Thai Lion Air seeks THB2 million compensation from flirty bomb joker

[Si Thea01]

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

I need to learn how to read? One who critcises in such a manner needs to look at one's self first. A fine example of your reading skills, tell me what was said about facts being in dispute or questioning the punishment? Your words not mine, I questioned the endangerment aspect, which you disputed and I will tell you again that this is what he was charged with under Thai avaition law

If you're not happy then complain to the authorities. What you thoughts are about the law will not make one iota here. And what I said about the facts is that you did not present any to justify your statement, so please if you want to criticise at least get it right. So he should be charged with a criminal act, tell me which one, under Thai avaition law would be applicable, seeing you're the professed expert on the law? As I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

But just for your benefit endangering means a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune.. Yes, a possibility, the meaning being a thing that may happen or be the case. Who suggested I think that anything possible to do with a plane shouild be punished? Not I, just you adding words that mean nothing. And pray tell just how does the law work, in your mind at least? Can you answer anything asked of you,or will you just go off on your own tangent again?

If you were a competent reader you would grasp the important difference between actually endangering someone and merely claiming to do so. If, for instance, I threaten to shoot you while brandishing a loaded 9mm Glock I have endangered you. If, on the other hand, I threaten to shoot you while pointing a water pistol that is a convincing, but harmless, replica of a 9mm Glock then, although I may well have commit some crime for which I ought to be punished, I have not in actual point of fact endangered you at all despite your reasonable belief at the time that I have. So the applicable charge would be something other than criminal endangerment. You insistently confuse possibility with the appearance of possibility, which causes me to wonder about your reading level.

In the case at hand the accused guy is not a terrorist and should not be treated as a terrorist, whatever else he may be guilty of. Thailand unfortunately is a country that does not enjoy the rule of law and whose judicial standards frequently beggar belief as, perhaps, in this case.

Obviously you cannot start a subject without getting personal. Not once but twice in this response. Says a lot doesn't it?

Your analogy is both ludicrous and thoughtless. Try your comparison on a law enforcement officer and see what the results are, if you don't understand then I will tell you. You will be dead,and in a pine box. Yes, it is an offence to be in possession of a prohibited article, which a replica pistol is, water or otherwise and if pointed at someone it is justified, in law to be a loaded gun and threatening or endangering the life of another so if they are armed, you would most likely be shot in self defense. Pretty poor comparison, don't you think? And I have trouble grasping the difference? The difference is that I would be alive and you would be dead, fantastic analogy.

I was wondering when you would go off on another tangent, didn't take long did it. A terrorist, where did this come from, don't tell me, I know, your vivid imagination. Explain how he is being treated as such, oh that's right, terrorists get charged with endangering planes, so according to your warped logic, this is why you think he is being treated as such. Please don't get insulted, but is your job devoted to spreading ignorance, it sure looks that way? So stop posting your insults and unintelligent responses.

[CaptHaddock]

I can see that the distinction to which I was trying to draw your attention is demonstrably above your pay grade, I can only wish you success in all your future endeavors.

And welcome to my ignore list.