tried to carry it onto a flight so it sounds like he was trying to bring it into the cabin with him, not in his checked luggage.)

OK, later stories mention it was in his checked baggage. Interesting as I would assume he brought it with him so it made it through Customs on arrival. Maybe a good thing I didn't bring mine here with me (well, good until such time as I was leaving again with it) !

I do like reading though about all the people who assume they have the "right" to do (whatever), wherever they are !

[laislica]

Are well still allowed to wear protective jackets and helmets while riding motorbikes in thailand?

Unbelievable this will get the HK tourists back.

What a ridiculous thing to post. You either have poor reading comprehension or are just trolling.

Ballistic vests are designed to offer protection from bullets and are devices which must be authorized for possession. Whether or not you agree with the law is not the point of the original article.

Thailand is not the only country that does this, in this thread alone, Hong Kong and the U.S. also implement something similar.

The irony here is that it would seem the journalist in question doesn't have the proper paperwork for possession in HK as was described in detail by another poster.

Did you read post #44?

The post where a police officer was doing his job? (Props to the officer by the way, for knowledge of laws regarding body Armour). I would equate what the officer did in post #44 to giving a breathalyzer test to someone suspected of DUI.

This thread is actually talking an actual violation of the law, whether or not the law is sensible is irrelevant to the action.

But as the quoted post mentioned, the supervising officer determined that it was not a military type body armour. Just a cop being over zealous?

Any yes I agree "This thread is actually talking an actual violation of the law, whether or not the law is sensible is irrelevant to the action."

The problem seems to be that many posters on this thread had no idea about this law. I confess, neither did I.

I did use full body m/c armour though when I rode big bikes but there is no way that even with Kevlar, it could stop a bullet or even a sharp object...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GerdT]

Edit - (Hmmm - looking at the 2 news articles again it doesn't say he was wearing or even carrying it so it's hard to tell if he did have it in his luggage. The headline here says he tried to carry it onto a flight so it sounds like he was trying to bring it into the cabin with him, not in his checked luggage.)

OK, later stories mention it was in his checked baggage. Interesting as I would assume he brought it with him so it made it through Customs on arrival. Maybe a good thing I didn't bring mine here with me (well, good until such time as I was leaving again with it) !

I do like reading though about all the people who assume they have the "right" to do (whatever), wherever they are !

Depending what kind of job a journalist does it might be making sense to carry a bullet proof vest. Photographers that being sent from one conflict or crises spot to the next certainly should consider having one with them all the time.

The CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) publishes statistic that show how many journalists have died in a year doing their job. This year alone 39 journalists have been killed.

https://cpj.org/killed/2015/

[ggt]

being charged with possessing an illegal weapon. The offence carries a prison sentence of up to five years, and the case will be tried in a military court.

The lack of quality leadership filters down throughout the Thai system...people being arrested and thrown into jail for exposing corruption...carrying non-aggressive articles of protection...and speaking their minds...while Southern Thailand is a danger zone being attacked by Muslim separatists...and civil unrest throughout the country due to an un-elected government making the rules...

Thailand is on the brink...democracy seems to be a dream which will never be realized...