Druggie battered after driving into Bangkok KFC

[Somtamnication]

"Drugged fox with 200 yabaa pills enters chicken house and papa rooster was home".

[gemguy]

Now this was entertaining news.....lol

Like I often say: The Thais...Sometimes they crack me up...

Cheers

[mca]

The case has become known as the "Two hundred Ya Ba pill man goes in search of chicken."

Catchy...

Just rolls off the tongue

I feel " One hundred and ninety-nine plus two minus one methamphetamine mammal of the homo sapien male gender's careful and thorough quest for domesticated fowl" has a certain Je ne sais quoi about it.

[hyperdimension]

as long then as I take Yaba and no one suffers a loss Ill be ok to do this?

That should be one of the foundations of all law (including laws involving recreational drugs).

[Siamwhiteelephant]

"The staff there were completely flummoxed and rooted to the spot."

Amazing, the effect this crazy stunt had on the staff ..

Does this mean they stopped playing with their smart phones ?

... or cried "foul" (fowl)?

[hyperdimension]

" No charges have yet been laid in the matter as no one has suffered any loss."

I find this comment very interesting ?

The charges should be directed at those who assaulted him. There was no indication that he was threatening anyone with violence, even though he was behaving strangely by driving a motorcycle where he shouldn't. he wasn't causing any property damage either. He should have been treated with some respect instead of bashed.

[Siamwhiteelephant]

" No charges have yet been laid in the matter as no one has suffered any loss."

I find this comment very interesting ?

The charges should be directed at those who assaulted him. There was no indication that he was threatening anyone with violence, even though he was behaving strangely by driving a motorcycle where he shouldn't. he wasn't causing any property damage either. He should have been treated with some respect instead of bashed.

He wasn’t “bashed” or “assaulted”, but brought under control and restrained. He brought his injuries, which were minor, upon himself. He initiated the physical struggle. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: “…he refused to give himself up quietly as a mob of people tried to restrain him” and “Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight”

If allowed to continue afterwards on ‘his merry way’ on his motorbike, he most likely had ended up injuring or killing himself or a member of the public, overdosing, or done in by Khlong.

[hyperdimension]

He wasn’t “bashed” or “assaulted”, but brought under control and restrained. He brought his injuries, which were minor, upon himself.

The article says he was "battered". That is similar to being "bashed" isn't it?

He initiated the physical struggle. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: “…he refused to give himself up quietly as a mob of people tried to restrain him” and “Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight”

"refused to give himself up quietly" indicates that he was loud, protesting against being detained. He wasn't holding a knife or gun and trying to rob the shop or anyone else. The physical contact was initiated by the other people - only when they physically grabbed him he responded physically. You would probably respond physically too if grabbed by a group of people without your willingness to be subjected to it, regardless of whether you were sober, drunk or high.

If allowed to continue afterwards on ‘his merry way’ on his motorbike, he most likely had ended up injuring or killing himself or a member of the public, fatally overdosing, or done in by Khlong.

"Most likely" is an extreme exaggeration. His home could be nearby and he may have arrived there without incident, just as hundreds of people drive home drunk after a night of heavy drinking. It is not good to be driving a vehicle whilst being affected by any drug, including legal recreational drugs like ethanol, so he should not have done so and should be punished for that. But was it right for members of the public to detain him and bash him? Based on the facts provided in the article, I don't think it was right.

He should have been asked what he wants. If he wanted to buy some chicken, then they could have served him and he may then have gone home. It's the duty of the police to detain someone for driving whilst under the influence of a drug.

Edited May 26, 2016 by hyperdimension

[sambum]

He wasn’t “bashed” or “assaulted”, but brought under control and restrained. He brought his injuries, which were minor, upon himself.

The article says he was "battered". That is similar to being "bashed" isn't it?

He initiated the physical struggle. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: “…he refused to give himself up quietly as a mob of people tried to restrain him” and “Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight”

"refused to give himself up quietly" indicates that he was loud, protesting against being detained. He wasn't holding a knife or gun and trying to rob the shop or anyone else. The physical contact was initiated by the other people - only when they physically grabbed him he responded physically. You would probably respond physically too if grabbed by a group of people without your willingness to be subjected to it, regardless of whether you were sober, drunk or high.

If allowed to continue afterwards on ‘his merry way’ on his motorbike, he most likely had ended up injuring or killing himself or a member of the public, fatally overdosing, or done in by Khlong.

"Most likely" is an extreme exaggeration. His home could be nearby and he may have arrived there without incident, just as hundreds of people drive home drunk after a night of heavy drinking. It is not good to be driving a vehicle whilst being affected by any drug, including legal recreational drugs like ethanol, so he should not have done so and should be punished for that. But was it right for members of the public to detain him and bash him? Based on the facts provided in the article, I don't think it was right.

He should have been asked what he wants. If he wanted to buy some chicken, then they could have served him and he may then have gone home. It's the duty of the police to detain someone for driving whilst under the influence of a drug.

I think you should be asked what you want! Are you perhaps a friend or a relative of the poor young man who is not at all to blame for anything as he was on drugs at the time and needs help, not punishment?

[hyperdimension]

I think you should be asked what you want!

I want people to realize that bashing someone just because they behave strangely (for whatever reason) but non-violently (and without threat of violence) should not be accepted in civil society. Have you ever heard of human rights?

he was on drugs at the time

Being on drugs does not automatically make someone dangerous, though some drugs may cause a person to be more likely to act out violence than when sober, e.g. ethanol ("alcohol" in beer, wine, spirits). Methamphetamine causes one to not feel tired at all and want to be active and productive, but not necessarily violent. Methamphetamine can make one feel euphoric, in which case the person is less much less likely to want to be violent than when sober, and more likely to want to engage in enjoyable activities.

[Siamwhiteelephant]

He wasn’t “bashed” or “assaulted”, but brought under control and restrained. He brought his injuries, which were minor, upon himself.

The article says he was "battered". That is similar to being "bashed" isn't it?

He initiated the physical struggle. Here are a couple of quotes from the article: “…he refused to give himself up quietly as a mob of people tried to restrain him” and “Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight”

"refused to give himself up quietly" indicates that he was loud, protesting against being detained. He wasn't holding a knife or gun and trying to rob the shop or anyone else. The physical contact was initiated by the other people - only when they physically grabbed him he responded physically. You would probably respond physically too if grabbed by a group of people without your willingness to be subjected to it, regardless of whether you were sober, drunk or high.

If allowed to continue afterwards on ‘his merry way’ on his motorbike, he most likely had ended up injuring or killing himself or a member of the public, fatally overdosing, or done in by Khlong.

"Most likely" is an extreme exaggeration. His home could be nearby and he may have arrived there without incident, just as hundreds of people drive home drunk after a night of heavy drinking. It is not good to be driving a vehicle whilst being affected by any drug, including legal recreational drugs like ethanol, so he should not have done so and should be punished for that. But was it right for members of the public to detain him and bash him? Based on the facts provided in the article, I don't think it was right.

He should have been asked what he wants. If he wanted to buy some chicken, then they could have served him and he may then have gone home. It's the duty of the police to detain someone for driving whilst under the influence of a drug.

Well, instead of being at loggerheads as if there wasn’t already enough struggle about and find what we can agree on. I’m sure you’ve noticed my concern for him NOT wanting to be injured by my words: “ending up injuring or killing himself or ….” so I don’t know how you reach the conclusion I approve of public beatings, which I don’t think it was, or have I in turn misunderstood you? ‘Battered’ was a play on words, as KFC chicken is battered.

You misquoted me by saying, “physical contact was initiated by the other people “ I said ‘physical struggle”. Struggle is different from touching an out of control person. He started the struggle. It appears you expected security and the public to do nothing about this law breaking person who needed both help and .control. Do you think he would have listened and be talked into compliance? Ask KFC management if it’s KFC policy to serve a completely stoned motorcycle rider inside the restaurant!

Aren’t we bordering on getting into ridiculous petty hypothetical wrangling? From what the article indicates, suggests to me that the security and public had the same concern, that he be restrained before he injure himself or someone else. You can’t win!!! Some TV poster complains because the public stands back and does nothing, but when they do, someone complains!

Have you viewed the video of him? He was physically and mentally out of control. Sure, he needed help. But he needed to be restrained first. It’s not normal to be utterly stoned, and riding shirtless (as the Thais object to that) and helmetless in a shopping mall and KFC. Yeah, we get into “What if’s”, again, such as "What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there? It’s a bit like some liberals excusing criminals of any blame and saying they’re only victims of their upbringing.

It’s amazing how people can wrangle and disagree so much on an incident like this. It had a humorous side to it because no one suffered real loss. Who knows? He may have been the winner by avoiding some calamity in his life later through having had this intervention.

Why don’t we lighten up a bit? Then I wouldn’t feel I have to go on and on in defence of my take!! Tonight I’m wondering, “Why do I even bother? Someone may come along and read into stuff not there”

Edited May 26, 2016 by Siamwhiteelephant

[sambum]

"Most likely" is an extreme exaggeration. His home could be nearby and he may have arrived there without incident, just as hundreds of people drive home drunk after a night of heavy drinking. It is not good to be driving a vehicle whilst being affected by any drug, including legal recreational drugs like ethanol, so he should not have done so and should be punished for that. But was it right for members of the public to detain him and bash him? Based on the facts provided in the article, I don't think it was right.

He should have been asked what he wants. If he wanted to buy some chicken, then they could have served him and he may then have gone home. It's the duty of the police to detain someone for driving whilst under the influence of a drug.

Well, instead of being at loggerheads as if there wasn’t already enough struggle about and find what we can agree on. I’m sure you’ve noticed my concern for him NOT wanting to be injured by my words: “ending up injuring or killing himself or ….” so I don’t know how you reach the conclusion I approve of public beatings, which I don’t think it was, or have I in turn misunderstood you? ‘Battered’ was a play on words, as KFC chicken is battered.

You misquoted me by saying, “physical contact was initiated by the other people “ I said ‘physical struggle”. Struggle is different from touching an out of control person. He started the struggle. It appears you expected security and the public to do nothing about this law breaking person who needed both help and .control. Do you think he would have listened and be talked into compliance? Ask KFC management if it’s KFC policy to serve a completely stoned motorcycle rider inside the restaurant!

Aren’t we bordering on getting into ridiculous petty hypothetical wrangling? From what the article indicates, suggests to me that the security and public had the same concern, that he be restrained before he injure himself or someone else. You can’t win!!! Some TV poster complains because the public stands back and does nothing, but when they do, someone complains!

Have you viewed the video of him? He was physically and mentally out of control. Sure, he needed help. But he needed to be restrained first. It’s not normal to be utterly stoned, and riding shirtless (as the Thais object to that) and helmetless in a shopping mall and KFC. Yeah, we get into “What if’s”, again, such as "What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there? It’s a bit like some liberals excusing criminals of any blame and saying they’re only victims of their upbringing.

It’s amazing how people can wrangle and disagree so much on an incident like this. It had a humorous side to it because no one suffered real loss. Who knows? He may have been the winner by avoiding some calamity in his life later through having had this intervention.

Why don’t we lighten up a bit? Then I wouldn’t feel I have to go on and on in defence of my take!! Tonight I’m wondering, “Why do I even bother? Someone may come along and read into stuff not there”

Good post! Especially, ‘Battered’ was a play on words, as KFC chicken is battered."!

Some people don't understand or appreciate such subtlety, however, and my own offering about "the poor young man who is not at all to blame for anything as he was on drugs at the time and needs help, not punishment?" also appears to have fallen on stony ground! (Or should that read "stoned ground"?)

"It’s a bit like some liberals excusing criminals of any blame and saying they’re only victims of their upbringing."

Absolutely correct, and to be honest, if someone wants to get stoned or drunk or whatever you care to call it, I have no problem with that, but if they then need to be restrained because they become violent and a danger to other people and themselves, then they do become a problem, and it needs to be taken care of. This incident did indeed have a humorous side to it, and I am happy that it ended up on a slightly happier note than it could have been!

[sambum]

I think you should be asked what you want!

I want people to realize that bashing someone just because they behave strangely (for whatever reason) but non-violently (and without threat of violence) should not be accepted in civil society. Have you ever heard of human rights?

He was being violent and had to be restrained. What about the rights of the shoppers that were probably frightened out of their wits? After all, let's be honest, you don't expect to run into a stoned man on a motorbike in KFC, do you?

he was on drugs at the time

Being on drugs does not automatically make someone dangerous, though some drugs may cause a person to be more likely to act out violence than when sober, e.g. ethanol ("alcohol" in beer, wine, spirits). Methamphetamine causes one to not feel tired at all and want to be active and productive, but not necessarily violent. Methamphetamine can make one feel euphoric, in which case the person is less much less likely to want to be violent than when sober, and more likely to want to engage in enjoyable activities.

Don't teach your Grandma how to suck eggs, sonny! I am a "child of the 60's" so don't need a lesson from you on the effects of narcotics! A stoned man on a motorbike in KFC is "automatically" dangerous!

Edited May 26, 2016 by sambum

[hyperdimension]

I don’t know how you reach the conclusion I approve of public beatings, which I don’t think it was, or have I in turn misunderstood you? ‘Battered’ was a play on words, as KFC chicken is battered.

The video clearly shows injuries, particularly on his face. That is evidence of a public beating. Did any of the other people have any injuries? If not, then it appears that the violence was only in one direction - to him.

The use of the word "battered" is an appropriate pun, because the video clearly shows the result of the battery inflicted in a fried chicken shop.

You misquoted me by saying, “physical contact was initiated by the other people “ I said ‘physical struggle”.

I wasn't trying to quote you. I was saying that someone started physical contact, and it wasn't him. The struggle is what happened after the initial physical contact. The one who initiates unwanted physical contact is often largely to blame. If it was him who started pushing customers around then we'd have a very different story.

It appears you expected security and the public to do nothing about this law breaking person who needed both help and .control. Do you think he would have listened and be talked into compliance?

A lot depends on what he was doing or saying just after he drove in. We only have video of what happened after he was bashed. If there is video of what happened before then we should see it so that we know the real facts. If that is not available then it may be because those who were there don't want others to realize that he was actually doing no harm nor threatening anyone.

Whenever detainment is required, best-practise protocol should be exercised. i.e. only just enough force should be used in order to do the job. Members of the public are not professionally trained to detain someone. Security guards may be professionally trained (but whether they operate to best-practise principles is questionable, especially here in Thailand). It appears in this case that more violent force was used than necessary.

[hyperdimension]

Ask KFC management if it’s KFC policy to serve a completely stoned motorcycle rider inside the restaurant!

Yes, the motorcycle in the restaurant was not appropriate, but was it illegal? Apart from that, how different is it to serving someone who is extremely drunk? I'm sure it happens very often around the nightlife areas of Bangkok, e.g. Patpong, Khaosan Road, and they probably still get served.

From what the article indicates, suggests to me that the security and public had the same concern, that he be restrained before he injure himself or someone else.

That assumes that he was doing harm or threatening harm. Was he? There is no evidence of that until we see a "before" video or hear from witnesses. Behaving strangely and riding a motorcycle into the restaurant isn't automatically dangerous. Holding a knife or gun, or physically pushing people around, would be.

Have you viewed the video of him? He was physically and mentally out of control.

The video of him after being bashed and detained? That's not called "out of control". In the video he is sitting down and answering questions that were being asked. He was a bit fidgety, but not "out of control". He would be "out of control" if he refused to comply with the polices' commands, e.g. running around, pushing people, shouting, trying to escape, or not listening to or answering the police. The video shows no such behaviour.

[hyperdimension]

It’s not normal to be utterly stoned, and riding shirtless (as the Thais object to that) and helmetless in a shopping mall and KFC.

Yes, it's not normal, but is it illegal? It does warrant a request by a security guard to drive back outside but may not warrant public detainment and bashing.

"What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there?

That's a different situation. He should be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave). At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene.

In this case there was no clear sign of danger with his use of the motorcycle if he was stationary most of the time before the bashing. I think most of the people there would have been watching and would know to avoid him if he did drive near them.

[hyperdimension]

Absolutely correct, and to be honest, if someone wants to get stoned or drunk or whatever you care to call it, I have no problem with that, but if they then need to be restrained because they become violent and a danger to other people and themselves, then they do become a problem, and it needs to be taken care of.

I agree that "if they then need to be restrained because they become violent and a danger to other people and themselves, then they do become a problem". But in this case, based on the facts in the article, there was no indication of violence nor the threat of it.

[hyperdimension]

A stoned man on a motorbike in KFC is "automatically" dangerous!

I do agree that people should not operate a vehicle whilst drunk / stoned / high. That is what he did wrong. Getting bashed, particularly by members of the public, I can't agree on if he did not pose a direct violent threat to them.

I imagine that if he was holding a knife or gun he would not have been bashed, because members of the public would not want to risk getting injured or killed.

Edited May 27, 2016 by hyperdimension

[Siamwhiteelephant]

Ask KFC management if it’s KFC policy to serve a completely stoned motorcycle rider inside the restaurant!

Yes, the motorcycle in the restaurant was not appropriate, but was it illegal? Apart from that, how different is it to serving someone who is extremely drunk? I'm sure it happens very often around the nightlife areas of Bangkok, e.g. Patpong, Khaosan Road, and they probably still get served.

From what the article indicates, suggests to me that the security and public had the same concern, that he be restrained before he injure himself or someone else.

That assumes that he was doing harm or threatening harm. Was he? There is no evidence of that until we see a "before" video or hear from witnesses. Behaving strangely and riding a motorcycle into the restaurant isn't automatically dangerous. Holding a knife or gun, or physically pushing people around, would be.

Have you viewed the video of him? He was physically and mentally out of control.

The video of him after being bashed and detained? That's not called "out of control". In the video he is sitting down and answering questions that were being asked. He was a bit fidgety, but not "out of control". He would be "out of control" if he refused to comply with the polices' commands, e.g. running around, pushing people, shouting, trying to escape, or not listening to or answering the police. The video shows no such behaviour.

He was handcuffed or had his hands tied behind his back, but squirming around forcefully and erratically. So, for the physical side of the equation, I should have typed he would’ve been out of control

Ok, a video clearly showing what exactly happened in the struggle would be useful. There have been so many heinous muggings and murders from drugged people the public are stressed when they see a stoned person in weird circumstances.

[hyperdimension]

Have you viewed the video of him? He was physically and mentally out of control.

The video of him after being bashed and detained? That's not called "out of control". In the video he is sitting down and answering questions that were being asked. He was a bit fidgety, but not "out of control". He would be "out of control" if he refused to comply with the polices' commands, e.g. running around, pushing people, shouting, trying to escape, or not listening to or answering the police. The video shows no such behaviour.

He was handcuffed or had his hands tied behind his back, but squirming around forcefully and erratically. So, for the physical side of the equation, I should have typed he would’ve been out of control

When you say "would’ve been out of control" it's just a presumption, and possibly unfounded. We will never really know without clear evidence of what happened before.

There have been so many heinous muggings and murders from drugged people the public are stressed when they see a stoned person in weird circumstances.

I think most would agree that the drug most commonly involved in violent incidents is ethanol ("alcohol"). Maybe the people around had assumed that he was drunk, and therefore dangerous. But if they had known that he instead was high on methamphetamine, would they have thought the same and acted the same? The reality is that different drugs cause different behaviours. Euphoric drugs cause someone to become less violent, as they may be feeling too happy to want to cause harm or damage. But ordinary uninformed people may think differently because of mass media hype, i.e. the media may simple-mindedly protray all illegal drugs as highly dangerous ("Reefer Madness" style), when that is far from the truth.

[hyperdimension]

A stoned man on a motorbike in KFC is "automatically" dangerous!

I do agree that people should not operate a vehicle whilst drunk / stoned / high. That is what he did wrong. Getting bashed, particularly by members of the public, I can't agree on if he did not pose a direct violent threat to them.

I imagine that if he was holding a knife or gun he would not have been bashed, because members of the public would not want to risk getting injured or killed.

I think it is also important to note that even though the main crime that was committed in this case is that he was operating a vehicle whilst mentally affected by a psychoactive substance, I don't think that was the reason for the bashing, nor what it makes this incident a news story. I think the bashing was a "get out, you are not welcome, we don't want you here" action. That has some significant human rights implications, especially if he was not actually threatening anyone, and that is what I wanted to highlight in my posts in this thread.

Also note that the people only had the courage to bash him because he was unarmed.

Edited May 27, 2016 by hyperdimension

[sambum]

A stoned man on a motorbike in KFC is "automatically" dangerous!

I do agree that people should not operate a vehicle whilst drunk / stoned / high. That is what he did wrong. Getting bashed, particularly by members of the public, I can't agree on if he did not pose a direct violent threat to them.

I imagine that if he was holding a knife or gun he would not have been bashed, because members of the public would not want to risk getting injured or killed.

I think it is also important to note that even though the main crime that was committed in this case is that he was operating a vehicle whilst mentally affected by a psychoactive substance, I don't think that was the reason for the bashing, nor what it makes this incident a news story. I think the bashing was a "get out, you are not welcome, we don't want you here" action. That has some significant human rights implications, especially if he was not actually threatening anyone, and that is what I wanted to highlight in my posts in this thread.

Also note that the people only had the courage to bash him because he was unarmed.

"especially if he was not actually threatening anyone,"

B*****t!:-

"Jitana then said he got back on the bike and drove out of the KFC and went to the area of the store where there are banks and shoe shops. Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight."

[sambum]

A stoned man on a motorbike in KFC is "automatically" dangerous!

I do agree that people should not operate a vehicle whilst drunk / stoned / high. That is what he did wrong. Getting bashed, particularly by members of the public, I can't agree on if he did not pose a direct violent threat to them.

I imagine that if he was holding a knife or gun he would not have been bashed, because members of the public would not want to risk getting injured or killed.

I think it is also important to note that even though the main crime that was committed in this case is that he was operating a vehicle whilst mentally affected by a psychoactive substance, I don't think that was the reason for the bashing, nor what it makes this incident a news story. I think the bashing was a "get out, you are not welcome, we don't want you here" action. That has some significant human rights implications, especially if he was not actually threatening anyone, and that is what I wanted to highlight in my posts in this thread.

Also note that the people only had the courage to bash him because he was unarmed.

"get out, you are not welcome, we don't want you here"

And in the UK, if a pub landlord does not want to serve someone, he has the LEGAL right to refuse to serve him/her - without giving a reason.

What kind of "human rights implications" does that have? And before you say "We are not in the UK, we are in Thailand", I think the UK has afar better record on Human Rights than Thailand does!

[sambum]

It’s not normal to be utterly stoned, and riding shirtless (as the Thais object to that) and helmetless in a shopping mall and KFC.

Yes, it's not normal, but is it illegal? It does warrant a request by a security guard to drive back outside but may not warrant public detainment and bashing.

"What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there?

That's a different situation. He should be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave). At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene.

In this case there was no clear sign of danger with his use of the motorcycle if he was stationary most of the time before the bashing. I think most of the people there would have been watching and would know to avoid him if he did drive near them.

Once again - B*****T! If he'd run into a toddler he should NOT "be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave)"

So what would the security guard tell the police when they asked for the whereabouts of this stoned motorcyclist who drove his bike into KFC and knocked over a toddler?

​"Sorry, Sir, I don't know, I continually asked him to leave and escorted him from the building"

He'd be be locked up himself for aiding and abetting!

In fact, 99% of what you are saying regarding this matter is garbage - "if he was stationary most of the time before the bashing................avoid him if he did drive near them"

I feel inclined to think that you are on some kind of recreational drugs yourself as you write these posts because in my opinion you are spouting totally illogical drivel in defence of an out of control drug user who could have killed somebody, and was certainly fortunate not to have had an accident of some description.

In fact, is there some significance in your avatar? Which dimension are you on Hyperdimension?

Edited May 27, 2016 by sambum

[Cook my sock]

Came in thinking he was a streetwise mega box and went out as a snack box all stars

[hyperdimension]

"especially if he was not actually threatening anyone,"

B*****t!:-

"Jitana then said he got back on the bike and drove out of the KFC and went to the area of the store where there are banks and shoe shops. Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight."

Just about anyone would "start to fight" if a bunch of people tried to grab him or her. i.e. some struggle. But before that happened, is there evidence that he was threatening anyone, e.g. did he say "I'm going to kill all of you!", or "give me all of your money or else!"? Was he holding a knife or gun?

So he did leave the KFC to go on his way but was chased and then bashed... for exactly what reason? Did he refuse to pay for some chicken?

Edited May 28, 2016 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

"get out, you are not welcome, we don't want you here"

And in the UK, if a pub landlord does not want to serve someone, he has the LEGAL right to refuse to serve him/her - without giving a reason.

What kind of "human rights implications" does that have? And before you say "We are not in the UK, we are in Thailand", I think the UK has afar better record on Human Rights than Thailand does!

It wasn't about not getting served that I said is the problem. It's getting bashed, particularly by members of the public, for little reason (other than maybe appearance) that is not right.

[hyperdimension]

"What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there?

That's a different situation. He should be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave). At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene.

In this case there was no clear sign of danger with his use of the motorcycle if he was stationary most of the time before the bashing. I think most of the people there would have been watching and would know to avoid him if he did drive near them.

Once again - B*****T! If he'd run into a toddler he should NOT "be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave)"

I didn't say that he should be escorted after hitting a toddler. I meant before any such incident. That's why I wrote "At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene", so that such an incident would not eventuate. The guard should also call for backup so a group of guards can escort him wherever he goes (whilst continuing to ask him to get out) and at any opportune moment detain him if required.

[sambum]

"especially if he was not actually threatening anyone,"

B*****t!:-

"Jitana then said he got back on the bike and drove out of the KFC and went to the area of the store where there are banks and shoe shops. Security and members of the public tried to grab him but he started to fight."

Just about anyone would "start to fight" if a bunch of people tried to grab him or her. i.e. some struggle. But before that happened, is there evidence that he was threatening anyone, e.g. did he say "I'm going to kill all of you!", or "give me all of your money or else!"? Was he holding a knife or gun?

So he did leave the KFC to go on his way but was chased and then bashed... for exactly what reason? Did he refuse to pay for some chicken?

How many times do you have to be told?

[sambum]

"What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there?

That's a different situation. He should be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave). At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene.

In this case there was no clear sign of danger with his use of the motorcycle if he was stationary most of the time before the bashing. I think most of the people there would have been watching and would know to avoid him if he did drive near them.

Once again - B*****T! If he'd run into a toddler he should NOT "be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave)"

I didn't say that he should be escorted after hitting a toddler. I meant before any such incident. That's why I wrote "At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene", so that such an incident would not eventuate. The guard should also call for backup so a group of guards can escort him wherever he goes (whilst continuing to ask him to get out) and at any opportune moment detain him if required.

You lie like a cheap Japanese watch! :-

Your statement above:-" I didn't say that he should be escorted after hitting a toddler. I meant before any such incident."

The Question from Siamwhiteelephant was :- "What if he’d ridden into a running toddler in the mall?" There would be an outcry then, about nobody stopping him riding, wouldn’t there?

Your Answer:- "That's a different situation. He should be escorted by a security guard (who would continually ask him to leave). At any sign of potential danger the security guard should then intervene."

At this stage, I suspect that you are actually being a troll, and deliberately trying to inflame the situation.

Edited May 28, 2016 by sambum