Jump to content

Murder! Police charge driver who went the wrong way and killed baby


webfact

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

Did I not read on here the other day it was safer driving local than in the states

 

He must have been smoking something to say that.

 

The worst roads in the world and now you can see why.

 

PS Libya is at war and AK 47's do the killing there.

It must be from a Thai Newspaper,  government officials like in China the best, the inventor, call the " Art of War "  one technique is when you are caught in the act just with a straight face say it isn't so ( a little white lie doesn't hurt anyone ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, Thian said:

Good news, so now the police has a lot to do since i see those murderers on EVERY road in BKK.

 

My Thai friend drove his big bike into a motocy taxi who was going against traffic, he spent 3 months in hospital and almost was dead. 

 

Who paid the bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, trogers said:

The act of driving on the wrong side of the road and speeding in the fast lane shows intent.

 

Most seen driving on the wrong side of the road keep close to the road shoulder.

Intent to drive on the wrong side of the road does not mean he acted in cold blooded pre determined intent to murder. He should be charged with man slaughter NOT murder. A lesser custodial sentence than murder btw.

What also bothers me is his that his wife covered up his drinking and said he was not a drinker. She should be charged for lying to the Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SpeakeasyThai said:

Intent to drive on the wrong side of the road does not mean he acted in cold blooded pre determined intent to murder. He should be charged with man slaughter NOT murder. A lesser custodial sentence than murder btw.

What also bothers me is his that his wife covered up his drinking and said he was not a drinker. She should be charged for lying to the Police.

Any reasonable person could see that driving the wrong way down the fast lane of a highway would likely result in someone's death, If your actions could foreseeably cause someones death, then this fits the definition of murder. I also checked this definition with a Thai criminal Lawyer and this does fit the definition of murder. It is not much different from plowing your vehicle into a group of people you know that your action will likely kill someone, just as he knew that his action would likely result in someone's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, trogers said:

The act of driving on the wrong side of the road and speeding in the fast lane shows intent.

 

Most seen driving on the wrong side of the road keep close to the road shoulder.

I'm not a lawyer, but at least in some states in the USA "felony murder" can be charged where the death occurred as the result of a DUI.   No specific intent to kill anybody necessary.  In California, "Watson murder" refers to a murder charge against someone with a previous DUI who received a specific warning (called a "Watson admonition") about the dangers of DUI and then killed someone in another subsequent DUI.  Also, in some places involuntary manslaughter can be referred to as fourth degree murder.   Further, prosecutors might charge a DUI resulting in death as murder with the idea that the defendant will plea bargain the charge to something along the lines of involuntary or vehicular manslaughter.

 

I know nothing about Thai felony-class legal codes, just that in at least some places in some cases worldwide, if you kill somebody and are DUI, you can be charged with murder.  I think the basic legal premise is something along the lines of the idea that if driving drunk, you know that your impaired condition could result in someone's death, thereby amounting to some degree of 'intent".   And regardless of what you call it, whether "vehicular manslaughter in the course of a DUI" or "nth degree murder", it's just a name and a label.  It's all about the punishment, and I'm not sure the legal jargon regarding the local jurisdiction's term for the offense necessarily makes all that much difference.

 

If you drive drunk, you might be taking on more risk than you imagine...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Keesters said:

Driving under the influence shows enough intent IMO.

Personally I think it shows less intent, as he wouldn't have been thinking coherently whilst under the influence. As I said earlier though, he needs to go away with the harshest punishment possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wiggy said:

Personally I think it shows less intent, as he wouldn't have been thinking coherently whilst under the influence. As I said earlier though, he needs to go away with the harshest punishment possible.

He presumably was thinking coherently before he got drunk and had the intention of driving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Deez said:

Clearly he deserves to be in jail for a long time, but murder? That requires premeditation. Did he plan to drive his truck and kill someone?

Suicide or just your everyday stupidity. Vehicular manslaughter & DUI should be the charges. Preferably whatever they can max out compensation & jail time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tominbkk said:

Possibly some blame to the family with a six month old baby on a motorbike?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Contributory negligence could be attributed to the family BUT NOT blame! Only one person to blame - the driver of the vehicle causing the crash. :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, puffy said:

 . . . just as he knew that his action would likely result in someone's death

He was drunk, don't forget. I understand - solely from what I'm told, of course:sleep:! - that drunks can do things unknowingly. Had he been sober, he'd probably have gone the right way and left all us legal-eagles short of sommat to argue about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wiggy said:

I might get slated for this, but I'm worried he'll get off. I can't see how a murder charge can be proven. How will a prosecution lawyer 'prove' intent?

What was the motive? How can premeditated murder be shown to be his intention? Then, with the murder and attempted murder charges dropped, he's left with a drink driving charge only. Not much (if any) jail time for that.

They way he drove straight into the black pickup on the video, may indicate intent, on the other hand being drunk may be a good defense tactic, that may be why police suddenly found alcohol in his blood.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AlQaholic said:

They way he drove straight into the black pickup on the video, may indicate intent, on the other hand being drunk may be a good defense tactic, that may be why police suddenly found alcohol in his blood.....

Fair point - that or maybe even a suicide attempt. Or that he was 'blind drunk' and didn't even see the pickup. Lots of defense options either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only the lazy ****s would get off their <deleted> and do something about preventing this sort of stuff instead of just fining people for no tax, or no helmet, etc...

 

One in jail is not going to stop the thousands of accidents every year caused by this sort of driving.

And may I add, the bib are no better than the public

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Been through that argument a number of times, in the US the proper term is "driving under the influence" a common term is Drunk driving drunk is a noun drink as used by British and Australians is a verb 

Noun: a word that is the name of something (such as a person, animal, place, thing, quality, idea, or action) and is typically used in a sentence as subject or object of a verb or as object of a preposition

 

Verb: grammar : a word (such as jumpthinkhappen, or existthat is usually one of the main parts of a sentence and that expresses an action, an occurrence, or a state of being 

 

Technically both terms can be considered correct, but I will use the correct legal term in my country "driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol" in some states the term used is "driving while intoxicated". 

You might also inform cardinablue that the word is 'English' with a capital 'E', ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 3:20 PM, joecoolfrog said:

This is true but 2 wrongs dont make a right . Would you rather that nobody was ever prosecuted because of the (disgusting ) free pass given to the privileged few.

Of course not! Not what I meant at all. I am just disgusted that so many get away with it at all. I want to see justice across the board not just for the unconnected. No free passes for anyone. I hope that is more clear now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 10:28 AM, djayz said:

Good. One person who'll be charged and hopefully sentenced. Better get him behind bars pronto before he runs off. 

Now, let's see if the cops can capture Mr. Coward, errr, sorry I mean "Boss" and put him in front of a judge, too. 

That would upset Noel, were he still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Been through that argument a number of times, in the US the proper term is "driving under the influence" a common term is Drunk driving drunk is a noun drink as used by British and Australians is a verb 

Noun: a word that is the name of something (such as a person, animal, place, thing, quality, idea, or action) and is typically used in a sentence as subject or object of a verb or as object of a preposition

 

Verb: grammar : a word (such as jumpthinkhappen, or existthat is usually one of the main parts of a sentence and that expresses an action, an occurrence, or a state of being 

 

Technically both terms can be considered correct, but I will use the correct legal term in my country "driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol" in some states the term used is "driving while intoxicated". 

Drink, as used by the British and Australians, is both a verb and a noun. Past and future tenses as a verb, past, present and future tenses as a noun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as I saw the video I thought ... why is the oncoming car in the outside lane. I say to my wife many times "please" drive on the inside lane when you can't see what is around the bend!

 

And she has a UK driving licence ... She used to tell me don't drive in the outer lane as it is illegal and Mr BIB will be waiting for you around the corner ... now she has slipped back into the Thai way and it is me who says inside lane please ... If that lane is really bumpy the OK and if stopped try the dead dog story ... 

 

Of course she now understands that inside lane is the left lane whereas here it is viewed as the outer lane (right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TKDfella said:

You might also inform cardinablue that the word is 'English' with a capital 'E', ha!

I am not that much of a spelling/grammar nazi. 555

Hell I have seen many posts on this site that were totally senseless because of spelling and grammar. Usually by people with crappy spell check on dumb phones (smart cannot apply) then there are those using English as a 2d, 3d, or 4th language. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 1:25 AM, Wiggy said:

"Most seen driving on the wrong side of the road keep close to the road shoulder."

 

Yes - if they know they are on the wrong side of the road.

 

I hear you all, and your comments are understood. But surely just simply driving on the wrong side of the road in a seemingly confused (drunk) state isn't intent. Remember the guy who killed the two graduate students? He was possibly (probably) drunk and on medication. That started off as a murder charge but was later dropped. The two cases have similarities. Please don't anyone think I'm defending this guy; he needs to go away for a long time, but his defense on the current charges might be easy: "I didn't know I was on the wrong side of the road and didn't mean to kill anyone." To prove otherwise will be tough. Whereas with a gun a defence is more difficult, "I pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger, but I didn't mean to kill him." Everyone knows if you point and fire a gun then your intent is probably to kill. 

 

Just saying.

He could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  It happens often in the US under similar circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 1:22 PM, Wiggy said:

 

As mentioned earlier that's manslaughter, but does that exist under Thai law? I  don't know.

 

Yes, under the Thai Criminal Code, section 290, police can lay a  charge of manslaughter, with the penalty being imprisonment of between 3 and 15 years.  There is also a charge of negligence where whoever committing an act by negligence and that act causes the death of another persons than the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined not more than 20,000 baht.  This is governed under the same criminal code, section 291.

 

Not knowing the full details surrounding the incident, or the proofs required to prove murder, I have no idea why they have done so, however, given they have, it may suggest there is more to this incident than we are aware of.  This charge is laid under section 288 of the criminal code and the offender can receive the death penalty or be sentenced to between 15 to 20 years in prison. Under section 289, which relates to the death penalty, there are 8 separate aspects, any one of which, if proved, will result in the offender receiving the death penalty if convicted of murder. :wai:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Yes, under the Thai Criminal Code, section 290, police can lay a  charge of manslaughter, with the penalty being imprisonment of between 3 and 15 years.  There is also a charge of negligence where whoever committing an act by negligence and that act causes the death of another persons than the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined not more than 20,000 baht.  This is governed under the same criminal code, section 291.

 

Not knowing the full details surrounding the incident, or the proofs required to prove murder, I have no idea why they have done so, however, given they have, it may suggest there is more to this incident than we are aware of.  This charge is laid under section 288 of the criminal code and the offender can receive the death penalty or be sentenced to between 15 to 20 years in prison. Under section 289, which relates to the death penalty, there are 8 separate aspects, any one of which, if proved, will result in the offender receiving the death penalty if convicted of murder. :wai:

Thanks for posting that. Very useful to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...