Pattaya: Brutal farang vs farang road rage assault caught on camera

[JamJar]

12 minutes ago, tropo said:

You're twisting it again. My opinion is that violence is a possible outcome for anyone who remonstrates as the victim did.  

 

 

 

Didn't I mention backpedalling...

 

You blamed the victim instead of the person who actually attacked him.

 

Now you are backpedalling by saying that it was a possible outcome....when you were previously stating that it was a fait accompli.

 

We know that everyone is responsible for their own behaviour and remonstrating with someone is not unreasonable behaviour...whatever you might think. 

 

Let's recap on some of what you have written;

 

Quote

 

The victim's fault here. There's no point aggressively approaching a car to complain about something that has already happened unless he's confident he can defend himself and/or back it up with some firepower. He's lucky the driver wasn't Thai.

 

Whether the violence was justified or not (do you know what he actually said to the driver) is not the issue here. The point is that the violence should have been anticipated and could have been avoided.

 

 

 

Amongst your suggestions were that the older dude should only have approached the car if he was a trained fighter. 

Apparently, people who cannot fight should not stand up for their family.

 

We don't need to agree, we already made our opinions clear.

[tropo]

23 minutes ago, JamJar said:

 

 

Perhaps you have problems with your comprehension. One man making unpleasant comments to a girl to whom I was talking. I was not remonstrating with anyone.

I asked his steroid fuelled friend to take him away, but instead of doing so, he pretended that he could not hear me. Whilst this was going on, the protagonist came up behind me to attack me. 

So not a situation were I was remonstrating with anyone.

 

As to hothead...I don't think anyone reading our posts would describe ME as the hothead.

 

Whereas you keep banging on trying to convince us that violence is the normal way. Give it a rest my friend, we've made our opinions clear.

 

 

 

 

 

Who is this "we", "our" and "us" you refer to? I'm only hearing from you. Now you have an imaginary crowd cheering you on?

 

It's quite clear nothing can convince you of anything, as you're only trying to win a senseless argument. As I have time to kill, I'll consider it entertainment and take it as far as you like.

 

Your quaint story about some past incident had no bearing on anything we were discussing. It was merely noise. What's the point of story-telling and using those stories as evidence to prove a point? Anyone can make up any stories they like here. 

 

I'm ready to stop when you are...

 

 

 

 

[JamJar]

22 minutes ago, tropo said:

Who is this "<snip>..

 

 

 

 

You can yabber on as much as you like. The points have already been made. 

 

As you state, the rest is just noise....

[tropo]

45 minutes ago, JamJar said:

Didn't I mention backpedalling...

 

You blamed the victim instead of the person who actually attacked him.

 

Now you are backpedalling by saying that it was a possible outcome....when you were previously stating that it was a fait accompli.

 

We know that everyone is responsible for their own behaviour and remonstrating with someone is not unreasonable behaviour...whatever you might think. 

 

Let's recap on some of what you have written;

 

 

 

Amongst your suggestions were that the older dude should only have approached the car if he was a trained fighter. 

Apparently, people who cannot fight should not stand up for their family.

 

We don't need to agree, we already made our opinions clear.

 

1. "Didn't I mention backpedalling... You blamed the victim instead of the person who actually attacked him."

 

You most certainly did mention backpedalling. It's your favourite word.

Of course, the victim is to blame. Had he not approached the car he would not have been physically attacked.

Being knocked out was a consequence of his actions. That was a risk he was willing to take, and it ended up badly for him.

As you seem totally incapable of understanding this, allow me to make an illustration....
If you grabbed a hot pot and burned your hand, who's to blame? You or the pot?

2. "Now you are backpedalling by saying that it was a possible outcome....when you were previously stating that it was a fait accompli."

And twisting it around yet again...
 Now you want to make an argument about how likely I think a violent reaction is in such circumstances. "possibly", "likely", use any adverbs or adjectives you like... 10%, 20%, 50%, 80% chance? Does it matter? It is always going to be a possibility and sensible people will know that. Incidentally, my "the victim's fault" post was well liked, so perhaps I should be using "us", "our" and "we".

I was rather clear about not wanting to go into a discussion about whether the violence was justified or not.

I finished with "The point is that the violence should have been anticipated and could have been avoided".

Obviously, you confused "anticipated" with "inevitable".

3. "Amongst your suggestions were that the older dude should only have approached the car if he was a trained fighter. Apparently, people who cannot fight should not stand up for their family"

You got that part right... people who cannot fight, and/or protect themselves should most definitely not start remonstrating in someone's face, no matter how justified they feel they are.
 
 
 

[JamJar]

2 hours ago, tropo said:

1. "Didn't I mention backpedalling... You blamed the victim instead of the person who actually attacked him."

 

You most certainly did mention backpedalling. It's your favourite word.

 
 

 

You can have the last word and I'll walk away....mainly because I am bored. But not so bored that I actually bother to read what you write.

Edited April 22, 2017 by JamJar

[balo]

no no no , Tropo will have the last word , and he should beacuse he is right. 

[Rimmer]

Thanks guys for an interesting read, as its starting to get heated and personal can we leave it there please

[rogeroc]

On 4/18/2017 at 2:25 PM, tropo said:

You'd have to leave that up to the judge. It would be taken into consideration in a defence. 

 

I know one thing for sure, if you go around insulting and/or screaming profanities at people in Thailand, a spanking is soon to follow.

This is Post 237 Tropo and your answer in respone to a question being asked if a verbal remonstration deserves a physical attack..

 

You have relentlessly defended your comments in the thread but you are showing bias in defence of the aggressor. As a simple example you have no idea that the victim was even being insulting or screaming profanties. However you are now getting upset when you are taken to task on your apparent bias.

 

I don't understand why you and others go on and on warning that remonstrating is potentially more dangerous than walking away  We all know that of course but it does not necessarily mean that is always the reality or right thing to do.

 

I know nothing of Thai law but if this were in the UK i doubt that a lawyer would attempt to use the argument  of verbal abuse in the aggressor's defence , that defence would carry no sympathy .

 

[rogeroc]

11 hours ago, balo said:

no no no , Tropo will have the last word , and he should beacuse he is right. 

I disagree with you and have explained my reasons why. There is not a shadow of doubt that the physical assault was un-necessary and even a mild form of defence of the aggressor (esspecially when the actions of the victim are being overstated) is appropriate.

[onemorechang]

This thread,   is starting to remind me of the this hard guy.

HOO-HA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKdU32ZEndc

 

[tropo]

2 hours ago, rogeroc said:

This is Post 237 Tropo and your answer in respone to a question being asked if a verbal remonstration deserves a physical attack..

 

You have relentlessly defended your comments in the thread but you are showing bias in defence of the aggressor. As a simple example you have no idea that the victim was even being insulting or screaming profanties. However you are now getting upset when you are taken to task on your apparent bias.

 

I don't understand why you and others go on and on warning that remonstrating is potentially more dangerous than walking away  We all know that of course but it does not necessarily mean that is always the reality or right thing to do.

 

I know nothing of Thai law but if this were in the UK i doubt that a lawyer would attempt to use the argument  of verbal abuse in the aggressor's defence , that defence would carry no sympathy .

 

 

 

 

 

Oh no, now you've come to rekindle an endless debate I was having with JamJar.

 

Judging on what you've offered here, there's no need to continue. I can see you're a virtual carbon copy of JamJar, saying exactly the same things and of course my answers will be the same.

 

However, let's keep this on topic and not discuss morality issues of what you personally think is right and wrong. I don't really need you preaching to me.

 

Let's stick with the facts of THIS incident.

 

Perhaps your eyesight is not good. Watch the video again. The victim was clearly very aggressive in his approach to the car. This is what I see:

 

1. The victim walks up to the car at a fast pace.

2. The two guys were talking heatedly for a moment.

3. The driver went to sit down. He was done and ready to leave.

4. The victim shoved his right arm at the car door.

5. The driver got out.

6. The driver shoved the victim who shoved back.

7. The victim squared off in a fighting stance.

8. The driver obliged and knocked him out.

 

If the victim was a good fighter it could have gone the other way.

 

They were fighting but the victim was too slow and lost. The driver tried to leave, but the victim had to have the last word. The victim's right arm shove towards the door was a bit feeble, but it was still an attack. It was an invitation to fight.

 

Boo hoo!

 

Now everyone feels sorry for the guy who lost a fight.

 

You want to see something similar.

 

Mayweather knocks out Victor Ortiz when he wasn't ready.

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by tropo

[rogeroc]

Oh so you do think the victim is in the wrong..Thank you at least for proving my point. You have shown your true colours now.

I just i hope i never meet you and say something that upsets you, i will obviously be in for some GBH. Because that would be quite OK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by rogeroc

[hobz]

Did you guys read the title? Two road raging farangs met each other, one beat the other. End of story. Lol.

 

I blame the traffic police as responsible for the road climate that leads to excessive road rage in any person with a tendency to try to uphold whats right from wrong...basically any god fearing man. Lol. I really shouldnt be allowed to post this late.

Edited April 23, 2017 by hobz

[tropo]

3 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

Oh so you do think the victim is in the wrong..Thank you at least for proving my point. You have shown your true colours now.

I just i hope i never meet you and say something that upsets you, i will obviously be in for some GBH. Because that would be quite OK

 

3

Of course he was wrong. He started being wrong from the moment he started his tirade. He made quite a number of mistakes leading up to the money shot. Protect yourself at all times when you square up to fight. He made exactly the same mistake as Victor Ortiz made in his fight with Mayweather.

 

If you're as naive and overconfident as the victim here, you won't need any help from me to get GBH. Just aggressively remonstrate to the wrong person, and you'll have your wish.

 

 

[tropo]

6 minutes ago, hobz said:

Did you guys read the title? Two road raging farangs met each other, one beat the other. End of story. Lol.

 

I blame the traffic police as responsible for the road climate that leads to excessive road rage in any person with a tendency to try to uphold whats right from wrong...basically any god fearing man. Lol. I really shouldnt be allowed to post this late.

 

This was in the middle of Songkran madness in Pattaya. There is no police control.

[rogeroc]

3 hours ago, onemorechang said:

This thread,   is starting to remind me of the this hard guy.

HOO-HA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKdU32ZEndc

 

You really think the victim acted like that?

 

Or what? 

 

Come on tell me, what did he really do to deserve a beating like that, don't make jokes of it, say what you really think he did to deserve that.

[rogeroc]

18 minutes ago, tropo said:

Of course he was wrong. He started being wrong from the moment he started his tirade. He made quite a number of mistakes leading up to the money shot. Protect yourself at all times when you square up to fight. He made exactly the same mistake as Victor Ortiz made in his fight with Mayweather.

 

If you're as naive and overconfident as the victim here, you won't need any help from me to get GBH. Just aggressively remonstrate to the wrong person, and you'll have your wish.

 

 

Maybe he was rightfully angry and wanted to express, be that sensible or not. . So tell me do you really think that beating was justified from what you have seen on the video. Be honest.

Edited April 23, 2017 by rogeroc

[hobz]

40 minutes ago, tropo said:

This was in the middle of Songkran madness in Pattaya. There is no police control.

Still the traffic police's fault. Their job is to work year round to educate and fine the offenders, and take the licenses away from repeat offenders, they have neglected this for decades, that's why thailand is one of the worst and most dangerous places to drive in the world. And thats probably why this assault happened. 

[KhonKaenKowboy]

8 minutes ago, hobz said:

Still the traffic police's fault. Their job is to work year round to educate and fine the offenders, and take the licenses away from repeat offenders, they have neglected this for decades, that's why thailand is one of the worst and most dangerous places to drive in the world. And thats probably why this assault happened. 

Should they be blamed for alcohol abuse, too?  And KFC made illegal to fight obesity?  I smell a nanny state resident, I think.

[tropo]

42 minutes ago, rogeroc said:

Maybe he was rightfully angry and wanted to express, be that sensible or not. . So tell me do you really think that beating was justified from what you have seen on the video. Be honest.

 

Honesty? LOL> I thought I was being honest all along. He obviously squared up for a fight and was beaten. He provoked the driver who was ready to drive away. Is it wrong to be beaten in a fight? You tell me.

 

As I said, it could have easily have gone the other way. 

 

 

 

 

[hobz]

1 hour ago, KhonKaenKowboy said:

Should they be blamed for alcohol abuse, too?  And KFC made illegal to fight obesity?  I smell a nanny state resident, I think.

Yes, they should be blamed for alcohol abuse as well. But to a much much much lesser degree ofcourse.

However, in the game of ROAD rage, the TRAFFIC police is a significant player. Or more like a lacking player. You catch my drift.

 

KFC, illegal? No, but maybe maybe maybe taxed, haven't really looked into it.

 

Nanny state resident... Hmm, are you saying that nannys are bad? I enjoy a good nanny, who doesnt? Are you some kind of angry wolf that has to kill everything in its path including nannies and babies? Who doesnt like nannies? Seriously?

 

[onemorechang]

4 hours ago, rogeroc said:

You really think the victim acted like that?

 

Or what? 

 

Come on tell me, what did he really do to deserve a beating like that, don't make jokes of it, say what you really think he did to deserve that.

Go back and read my posts,   its all there.

 

I can make jokes about what i like .

You dont make the rules here.

 

But i must admit ,  i do like to make jokes about jokers in pattaya,

there is no shortage of materiel. 

 

Anyway,   a happy Songkrain was had by all.

Well almost,

I look forward to next years exciting adventures of

jokers,     having a lark around town.

 

Hope the old aggressor guy has recovered.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by onemorechang

[alfieconn]

The Moral of the story is, don't confront someone unless your prepared to have a fight !

[KhonKaenKowboy]

10 hours ago, hobz said:

Yes, they should be blamed for alcohol abuse as well. But to a much much much lesser degree ofcourse.

However, in the game of ROAD rage, the TRAFFIC police is a significant player. Or more like a lacking player. You catch my drift.

 

KFC, illegal? No, but maybe maybe maybe taxed, haven't really looked into it.

 

Nanny state resident... Hmm, are you saying that nannys are bad? I enjoy a good nanny, who doesnt? Are you some kind of angry wolf that has to kill everything in its path including nannies and babies? Who doesnt like nannies? Seriously?

 

I would actually like to see people take responsibility for their own actions as opposed to paying sky high taxes for others' malfeasance.  People lose money betting on EPL.....ban it.  People run up credit card debt at shopping malls...outlaw them.  BTW, you could go to YouTube and find roadrage videos from even the biggest nanny states.

[ttrd]

15 hours ago, tropo said:

Of course he was wrong. He started being wrong from the moment he started his tirade. He made quite a number of mistakes leading up to the money shot. Protect yourself at all times when you square up to fight. He made exactly the same mistake as Victor Ortiz made in his fight with Mayweather.

 

If you're as naive and overconfident as the victim here, you won't need any help from me to get GBH. Just aggressively remonstrate to the wrong person, and you'll have your wish.

 

 

It doesnt matter how we see it or how the situation actually started. There are no laws what so ever that will support a knock down as a solution for such a situation in the entire world. 

 

In this situation where one party was on his way away from the situation, then the knock down is not even close to be consider as a defence, but rather an attack   - case closed - Next.....;) 

[onemorechang]

2 hours ago, ttrd said:

It doesnt matter how we see it or how the situation actually started. There are no laws what so ever that will support a knock down as a solution for such a situation in the entire world. 

 

I doubt that statement is true.

[tropo]

4 hours ago, ttrd said:

It doesnt matter how we see it or how the situation actually started. There are no laws what so ever that will support a knock down as a solution for such a situation in the entire world. 

 

In this situation where one party was on his way away from the situation, then the knock down is not even close to be consider as a defence, but rather an attack   - case closed - Next.....;) 

 

Before you comment you really should watch the video.

 

The fat guy didn't walk away. Before he was knocked out he was the aggressor. Too bad he didn't know how to fight. If he did, not so many people would be feeling sorry for him.

 

We have no idea what happened after the police arrived.

 

This was not an unprovoked attack.

[tropo]

2 hours ago, onemorechang said:

I doubt that statement is true.

I'm sure he is wrong.

 

If the police press charges, this will likely be settled by negotiation in front of a mediator.

 

If the police don't press charges, then the victim will need to spend a lot of money to take this to a criminal court. 60k minimum lawyers fees, with no guarantee of success. Both defendant and plaintiff will be shelling out at least 120k in legal expenses (good lawyers will charge much more). I doubt he would start that process. During a mediation session, the aggressive behaviour of the fat guy will be called into question. Both have a level of guilt. This was not an unprovoked attack.

 

When foreigners are involved, the court pushes very hard to settle without criminal charges being laid.

 

How do I know this? LOL> a couple of weeks ago I spent 6 hours in a mediation room at the provincial court. The court appointed a senior judge that speaks English to mediate. He wouldn't take no for an answer. He even started shouting at the Thai plaintiff. Charges were eventually dropped, but it took all day. No details will be offered, but I do have a clue how it works.

 

[onemorechang]

The Police may view this as two Falangs fighting and may well fine

them both.  regardless of one getting knocked out.

Who knows.

It was just one more happy Songkrain day in Pattaya for all the family.

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by onemorechang

[ttrd]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

I'm sure he is wrong.

 

If the police press charges, this will likely be settled by negotiation in front of a mediator.

 

If the police don't press charges, then the victim will need to spend a lot of money to take this to a criminal court. 60k minimum lawyers fees, with no guarantee of success. Both defendant and plaintiff will be shelling out at least 120k in legal expenses (good lawyers will charge much more). I doubt he would start that process. During a mediation session, the aggressive behaviour of the fat guy will be called into question. Both have a level of guilt. This was not an unprovoked attack.

 

When foreigners are involved, the court pushes very hard to settle without criminal charges being laid.

 

How do I know this? LOL> a couple of weeks ago I spent 6 hours in a mediation room at the provincial court. The court appointed a senior judge that speaks English to mediate. He wouldn't take no for an answer. He even started shouting at the Thai plaintiff. Charges were eventually dropped, but it took all day. No details will be offered, but I do have a clue how it works.

 

Pls read my post again - I mentioned the Law, not the system responsible for enforcing them - A small but significant difference...;)