One charged, one sought in Pattaya molestation caught on video case

[Chris Lawrence]

11 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

They are as guilty as the two that raped the unconscious women. They did nothing to prevent it. Most posters here on TV sound as they don't have daughters, wives or girlfriends?

[sambum]

6 hours ago, gjoo888 said:

True, but it doesn't make them any less guilty. If they're dumb enough to post the video on social media, they deserve to get caught, and whoever filmed and posted the video sure didn't do anything to help the girl. 

Any less guilty of WHAT? Letting lots of people know what kind of low lifes there are in Pattaya? :-

 

"He said he was shocked to find out that he had been videoed and apologized to society for damaging the image of Pattaya. He said that he was very drunk."

 

What about apologising to the girl? And once again the ages old excuse:-  "He said that he was very drunk."

 

Oh, that's all right, then - he obviously doesn't need punishment, he needs help - I'm sure that a few fathers or husbands would like to give him all the help he needs!

Edited April 22, 2017 by sambum

[ljd1308]

14 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

What about the girl? He also posted her online, I don't think she would be too happy about it.

 

I don't think the problem was with taking the film(although what sort of person films that and doesn't do anything?), I think it is more about posting it publicly rather than handing it in.

[cheapcanuck]

13 hours ago, joepattaya1961 said:

Why is his face blurred? He is 26 yes?

Ah ok......he was acting like a 15 year old testoserone-bomb, sorry!

Publication can be sued...until the purp is found guilty.

[Eli1]

15 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

The mentality of the Thai police you are absolutely right this would have gone unnoticed if it wasn't posted by that person that videoed the incident you wonder what's inside the head of the police that make these comments.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Eli1

[Eli1]

5 hours ago, hotchilli said:

I guess if the persons responsible for videoing the act were actually trying to get the perpetrators caught they could have handed the evidence directly to the police first rather than posting it on social media where it would just attract a different kind of attention before bringing any justice to the case.

Give the police the benefit of the doubt first, if all else fails then go ahead & post it to a wider audience.

And how good is that we all love dumb people my good man especially ones that post things on social media.

Because if they didn't then thry would never be caught.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Eli1

[Jing Joe]

Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. 

 

On face value of the above statement it appears the police being obliged to abide by the law to its full extent BUT;-

A ray of hope hinges on the potential looseness of the word "intend".

 "The Lord Law works in mysterious ways"   might just conveniently see a way out for the poster with a warning.    Maybe at a price?

Or is this just my being too naive?

 

If prosecution eventuates, pity help any future victims or their would be video do-good bystanders,  unless of course one and all learn to provide the footage only to the police and not the internet.  

But providing the police first opens up a can of worms scenario of them not taking any action.

 

Posting stuff on social media has become a way of life but there's a new pitfall now BUT

Q    ---  Will the Thai public get to know it?

Q    --   Will the followup on this particular Computer Crimes Act ever surface for us to read?

      And if the prosecuted is fined they'd be too scared to show that on social media.

 

[diehard60]

isn't pataya just wonderful?

[foxteen]

19 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

They are Thais...don't forget. How dare you exposed Thais doing hand manoeuvring

[jacko45k]

18 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Apparently that's the idea.

 

Making public anything that forces the police to do their actual job, while also showing what actually goes on here, apparently is considered a crime against society. Reputation to protect and all....

Had the video been delivered privately to the police, I would have expected a shrug of the shoulders and of course no further action. The person taking the video cannot lodge any complaint.

Mind you, they may have given him a warning not to post it anywhere.

Edited April 22, 2017 by jacko45k

[steven100]

19 hours ago, rooster59 said:

apologized to society for damaging the image of Pattaya. He said that he was very drunk.

so from now on ....    if anyone ever has an issue with the LAW ....   just plead drunk & sorry and you'll be forgiven ....

[jhonnie]

15 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Words fail me here sometimes.  

 

Authorities encourage people to film or picture motorcycle riders who are riding on the pavement, use a dashcam when driving, but don't film scummy locals molesting unconscious girls. 

 

Why not just change the girl as well? Clearly if she hadn't been unconscious these men wouldn't have done this and the police wouldn't have to do their job. 

no mention of fining the club who continued to serve her drinks  whilst obviously intoxicated, maybe no CCTV of that one 

[steven100]

21 minutes ago, jhonnie said:

no mention of fining the club who continued to serve her drinks  whilst obviously intoxicated, maybe no CCTV of that one 

come on Jhonnie .....  you know it doesn't work like that here ....   this is thailand 

[joepattaya1961]

16 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Words fail me here sometimes.  

 

Authorities encourage people to film or picture motorcycle riders who are riding on the pavement, use a dashcam when driving, but don't film scummy locals molesting unconscious girls. 

 

Why not just change the girl as well? Clearly if she hadn't been unconscious these men wouldn't have done this and the police wouldn't have to do their job. 

Just one word in your post justifies the authorities response: "locals".

If it was a foreigner he would have been nailed down with clear pictures and loads of police officers would have pointed at the girl's genitals. 

 

[kiwikeith]

21 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

 

One of the most stupid things I have heard the BIB say.

Maybe someone high up not happy about the posting?

 

Have police forgotten how much CCTV helps them, maybe that should be banned as well.

[Ross Macdonald]

The crime was posting the video (of a sexual offence) online not recording it.
The person who recorded the video of the crime should have simply informed the police and not posted it online.

The problem here is that the police only knew of the crime because it was posted online, so the police are not at fault here.

[onemorechang]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

so from now on ....    if anyone ever has an issue with the LAW ....   just plead drunk & sorry and you'll be forgiven ....

Only works if your Thai

[tandor]

21 hours ago, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

..should have taken the clip to Police first if he felt so strongly about what he was seeing.

Edited April 23, 2017 by tandor
first post was not correct

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Had the video been delivered privately to the police, I would have expected a shrug of the shoulders and of course no further action. The person taking the video cannot lodge any complaint.

  

 

That's why members of the public here often post things online on Facebook and similar, because it's often the ONLY way (via resulting public pressure/shaming) that forces the authorities to actually respond.

Edited April 23, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[DILLIGAD]

Had the video been delivered privately to the police, I would have expected a shrug of the shoulders and of course no further action. The person taking the video cannot lodge any complaint.
Mind you, they may have given him a warning not to post it anywhere.

Very true. Yet another example of the failing RTP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krataiboy]

he . . . apologized to society for damaging the image of Pattaya

 

Now that's what I call Mission Impossible.

[sambum]

7 hours ago, Ross Macdonald said:

The crime was posting the video (of a sexual offence) online not recording it.
The person who recorded the video of the crime should have simply informed the police and not posted it online.

"The problem here is that the police only knew of the crime because it was posted online, so the police are not at fault here."

 

"The problem here is that the police only knew of the crime because it was posted online, so the police are not at fault here."

So are you saying that the police are in a Catch 22 situation? 

As a previous poster said, informing the police would probably have cause a shrug of the shoulders and nothing more. After all, the girl was drunk wasn't she, so it was her own fault, wasn't it? Was she wearing a bikini perhaps?

 

 

 

[HerbalEd]

On 4/22/2017 at 10:14 AM, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

Obtuse much? So it's OK to post a woman getting sexually molested -- for all the world to see??? That's like molesting her again. The videographer should have never filmed the incident, but when he did he should have given the video directly to police. 

[Cleveland]

On 4/22/2017 at 7:36 PM, wavemanwww said:

Am I missing something here? The police arested the guy and are looking for the other devient! So why are all the comments so negative against the police?

Maybe this line is the missing link as to the police negativity:-

 

Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act.

[wavemanwww]

7 hours ago, Cleveland said:

Maybe this line is the missing link as to the police negativity:-

 

Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act.

OK Tks for the feedback

[USPatriot]

On 4/21/2017 at 8:14 PM, falang07 said:

"
Police also intend to prosecute the person or persons who made the video and posted the footage on the internet under the Computer Crimes Act. "

 

What???? Had they not posted this, no one whould have ever known!!!

That never went to the police so it could be used as evidence. Just another moron shooting video and not helping. I remember comments about people taking video of the Burning tour bus while people died inside. Imho it is the same act

[mrwebb8825]

Perhaps the police are upset that their new "Happy Zone" was misinterpreted.