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

[FritsSikkink]

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.

because hey have a cold

[casualbiker]

Very weird case, the Japanese company sent him the vest to wear in Thailand even though it's illegal and they either didn't know or didn't care about their responsibilities..... But if they don't even have the license for it in Japan its even stranger...

Is this some payback to Japan for embarrassing the Thai cop?

If protecting yourself from bullets is illegal now the world has totally turned upside down...

What about the expensive limos with the bullet and blast resistant panels?

No country wants all its citizens bulletproof for obvious reasons but journalists in foreign warzones should be made to wear them compulsory like troops imo... I hope he gets out fast but I predict about 2 Weeks for a deal to be brokered, just like the Thai cop..

If he's sentenced to 5 yrs Thailand should be hammered by trade sanctions from Japan and the rest of the world...

Bangkok Thailand is not a war zone.

You must be new here....

Nope, not new. Just not as prone as others to talk absolute bullshit!

[casualbiker]

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

I will only discuss military grade body armour here...too many civilian variants that claim military usage

to talk about & most of those claims are false.

There really is no such thing as a "bulet proof vest" as "bullets" come in many sizes & proceed to target

in varying velocities. Body armour is intended to spread out the impact area of a projectile (bullet) over

a wider area than the area of a normal impact which is very small. Most "bullets" lose 70% of their

velocity upon impact with a target regardless of what the make up of the target is...ie...flesh, wood, steel

etc. The kevlar or whatever composite material is used, to include experimental spider web, takes the

initial "hit", 70% of the velocity is lost at that moment & the material spreads out the shock wave from

the "hit" in a manner similar to a stone tossed into a pond...relatively a circular pattern whch spreads

the "bullet" energy outwards instead of the "bullet" concentrating it's impact velocity to a relatively

small area. The nose of he "bullet" will also be blunted by the body armour upon impact causing a further

and faster reduction in velocity. The "bullet" energy, measured usually in foot-pounds or meters-kilos

is not reduced by the body armour so while the target may sustain the hit without being penetrated the

target will usually get knocked over...especialy if the target is a human being and said target may receive

some nasty bruising & if a chest shot...some broken bones such as the sternum or ribs...depending on

the range from the shooter.

Another variabe with body armour is distance...meaning the distance from the shooter to the target.

Further away the shooter is the better chance of survival with body armour...even down to level 2A.

To a trained marksman or sniper defeating body armour is nothing more than a well placed head shot

or by using a larger caliber weapon...say from .338 and upwards....body armour will not help at all.

Ballistic body armour, the type I have mentioned above is much different from the body armour which

protects the wearer from knives & other sharp oblects such as ice picks. I won't discuss that type here.

A "flak jacket" is just that...it is supposed to stop flak (shrapnel) from entering the center mass of a

human being (torso-front & back) at some distance from the item generating said flak/shrapnel.

Shrapnel looses it's velocity relatively faster than a bullet does and that loss of velocity is dependent

upon the size of the particular piece of shrapnel. In other words...large pieces lose velocity faster

than small pieces do at a predetermined radius from the explosion creating the shrapnel. But all

pieces of shrapnel from an explosion do not travel as far as "bullets" do simply because the

shrapnel is not pushed down a barrel. Mind you shrapnel can be quite large...say a tail assembly

from a general purpose 500 pound aerial bomb down to the size of a grain of sand and anything

in between. Shrapnel sizes depend on what type of weapon s being used....hand grenade, mortar

round (many diferent sizes there), RPG's, artillery rounds and dumb or smart bombs.

Most of the older flak jackets (Vietnam era) are no longer used mainly because they're too damn

heavy because the armour inside the carrier was usually 1/4 or 5/16 inch thick steel armour plate.

These plates were flat or curved (bit of comfort to the wearer but not much) and covered the wearers

front & back. They weighed a ton...or so it seemed.

Today's body armour is becoming lighter in weight and slightly more comfortable however when

you add up what a soldier carries into battle plus the body armour (if the soldier decides to wear it)

that soldier is humping plenty of kilos & the weight causes one to wear down quickly which reduces

battle effiency quickly.

There is Level 4 body armour available today that will take multiple hits with 7.62x39 or 7.62x51

that will enable high survivability of the person wearing it....but it's still heavy...and very expensive.

However...if the bad guy doing the shooting uses a 12.7mm (.50 cal) no body armour of today

will save the wearer.

Google terminal ballistics vs body armour for more info....the nfo is out there. What I have written

is from personal experience beginning in 1971 through to 2008.

Hope this helps you & other readers.

Yes. Kind off.. Am I right in saying that generally a news reporter would probably be wearing a ballistic vest to counter shrapnel and smaller calibre arms.. Rather than the military grade level 4..it would be interesting to find out what the reporter had!

[Yme]

There's a very detailed story here on the topic the Thailand Arms Control Act and its effect not only on journalists, but also EMS crews.

This mob are the first to try and get a permit and they were refused.

If the information supplied by Colonel Benjaporn that “no journalists have ever applied for a license” is accurate the numerous photographs showing foreign and Thai media and medical personnel wearing ballistic-wear is alarming, subjecting them at any time in the future to prosecution should the “blind eye” be opened.

That major media organisations should allow their staff to be placed in a position where prosecution is subject to the vagaries of individual police or changes of political office is also lost in translation, especially given the ongoing trial in Egypt of nine journalists from the Qatar-based Al Jazeera media network on politically-driven, trumped-up charges of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation.

Seems the FCCT and TJA might be being a bit liberal in describing what they have done in the past to try and remedy this situation.

It's a long read, but they go into a lot of detail.

Thailand’s Arms Control Act Lost in Translation

[speedtripler]

Very weird case, the Japanese company sent him the vest to wear in Thailand even though it's illegal and they either didn't know or didn't care about their responsibilities..... But if they don't even have the license for it in Japan its even stranger...

Is this some payback to Japan for embarrassing the Thai cop?

If protecting yourself from bullets is illegal now the world has totally turned upside down...

What about the expensive limos with the bullet and blast resistant panels?

No country wants all its citizens bulletproof for obvious reasons but journalists in foreign warzones should be made to wear them compulsory like troops imo... I hope he gets out fast but I predict about 2 Weeks for a deal to be brokered, just like the Thai cop..

If he's sentenced to 5 yrs Thailand should be hammered by trade sanctions from Japan and the rest of the world...

Bangkok Thailand is not a war zone.

You must be new here....

Nope, not new. Just not as prone as others to talk absolute bullshit!

Try opening your eyes maybe ...

[Basil B]

OMG...

Thailand taking on the worlds media and expects to win...

By the time the worlds media has finished jokes will start with; " There was a English man, a Scotsman, and a Thai man"

[Puwa]

As if the press needed another reason to hate the current government.

[Yme]

Very weird case, the Japanese company sent him the vest to wear in Thailand even though it's illegal and they either didn't know or didn't care about their responsibilities..... But if they don't even have the license for it in Japan its even stranger...

Is this some payback to Japan for embarrassing the Thai cop?

If protecting yourself from bullets is illegal now the world has totally turned upside down...

What about the expensive limos with the bullet and blast resistant panels?

No country wants all its citizens bulletproof for obvious reasons but journalists in foreign warzones should be made to wear them compulsory like troops imo... I hope he gets out fast but I predict about 2 Weeks for a deal to be brokered, just like the Thai cop..

If he's sentenced to 5 yrs Thailand should be hammered by trade sanctions from Japan and the rest of the world...

Bangkok Thailand is not a war zone.

You must be new here....

Nope, not new. Just not as prone as others to talk absolute bullshit!

Try opening your eyes maybe ...

Ok. Fella.. Post your pictures of the Bangkok war zone, the tank's, craters and bullet riddled corpses. Your talking <deleted> and you know it!

I ain't doing your research for you, you seem to have intent to deny bkk is violent and dangerous sometimes when everyone knows that it is...

We are talking NOW not during the Red riots or the Yellow demonstrations.. NOW Bkk is NOT a warzone.. Honestly even back then it wasn't, not in the true sense of the word!

Area's of large American cities have no go zones are they a war zone?

Some South African townships have riot problems, are they a war zone?

It's a war zone when your job requires going out and being in the middle of it.

Not just journalists, but also EMS crews.

Or are you saying that we don't need to have independent witnesses on the streets when the army are running around with M16s or shooting from concealed positions?

Sure looks like a war zone to me

And we won't forget the media standing between armed PDRC protesters and a wounded cop that police were trying to evacuate from the Japanese stadium

You must be new here

[Don Mega]

Hey casualbiker. learn to qoute properly. your posts are an absolute shambles.

[Tywais]

Hey casualbiker. learn to qoute properly. your posts are an absolute shambles.

Corrupted quotes removed. Try previewing your posts before posting.

[sunshine51]

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

I will only discuss military grade body armour here...too many civilian variants that claim military usage

to talk about & most of those claims are false.

There really is no such thing as a "bulet proof vest" as "bullets" come in many sizes & proceed to target

in varying velocities. Body armour is intended to spread out the impact area of a projectile (bullet) over

a wider area than the area of a normal impact which is very small. Most "bullets" lose 70% of their

velocity upon impact with a target regardless of what the make up of the target is...ie...flesh, wood, steel

etc. The kevlar or whatever composite material is used, to include experimental spider web, takes the

initial "hit", 70% of the velocity is lost at that moment & the material spreads out the shock wave from

the "hit" in a manner similar to a stone tossed into a pond...relatively a circular pattern whch spreads

the "bullet" energy outwards instead of the "bullet" concentrating it's impact velocity to a relatively

small area. The nose of he "bullet" will also be blunted by the body armour upon impact causing a further

and faster reduction in velocity. The "bullet" energy, measured usually in foot-pounds or meters-kilos

is not reduced by the body armour so while the target may sustain the hit without being penetrated the

target will usually get knocked over...especialy if the target is a human being and said target may receive

some nasty bruising & if a chest shot...some broken bones such as the sternum or ribs...depending on

the range from the shooter.

Another variabe with body armour is distance...meaning the distance from the shooter to the target.

Further away the shooter is the better chance of survival with body armour...even down to level 2A.

To a trained marksman or sniper defeating body armour is nothing more than a well placed head shot

or by using a larger caliber weapon...say from .338 and upwards....body armour will not help at all.

Ballistic body armour, the type I have mentioned above is much different from the body armour which

protects the wearer from knives & other sharp oblects such as ice picks. I won't discuss that type here.

A "flak jacket" is just that...it is supposed to stop flak (shrapnel) from entering the center mass of a

human being (torso-front & back) at some distance from the item generating said flak/shrapnel.

Shrapnel looses it's velocity relatively faster than a bullet does and that loss of velocity is dependent

upon the size of the particular piece of shrapnel. In other words...large pieces lose velocity faster

than small pieces do at a predetermined radius from the explosion creating the shrapnel. But all

pieces of shrapnel from an explosion do not travel as far as "bullets" do simply because the

shrapnel is not pushed down a barrel. Mind you shrapnel can be quite large...say a tail assembly

from a general purpose 500 pound aerial bomb down to the size of a grain of sand and anything

in between. Shrapnel sizes depend on what type of weapon s being used....hand grenade, mortar

round (many diferent sizes there), RPG's, artillery rounds and dumb or smart bombs.

Most of the older flak jackets (Vietnam era) are no longer used mainly because they're too damn

heavy because the armour inside the carrier was usually 1/4 or 5/16 inch thick steel armour plate.

These plates were flat or curved (bit of comfort to the wearer but not much) and covered the wearers

front & back. They weighed a ton...or so it seemed.

Today's body armour is becoming lighter in weight and slightly more comfortable however when

you add up what a soldier carries into battle plus the body armour (if the soldier decides to wear it)

that soldier is humping plenty of kilos & the weight causes one to wear down quickly which reduces

battle effiency quickly.

There is Level 4 body armour available today that will take multiple hits with 7.62x39 or 7.62x51

that will enable high survivability of the person wearing it....but it's still heavy...and very expensive.

However...if the bad guy doing the shooting uses a 12.7mm (.50 cal) no body armour of today

will save the wearer.

Google terminal ballistics vs body armour for more info....the nfo is out there. What I have written

is from personal experience beginning in 1971 through to 2008.

Hope this helps you & other readers.

Yes. Kind off.. Am I right in saying that generally a news reporter would probably be wearing a ballistic vest to counter shrapnel and smaller calibre arms.. Rather than the military grade level 4..it would be interesting to find out what the reporter had!

That's a hard question to be accurate on CB. He may have had an L3A set but I doubt an L4. BTW an L4 vest is just an

L3A with ceramic or steel plates in front of the L3A kevlar inserts. Unless the name has changed the plates which give L4

protection are called "trauma plates". When I was in the military all we had were the flak jackets I mentioned & I never wore

one because of the facts I stated. Covering Gulf War 1 I always had an L3A with trauma plates available but again...I never

wore it much...too damn hot in the desert.. Covering Afghanistan I mostly wore L3A or nothing at all...save for me clothes that

is. It was easy to get L4 plates as the soldiers I covered had plenty available.

Many journo's of today have never spent a day in the miitary & perhaps cannot comprehend what a set of body armour can

& cannot do for the wearer & what conditions one may decde to wear it under. It's near impossible to know what type the

photog had....if he had any serious experience in a two way shooting gallery he'd have at least L3A.

My best guess that.

Edited August 25, 2015 by sunshine51

[derator01]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed from view.

[sammygood]

and the thai cop in japan, who carried a loaded weapon, goes free

[derator01]

How about fixing the Android app if it's messing up quotes.

It's a generic platform that we use. Many forums use this software. We do the best we can.

[englishoak]

Very weird case, the Japanese company sent him the vest to wear in Thailand even though it's illegal and they either didn't know or didn't care about their responsibilities..... But if they don't even have the license for it in Japan its even stranger...

Is this some payback to Japan for embarrassing the Thai cop?

If protecting yourself from bullets is illegal now the world has totally turned upside down...

What about the expensive limos with the bullet and blast resistant panels?

No country wants all its citizens bulletproof for obvious reasons but journalists in foreign warzones should be made to wear them compulsory like troops imo... I hope he gets out fast but I predict about 2 Weeks for a deal to be brokered, just like the Thai cop..

If he's sentenced to 5 yrs Thailand should be hammered by trade sanctions from Japan and the rest of the world...

Interestingly there seems to be exactly that gossip going around the airport at the moment. This wasnt a mistake or by chance.

Seems there was some form of communication to higher up in the chain very early on that decided to make things stick.They knew he had it in his luggage and the policeman knew it was illegal. ...Now whats the chances of a policeman knowing that obscure law ?

Its pretty well known among airport staff the amount of face lost by both the nicked Thai policeman and Thai airport security wasnt small, many are pretty sure a slap back at a japanese breaking the law is part of whats going on here. Petty kid stuff maybe but on a large scale.

It does however seem to be backfiring on the PR side as a gun isnt exactly in the same league as something that stops a bullet instead of firing one and reporting on a bombing would seem to be a good reason to have one... which wasnt his anyway but sent by his employer,

Pretty pathetic if its only partially true, which i hope it isnt but wouldnt be in the slightest bit surprised if it were.

Edited August 25, 2015 by englishoak

[casualbiker]

Very weird case, the Japanese company sent him the vest to wear in Thailand even though it's illegal and they either didn't know or didn't care about their responsibilities..... But if they don't even have the license for it in Japan its even stranger...

Is this some payback to Japan for embarrassing the Thai cop?

If protecting yourself from bullets is illegal now the world has totally turned upside down...

What about the expensive limos with the bullet and blast resistant panels?

No country wants all its citizens bulletproof for obvious reasons but journalists in foreign warzones should be made to wear them compulsory like troops imo... I hope he gets out fast but I predict about 2 Weeks for a deal to be brokered, just like the Thai cop..

If he's sentenced to 5 yrs Thailand should be hammered by trade sanctions from Japan and the rest of the world...

Interestingly there seems to be exactly that gossip going around the airport at the moment. This wasnt a mistake or by chance.

Seems there was some form of communication to higher up in the chain very early on that decided to make things stick.They knew he had it in his luggage and the policeman knew it was illegal. ...Now whats the chances of a policeman knowing that obscure law ?

Its pretty well known among airport staff the amount of face lost by both the nicked Thai policeman and Thai airport security wasnt small, many are pretty sure a slap back at a japanese breaking the law is part of whats going on here. Petty kid stuff maybe but on a large scale.

It does however seem to be backfiring on the PR side as a gun isnt exactly in the same league as something that stops a bullet instead of firing one and reporting on a bombing would seem to be a good reason to have one... which wasnt his anyway but sent by his employer,

Pretty pathetic if its only partially true, which i hope it isnt but wouldnt be in the slightest bit surprised if it were.

So your reasoning is that this is a slap back at the Japanese.. Right so they arrest a Canadian/Hong Kong citizen who is working for a Hong Kong company to "get back" at the Japanese!

Right... Makes sense. But wait Hong Kong is a Chinese territory... Shit bangs goes that theory!

[mrfill]

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.

You might think it a ridiculous post, but do bear in mind that in some southern provinces, it is indeed illegal to ride wearing a helmet.

So, answering the original question - No, helmets are NOT allowed in some areas

[fitnesspm]

I can understand wearing a bullet proof vest after what has been happening in Bangkok but why wear it going on a plane???

After 9/11... The guy is stupid...

[hawker9000]

I can understand wearing a bullet proof vest after what has been happening in Bangkok but why wear it going on a plane???

After 9/11... The guy is stupid...

That guy is stupid?

Where did it say he was wearing it getting on the plane?

LOL.