Bangkok cabbie done after putting hand on passenger's leg and suggesting sex

[D3030]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

[Bluespunk]

ah, there you are, been expecting you.

Pity you didn't prepare an answer then.

[Bluespunk]

Lady going from suk soi 11 to on nut in the early hours of the morning....obviously a nurse or social worker.

Why is the victim of this assault's profession relevant?

What assault?

Unwanted touching with a sexual intent is assault.

[Bluespunk]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

Look up the definition of assault... I could ne

Plus, she apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Unwanted touching with a sexual intent is assault.

[Bluespunk]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

See above.

And above that.

[sambum]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

He assaulted her by touching her without her consent!

Who, apart from yourself has mentioned putting his hand up her skirt, touching her in the private area, or sexual assault? Nobody!

And then you try to excuse yourself by saying that he was totally in the wrong and should be fired!

Unbelievable!

[D3030]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

He assaulted her by touching her without her consent!

Who, apart from yourself has mentioned putting his hand up her skirt, touching her in the private area, or sexual assault? Nobody!

And then you try to excuse yourself by saying that he was totally in the wrong and should be fired!

Unbelievable!

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

Anyway..

[D3030]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

He assaulted her by touching her without her consent!

Who, apart from yourself has mentioned putting his hand up her skirt, touching her in the private area, or sexual assault? Nobody!

And then you try to excuse yourself by saying that he was totally in the wrong and should be fired!

Unbelievable!

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

The firing point and not excusing my opinion that "this is in no away an assault case"..

Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company..

[sambum]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

Wrong. We know exactly what he did in that car. He laid his hands on someone who had not given him permission to do so.

That is assault.

He made unwanted advances and offered drugs for sex rather than do his <deleted> job which is drive his car where the passenger, no matter where he picked them up from, wanted to go.

His job isn't to make crass assumptions about the profession of those he picks up based on location, it's to drive his cab. That's it.

He didn't hit her, so it wasn't an assault..

He didn't put his hand up her skirt and touch her in the private area.

She apparently never told him, or pushed his hand off her leg..

Can't see that being a sexual assault..

Anyway..

The cab driver was totally in the wrong, and should be fired, if he worked for a cab company..

But, independent taxi driver/owner, will most likely not fire themselves..

He assaulted her by touching her without her consent!

Who, apart from yourself has mentioned putting his hand up her skirt, touching her in the private area, or sexual assault? Nobody!

And then you try to excuse yourself by saying that he was totally in the wrong and should be fired!

Unbelievable!

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

The firing point and not excusing my opinion that "this is in no away an assault case"..

Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company..

I'm sorry you are making me dizzy with all these circles you are going in!

[sambum]

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

The firing point and not excusing my opinion that "this is in no away an assault case"..

Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company..

I'm sorry you are making me dizzy with all these circles you are going in!:-

"Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

So, the way that I read what you are saying (I think!) is this:-

The punishment should be the same, whether the offence was committed by a cab company driver, or an independent driver, which in this case should be a fine.

So please explain why you then say:- "Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

You have already said that whether he was an independent driver or a cab company the punishment should be a fine, yet you then say that he should be fired if he worked for a cab company!

[D3030]

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

The firing point and not excusing my opinion that "this is in no away an assault case"..

Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company..

I'm sorry you are making me dizzy with all these circles you are going in!:-

"Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

So, the way that I read what you are saying (I think!) is this:-

The punishment should be the same, whether the offence was committed by a cab company driver, or an independent driver, which in this case should be a fine.

So please explain why you then say:- "Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

You have already said that whether he was an independent driver or a cab company the punishment should be a fine, yet you then say that he should be fired if he worked for a cab company!

Normally a company gets fined for the stupid things their employees do...

And the company has the option to fire that employee...

Since this taxi driver is an independent owner/driver.

He was given a fine..

And will eventually be back, driving his taxi again.

And it's still not an assault, to put an unwanted hand on a persons leg..

I'll make other comments, on a new unimportant stories you can disagree with..

So, let's move on to a new story to beat to death.

[Bluespunk]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

[Buzzz]

"The woman in the back of his orange cab, number 5960 was going from Sukhumvit Soi 11 to On Nut Soi 46 in the early hours of the morning."

Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to protect driver's behavior, but...

What he should think about woman who takes taxi next to famous prostitution place early in the morning?

And second strange thing is those pictures. Was she sitting with her mobile "ready-to-take-shots"? Or just allowed him touch her knee long enough to pull out phone and took some pictures?

We will never know what really was happened in that car...

My wife works in a hotel on that soi you qsshole.

The taxis on that Soi are all a bunch of criminals, posing as taxi drivers. 100% of them are scammers. They pay the police and think they own the soi.

For your information, for decades, Thai ladies have been afraid to get into taxies. According to my wife, many are the scum of the earth.

A good idea for the ladies is to;

Never get in a taxi that approaches you.

Never use a taxi with tinted windows or a bunch of weird decorations.

Get out if he is drunk.

Sit directly behind the driver.

Phone somebody and tell them you are in taxi number ####.

Carry protection.

Use the smartphone video like the lady in the OP.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Buzzz

[streetsweeper]

I think that many of the opinion writers are forgetting that the majority of Thais still live in and practice what is quite 3rd world behaviour.

The RTP, junta monkeys and elite cannot be blamed for this.

Even they practice the same 3rd world behaviour.

The ability to serve one's self is very well characterized in Thai "history".

We know who we can blame don't we!

A day will come when this house of guided cards will come tumbling down.

Thailand is soon to enter it's blackest hour of turmoil.

Edited June 30, 2016 by streetsweeper

[sambum]

Was explaining the difference between:

To an unwanted touch on the leg... "Not Assault"

To an unwanted hand up the skirt to her privates.. "Assault"

All she declined was his offer of sex and drugs..

Even if she did tell him to remove his hand from her "leg" -- it's still not assault.

The firing point and not excusing my opinion that "this is in no away an assault case"..

Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company..

I'm sorry you are making me dizzy with all these circles you are going in!:-

"Punishment should be the same for a cab company or an independent driver..

Which would be a fine in this case..

Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

So, the way that I read what you are saying (I think!) is this:-

The punishment should be the same, whether the offence was committed by a cab company driver, or an independent driver, which in this case should be a fine.

So please explain why you then say:- "Hence "should" be fired.. If he worked for a cab company.."

You have already said that whether he was an independent driver or a cab company the punishment should be a fine, yet you then say that he should be fired if he worked for a cab company!

Normally a company gets fined for the stupid things their employees do...

And the company has the option to fire that employee...

Since this taxi driver is an independent owner/driver.

He was given a fine..

And will eventually be back, driving his taxi again.

And it's still not an assault, to put an unwanted hand on a persons leg..

I'll make other comments, on a new unimportant stories you can disagree with..

So, let's move on to a new story to beat to death.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the rights and wrongs of this case, then. but I do agree with your last suggestion!

Edited June 30, 2016 by sambum

[NovaBlue05]

I don't get it....that move always works in porn movies and Penthouse Forum

[D3030]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

[Bluespunk]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

[sambum]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

I've given up on this one Bluespunk - agrees then still disputes the point!

[D3030]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

I've given up on this one Bluespunk - agrees then still disputes the point!

Never agreed it was assault...

If the cab driver gets charged with assault and is convicted of assaulting this woman in a Thai court..

Then I'll agree..

Until then... I'll stick with it was something, other than assault.

[Buzzz]

Never agreed it was assault...

If the cab driver gets charged with assault and is convicted of assaulting this woman in a Thai court..

Then I'll agree..

Until then... I'll stick with it was something, other than assault.

If the lady took out a box cutter and slashed the perv that was grabbing her, would that be assault or self defense?

[D3030]

Never agreed it was assault...

If the cab driver gets charged with assault and is convicted of assaulting this woman in a Thai court..

Then I'll agree..

Until then... I'll stick with it was something, other than assault.

If the lady took out a box cutter and slashed the perv that was grabbing her, would that be assault or self defense?

Attempted murder.. Or murder in this case.. Edited June 30, 2016 by D3030

[D3030]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

Every case like this one.. "putting hand, laying hand; rubbing a woman's leg..

And it was unwanted.

Would not be an automatic assault charge!

I said it was my opinion in this case, and my response was to this one only!

And the Thai police handled it correctly!

Anyway...

Here in/on TV, some people will always disagree on how the Thai authorities handle things..

The same Thai haters, post negative comments about Thailand; The Thai Authorities; and Thai people everyday..

You all imply, and some straight out say, the Thai police are corrupt and incompetent.

So, it's no surprise, that the same Thai haters disagree with the Thai police again..

Not unbelievable..

Predictable!

Edited July 1, 2016 by D3030

[D3030]

Lady going from suk soi 11 to on nut in the early hours of the morning....obviously a nurse or social worker.

Why is the victim of this assault's profession relevant?

[Bluespunk]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

Every case like this one.. "putting hand, laying hand; rubbing a woman's leg..

And it was unwanted.

Would not be an automatic assault charge!

I said it was my opinion in this case, and my response was to this one only!

And the Thai police handled it correctly!

Anyway...

Here in/on TV, some people will always disagree on how the Thai authorities handle things..

The same Thai haters, post negative comments about Thailand; The Thai Authorities; and Thai people everyday..

You all imply, and some straight out say, the Thai police are corrupt and incompetent.

So, it's no surprise, that the same Thai haters disagree with the Thai police again..

Not unbelievable..

Predictable!

Unless the scumbag, who assaulted this woman and offered drugs for unwanted sexual advances, is banned from driving for life and is now facing charges, the case has not been handled properly.

Unwanted touching with a sexual intent is assault.

And please, just because I see your view and defence of this piece of faeces as being wrong, don't roll out the thai basher BS with me.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bluespunk

[D3030]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

Every case like this one.. "putting hand, laying hand; rubbing a woman's leg..

And it was unwanted.

Would not be an automatic assault charge!

I said it was my opinion in this case, and my response was to this one only!

And the Thai police handled it correctly!

Anyway...

Here in/on TV, some people will always disagree on how the Thai authorities handle things..

The same Thai haters, post negative comments about Thailand; The Thai Authorities; and Thai people everyday..

You all imply, and some straight out say, the Thai police are corrupt and incompetent.

So, it's no surprise, that the same Thai haters disagree with the Thai police again..

Not unbelievable..

Predictable!

Unless the scumbag, who assaulted this woman and offered drugs for unwanted sexual advances, is banned from driving for life and is now facing charges, the case has not been handled properly.

Unwanted touching with a sexual intent is assault.

And please, just because I see your view and defence of this piece of faeces as being wrong, don't roll out the thai basher BS with me.

I'm defending this guy..

There was no intent.. W thought or a question fir

[D3030]

Touching someone without their consent with a sexual intent is assault.

True...

But there was no attempt...

Asking for sex is a question..

The touching makes it assault.

Every case like this one.. "putting hand, laying hand; rubbing a woman's leg..

And it was unwanted.

Would not be an automatic assault charge!

I said it was my opinion in this case, and my response was to this one only!

And the Thai police handled it correctly!

Anyway...

Here in/on TV, some people will always disagree on how the Thai authorities handle things..

The same Thai haters, post negative comments about Thailand; The Thai Authorities; and Thai people everyday..

You all imply, and some straight out say, the Thai police are corrupt and incompetent.

So, it's no surprise, that the same Thai haters disagree with the Thai police again..

Not unbelievable..

Predictable!

Unless the scumbag, who assaulted this woman and offered drugs for unwanted sexual advances, is banned from driving for life and is now facing charges, the case has not been handled properly.

Unwanted touching with a sexual intent is assault.

And please, just because I see your view and defence of this piece of faeces as being wrong, don't roll out the thai basher BS with me.

I'm "NOT" defending this guy..

And..

There was no intent!!

He asked, she said no..

So, touching her leg is more of a sexual harassment case..

Thai bashing..

That's your opinion, that the Thai police didn't charge this guy with assault or do their job to your expectations!

Many Thai bashers, do make it their job to repeat over and over, that the Thai police got it wrong..

This taxi BS..

It makes no sense, to bash the police on this nonsense..

This woman, posted her taxi story on FB..

The Thai police decided to go after this guy!!

So why be so negative, with the decision of a fine and suspension, the Thai police gave this guy?

Sounds like they were being proactive to protect and serve, and they still get dumped on, by the same farangs living in Thailand.

Edited July 1, 2016 by D3030

[yennhikorea]

Creative. I think Prayuth can be proud!

[Bluespunk]

@"D3030

Unwanted/uninvited touching with sexual intent is assault.

To say this scumbags actions were anything less than assault is to defend them.

He also compounded his sexual harassment by offering illegal drugs.

He should be banned from cab driving for life as he is clearly a danger to women.

He should stand trial for offering to trade in drugs.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Bluespunk

[streetsweeper]

It is unfortunate that the passenger hadn't had a machete ready as well as the camera and when touched on the leg simply hacked the cabbies hand off at the wrist.

Sounds a tough penalty for being wayward but would send the necessary message.