Triple murder of family in Sukhothai - gunman turns himself in

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Triple murder of family in Sukhothai - gunman turns himself in


Image: Thairath

SUKHOTHAI:-- A shocked public looked on in horror as a gunman shot dead three members of a well known local family in broad daylight in Sukhothai.

After blasting away a father, mother and their son the shooter put his hands up and waited for police to arrest him, reports Thairath.

The killings followed an unsuccessful mediation over a land dispute in front of local officials at government offices in Srisachanalai district of the northern province.

Following a meeting that ended in an argument the shooter, 42 year old Nattawat Chuchit, a neighbour, retrieved a .38 gun from under the seat on his motorbike and approached the three family members about to drive off in a pick-up in the car park.

Several witnesses saw Chuchit shoot twice through the driver's window at point blank range at Khanong Thimthong, 61, the owner of an orange orchard and market in Ban Sumen. He managed to get out of the vehicle but was repeatedly shot in the chest, temple, teeth and eyebrow.

His wife and son also got out of the vehicle too but were both gunned down as the shooter reloaded to finish them off. Police found the wife Somnuk Thimthong,55, shot in the forehead and hand. Son Theerapong Thimthong,32, was also shot in the forehead.

He was rushed to hospital by local officials before police arrived but died shortly thereafter.

Police found seven spent cartridge casings scattered about the scene and a huge crowd. The gunman had simply held the gun in the air and given himself up to tambon officers before police arrived.

Chuchit, who was made to do a reenactment soon after, admitted everything. He told police that he was involved in an acrimonious dispute over 20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong, a resident of Mae Sin sub-district.

Khanong had gone to court to get his parents evicted from the land while Chuchit had appealed to the government helpline - Damrongtham - to help resolve the case. A meeting was set up yesterday between the parties but Khanong refused to negotiate a settlement.

The family got up and walked away from the negotiating table where local chief Payungsak Suwannano was mediating. Chuchit followed them out and begged Khanong not to evict his parents but a slanging match ensued with Khanong saying they must be out by the end of the month.

Chuchit went to his motorbike and got a .38 gun from under the seat. Then the shooting began.

Source: Thairath

[jaidam]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

[Rykbanlor]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

"Vague" is the absolute epitomy of Thai journalism. Some people like to claim ""lost in translation", but no, it's just piss poor journalism. Still, it gives the forum chappies plenty of leeway to speculate.

[ezzra]

jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

Nothing vague here, the land was probably mortgaged to the victims in what called Fak-Khai arrangements,

whereby the title deed is transferred temporarily to the loan holds at the land department with fixed interests

and time, failing to pay the interests on the loan means a default on the loan agreement and the land become

legally the loaning person land.....

Edited April 23, 2016 by ezzra

[Pimay1]

There is a detailed description of the incident in the Bangkok Post.

[jaltsc]

"Following a meeting that ended in an argument..."

That's seems to be a very common way of ending an argument, when one party realizes that he screwed up and won't face reality. He might lose the argument and eventually lose his life, but he'll be damned if he is going to lose face.

Edited April 23, 2016 by jaltsc

[SOTIRIOS]

.....when 'push comes to shove'....

[optad]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

THe way you have phrased this, you seem to think there is a reason for this action.

The story is really about Thai immaturity, poverty of their societal education, and a collective self efficacy of a pack of prepubescent adolescents. The is the standardised response, a socially accepted solution to feeling jilted.

20 rai = 3 hectares or about 8 acres of orange grove and has no equivalent cost relationship to three lives in our reality ...... but it does in theirs. That is the story, told again and again.

Don't need details.

[dddave]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

"Vague" is the absolute epitomy of Thai journalism. Some people like to claim ""lost in translation", but no, it's just piss poor journalism. Still, it gives the forum chappies plenty of leeway to speculate.

Why is this "piss poor journalism"? It was written as a developing story. They printed the factors as they knew them. In any case such as this, it takes time and a lot of digging to get the complete story. Better to write what they knew rather than unfounded speculation.

[NCC1701A]

one family took advantage of another family.

they picked they wrong family.

half the country looking over their shoulder today.

[jamesbrock]

jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:jaidam, on 23 Apr 2016 - 08:02, said:

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

Nothing vague here, the land was probably mortgaged to the victims in what called Fak-Khai arrangements,

whereby the title deed is transferred temporarily to the loan holds at the land department with fixed interests

and time, failing to pay the interests on the loan means a default on the loan agreement and the land become

legally the loaning person land.....

Except, according to the details published on 'the other' site, it wasn't mortgaged to the victims under a Fak-Khai arrangement. The victims had asked to borrow the title deed for the land from Mr Nattawat’s father to place as a surety for employment with the local office of the Provincial Electricity Authority, then—taking advantage of Mr Nattawat’s father's generosity—they filed, and won, a court case to evict Mr Nattawat’s family from their land and home.

Immorally using the courts to obtain someone else's property happens all too often in Thailand, and these r-soles ripped off the wrong person. Som nom na I say.

[robertthebruce]

Shocking.....

[Scouse Twoccer]

Nothing vague here, the land was probably mortgaged to the victims in what called Fak-Khai arrangements,

whereby the title deed is transferred temporarily to the loan holds at the land department with fixed interests

and time, failing to pay the interests on the loan means a default on the loan agreement and the land become

legally the loaning person land.....

Except, according to the details published on 'the other' site, it wasn't mortgaged to the victims under a Fak-Khai arrangement. The victims had asked to borrow the title deed for the land from Mr Nattawat’s father to place as a surety for employment with the local office of the Provincial Electricity Authority, then—taking advantage of Mr Nattawat’s father's generosity—they filed, and won, a court case to evict Mr Nattawat’s family from their land and home.

Immorally using the courts to obtain someone else's property happens all too often in Thailand, and these r-soles ripped off the wrong person. Som nom na I say.

What a shame that you chose to distort what was actually reported in the Bangkok Post.

The murdered family did ask to use the deeds but the owner (the killer's father) gave the land to them. He transferred ownership to them and the land was then theirs to do with what they liked.

This is nothing to do with morals, fraudulently obtaining someone else's property or "arse holes ripping off the wrong person"

[Thunder26]

Horrific. I know the daughter of the victims in person. Luckily she wasn't there.

[Jack Garbo]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

THe way you have phrased this, you seem to think there is a reason for this action.

The story is really about Thai immaturity, poverty of their societal education, and a collective self efficacy of a pack of prepubescent adolescents. The is the standardised response, a socially accepted solution to feeling jilted.

20 rai = 3 hectares or about 8 acres of orange grove and has no equivalent cost relationship to three lives in our reality ...... but it does in theirs. That is the story, told again and again.

Don't need details.

Immature, yes. But who? The victims didn't expect retaliation from an angry son? Stupid. Their arrogance got them killed. Most Thais (and l) will see it that way.

A rich man and his family are worth 20 rai? Who's immature?

[Asheron]

This is a clear example why Thailand need harsher gun laws.

[Asheron]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

THe way you have phrased this, you seem to think there is a reason for this action.

The story is really about Thai immaturity, poverty of their societal education, and a collective self efficacy of a pack of prepubescent adolescents. The is the standardised response, a socially accepted solution to feeling jilted.

20 rai = 3 hectares or about 8 acres of orange grove and has no equivalent cost relationship to three lives in our reality ...... but it does in theirs. That is the story, told again and again.

Don't need details.

Immature, yes. But who? The victims didn't expect retaliation from an angry son? Stupid. Their arrogance got them killed. Most Thais (and l) will see it that way.

A rich man and his family are worth 20 rai? Who's immature?

So your arrogant attitude gives somehow the justification to murder you as well?

[MaxLee]

20,000 THB, confessions, declaration for mental illness and off to the temple........................................

[ukrules]

one family took advantage of another family.

they picked they wrong family.

half the country looking over their shoulder today.

I have a feeling there's going to be many more stories like this in the future. I'm surprised he did it in front of everyone and then admitted it immediately.

Something I've come across on multiple occasions is that someone needs to borrow some money so they put up something very valuable to them as collateral, then borrow a small percentage of it's value. If they default then a full change of ownership happens. I'm sure it's all legal, above board and very calculated on behalf of the lender.

I know a woman who has borrowed 200k Baht just this week against one of her houses which is probably 'worth' about 8 Million Baht, of course this 200k is fully secured on this house and she will lose it if she doesn't repay.

[jamesbrock]

Nothing vague here, the land was probably mortgaged to the victims in what called Fak-Khai arrangements,

whereby the title deed is transferred temporarily to the loan holds at the land department with fixed interests

and time, failing to pay the interests on the loan means a default on the loan agreement and the land become

legally the loaning person land.....

Except, according to the details published on 'the other' site, it wasn't mortgaged to the victims under a Fak-Khai arrangement. The victims had asked to borrow the title deed for the land from Mr Nattawat’s father to place as a surety for employment with the local office of the Provincial Electricity Authority, then—taking advantage of Mr Nattawat’s father's generosity—they filed, and won, a court case to evict Mr Nattawat’s family from their land and home.

Immorally using the courts to obtain someone else's property happens all too often in Thailand, and these r-soles ripped off the wrong person. Som nom na I say.

What a shame that you chose to distort what was actually reported in the Bangkok Post.

The murdered family did ask to use the deeds but the owner (the killer's father) gave the land to them. He transferred ownership to them and the land was then theirs to do with what they liked.

This is nothing to do with morals, fraudulently obtaining someone else's property or "arse holes ripping off the wrong person"

What a shame you can't actually comprehend what was actually reported in the Bangkok Post.

Are you that dim that you think the Provincial Electricity Authority would accept a borrowed title deed as a surety for employment?? Of course he "gave" the deed to them, because they needed to "own" the land as surety for the job.

You think the father simply gifted the land to the victims and then refused to move off the land, resulting in a court case and mediation? The sad thing is, you do.

[snowgard]

This is a clear example why Thailand need harsher gun laws.

Very good idea!!! The penalties are at most only jokes:

Section 371 - Whoever, carries arms in a town, village or public way openly or without a reasonablecause, or carries arms in a gathering assembled for worship, entertainment or any otherpurpose, shall be punished with fined not exceeding one hundred Baht, and the Court, shallhave the power to forfeit such arms.

Section 376 - Whoever, unnecessarily fires a gun in a town, village or an other place where there isconglomeration of people, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding ten days orfined not exceeding five hundred Baht, or both.

Section 379 - Whoever, in the course of a fight, draws or shows up arms, shall be punished withimprisonment not exceeding ten days or fined not exceeding five hundred Baht, or both.

Source: https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html#308

Unbelievable penalties!!! But I don't found a penalty for unregistered guns. Maybe 1.000 THB???

[taony]

Thailand needs laws period.

[optad]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

THe way you have phrased this, you seem to think there is a reason for this action.

The story is really about Thai immaturity, poverty of their societal education, and a collective self efficacy of a pack of prepubescent adolescents. The is the standardised response, a socially accepted solution to feeling jilted.

20 rai = 3 hectares or about 8 acres of orange grove and has no equivalent cost relationship to three lives in our reality ...... but it does in theirs. That is the story, told again and again.

Don't need details.

Immature, yes. But who? The victims didn't expect retaliation from an angry son? Stupid. Their arrogance got them killed. Most Thais (and l) will see it that way.

A rich man and his family are worth 20 rai? Who's immature?

It is always an interesting phenomena, when parties either must be specific in the general, or are unable to read the general as a comment on the behavior of the specific.

I generalized upon the behavior in webfact and commented, generally. There is always more value to understand patterns and trends, [ie the general] than what Frank said friday night.

What i did not do is pantomime the killing with suppositions, Jack. I have no idea what exactly got that family killed, and i do not need details to know that trends suggest there is a pattern in Thailand that many resort to extreme responses when lawful, oblique decisions do not suit.

Is that clearer?

[Dodgydownunder]

Why didn't he do the world a favour and discharge a 4th bullet (on himself- through his pea brain head)? I don't care what his reasons are for killing this family but this is premeditated murder X3. I hope (but am not confident) that the sentence fits the crime. Actually I hope a relative tops him before the trial! General P, if you are reading this, don't you think it's about time that guns were taken off the streets? Enforcement of gun laws in this country are an absolute joke!

Edited April 23, 2016 by Dodgydownunder

[Ulic]

After reading the Bangkok Post article which has a lot more detail but by no means complete

my sympathies are with the murder. It sounds like the family of the dead borrowed the land

for use as a job surety. The cousins helped out transferring title of the property to make the

surety legitimate. Some time later the murdered family applied to have the parents of the

murderer removed from the land. No good deed goes unpunished comes to mind. Do your

cousins a good turn, and they <deleted> you over. No winners in this story.

[dunroaming]

In a society of smoke and mirrors where decisions are based on money and bribery is it any wonder that people take the law into their own hands no matter how misguided.

A simple legal law book that is transparent and enforced by law officers would be a good start but in Thailand that is not going to happen. therefore this will go on indefinitely.

[roblam]

Well done. When something is graciously given to you, never show the giver the snake in you.

The fatal consequence of arrogance.

[tuanku]

"20 rai of land that had originally been owned by his parents but had come into the hands of Khanong"

A very vague sentence. How did the land "come into" the hands of Khanong? Did Chuchit's family sell the land to Khanong and when they spent the money finished wanted the land back? I have seen just such a scenario play out a few times here. Collateral for borrowing? Many details missing here.

"Vague" is the absolute epitomy of Thai journalism. Some people like to claim ""lost in translation", but no, it's just piss poor journalism. Still, it gives the forum chappies plenty of leeway to speculate.

Why is this "piss poor journalism"? It was written as a developing story. They printed the factors as they knew them. In any case such as this, it takes time and a lot of digging to get the complete story. Better to write what they knew rather than unfounded speculation.

But we know the digging will not be done and the full story, even if known, will not be published unless it involves powerless people of no consequence.. Its a piss poor journalistic environment which encourages piss poor journalism.

[tuanku]

At least the old folks can stay on their land now.