Police just taking "defensive measures" says chief after suspect kicked off motorcycle

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, Khun Paul said:

After 30 years policing , I can say in all honesty. BULLSHIT. That is why the police have radios they can call for assistance to diffuse the situation safely not just knock the person off a moving motorcycle, which part of defensive is that. Mr Chief of Hat Yai .....huh  ???????????????? 

An extremely sensible post. 

[sambum]

3 hours ago, DM07 said:

How about taking the license plate- number and paying the guy a visit at home...you know...with an arrest warrant or something!?

 

But...nooooo...nanny-state blah blah...it's much better to Kung <deleted> the horrible criminal of his bike!

God forbid, we act according to the law or in any shape or form civilized!

How about the guy getting away and selling the bike/changing the licence plates?

[sambum]

2 hours ago, simtemple said:

 Or 3) For the sake of public safety, allow the alleged offender, to escape.

I'll take number 3

You are happy to see unintended consequences of a dire nature e.g. death or serious road trauma of an innocent third party?

A rationale highway pursuit policy would dictate that the pursuit be terminated as soon as public safety was endangered.

The alleged offender can be safely interviewed at the address listed at the vehicle registration centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if the "vehicle" is not registered? "Alleged" offender?

[lvr181]

2 hours ago, simtemple said:

 Or 3) For the sake of public safety, allow the alleged offender, to escape.

I'll take number 3

You are happy to see unintended consequences of a dire nature e.g. death or serious road trauma of an innocent third party?

A rationale highway pursuit policy would dictate that the pursuit be terminated as soon as public safety was endangered.

The alleged offender can be safely interviewed at the address listed at the vehicle registration centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The alleged offender can be safely interviewed at the address listed at the vehicle registration centre."  OMG see Post #70! Try thinking outside the square.

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, darksidedog said:

The debate as to whether this was the correct way to stop the chase is one thing, but I think it is blatant to everyone who has seen it, that it was deliberate. But rather than come out and say so, the Hat Yai Chief tries to tell us a bunch of very unbelievable lies. Why? Many of us have seen this happen before, so we all know it is a fairly routine practice, despicable as it is.

Who exactly are the "many" who have witnessed police kicking someone off a bike and who "all know how routine it is"?

[observer90210]

Perhaps in the future, the bike "fugitive" will seriously consider wearing a helmet in case of any further police kick backs !!!!!!!!

[Rc2702]

Jurgen klopp should sign these defenders fast.

[mindfulness]

11 hours ago, Thian said:

No it wasn't!

 

You should see what the motocy's do in BKK when the police wants to stop them, they just do anything except stopping.

 

This guy might have been a bankrobber, murderer on the run or whatever....stop means stop, how hard can that be?

... lol ? !!! probably they don’t like to stop in BKK by those moral and ethical police officers.

[Thian]

7 minutes ago, mindfulness said:

... lol ? !!! probably they don’t like to stop in BKK by those moral and ethical police officers.

I drive inbetween those motobikers on my own motobike and i just stop if they want me to. I have nothing to hide and do nothing wrong (except not keeping left which is far too dangerous).

 

Mostly they don't wear helmets and when they get stopped they just turn 180 degree's or don't stop at all even when the police grabs their arm or so.

 

I see motocycles without licenseplates all day long, without lights or helmet, far too young, with 5 on 1 bike, driving against traffic and so on....it's about time the police will do something to make traffic more safe.

[thailand49]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

An extremely sensible post. 

If I'm correct with your remarks, I think where was this guy 30 years behind the desk sleeping.

I never thought I be saying this but " this is Thailand "  here the reality even if they had radios there is like a 1% chance of getting stopped.  If you know anything about the police here instead of the tea money even if they had radio what is the actual chance there will be another police nearby?  I say slim and none!

[captspectre]

11 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Yes it was.  All this guy is guilty of is running a road block.  He could be seriously hurt due to this.  There are other ways to deal with runners like this.  Sadly, they take the easy way out here.

 

A good lawsuit with a huge fine will stop this.  Police think they are above the law here.  And most times, they are.

how would YOU stop a motorcycle punk who did not want to be stopped? pray tell all of us who want to know! ask him to stop? shoot him? or just kick hi cycle over?

[captspectre]

A good lawsuit? where do you think you are? there is no good thing as a "good" lawsuit unless you have the big bucks!

[wakeupplease]

"Pit" maneuver! 

 

Thats all it was from the start we saw what that useless cop was going to do. Even in the states they do not do it as one cop found out to his cost not so long ago. One poster on here stated there was a security check a few hundred meters from there, he wold have had to slow down for that. That could of resulted in the rider and bike going into other people or other cars.

 

The cop bike was twice the size so could have accelerated past the small bike very easily.

 

But that is what you get from a 3rd world mentality and the Worlds Deadliest Drives, not to mention cops that lie

[mikiea]

12 hours ago, Thian said:

No it wasn't!

 

You should see what the motocy's do in BKK when the police wants to stop them, they just do anything except stopping.

 

This guy might have been a bankrobber, murderer on the run or whatever....stop means stop, how hard can that be?

correct-a-mundo my man 

[mikiea]

9 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No charges, eh. 

 

Now there’s a thing. 

fleeing a police command to stop ?  no charges ? <deleted> ?  somebody's nephew me think .

[malcoml]

Makes me smile. Remember when those two cops in Pattaya thought it a good idea to shoot out the tyres of an out of control car and one guy accidentally shot the other one in the leg.

[Bluespunk]

20 minutes ago, mikiea said:

fleeing a police command to stop ?  no charges ? <deleted> ?  somebody's nephew me think .

Nah...I’m thinking something else altogether. 

[Charlesed]

The guys in uniform are the real outlaw bikers in Thailand!

[inquisitive]

Despicable? The guy ran a roadblock, then kept going for some thirty minutes, and not with typical Thai motorcyclists' safety standards dictating his driving. Yes, they could have let him go, but I certainly don't decry their way of bringing him to a halt - granted, a straight answer would have been logical, but TiT. 

I think just about everything in your post is wrong:-
1.  "All this guy is guilty of is running a road block." Wrong - he also sideswiped a Ford.
2. "He could be seriously hurt due to this" Correct - also he could have seriously injured a pedestrian, or somebody trying to cross the road
3. "There are other ways to deal with runners like this. A good lawsuit with a huge fine will stop this." Wrong. So in the meantime, you let him go on his merry way, sell the bike (or change the number plates) and put the incident up as "evaded arrest"?
4. He could have been shot, or his tyres blown out, in which case he could have been seriously injured or dead. As it was he got a few cuts and bruises.
5. "Police think they are above the law here.  And most times, they are." It makes a change for the police to be doing something positive to apprehend a wrongdoer who, by the very fact that he jumped a road block could have been a wanted murderer or terrorist - Bravo!
 
P.S I think the Police Chief should have admitted it was no accident!
 
 

You actually BELIEVE that nonsense about the policeman chasing the victim for 30 minutes? ! Without radoing ahead? THIRTY minutes? When was the last time you even heard about a BIB showing that amount of dedication to duty? Or work?

Nobody believes that the officer acted in self-defense so why would they believe anything else in that report?

Please!

[mommysboy]

31 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nah...I’m thinking something else altogether. 

More like you dont make a complaint and we won't charge you.  Fair bit of horse trading, I guess.

 

[sambum]

1 minute ago, inquisitive said:

 

 

 

 

You actually BELIEVE that nonsense about the policeman chasing the victim for 30 minutes? ! Without radoing ahead? THIRTY minutes? When was the last time you even heard about a BIB showing that amount of dedication to duty? Or work?

Nobody believes that the officer acted in self-defense so why would they believe anything else in that report?

Please!

 

 

 

 

If you can't even be bothered to reply to me or my points - don't bother! Please!

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

More like you dont make a complaint and we won't charge you.  Fair bit of horse trading, I guess.

 

That would be closer to what I’m thinking. 

[inquisitive]

If you can't even be bothered to reply to me or my points - don't bother! Please!

Ok, since you said "please", let me be more clear.

By law, the victim of this police brutality and potential murder is not guilty of anything at this point. That is because the police are not empowered to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, the victim might be a murderer, or then again he may have been a special agent empowered by parliament to not stop for police checks because he was delivering an urgent report needed to avert an act of terrorism. Honestly, I doubt either of these scenarios are true, but the fact is that the cop did not know when he intentionally created a high-speed and potentially deadly traffic accident.

So while you are free to make your opinion known, the law is clear that the police officer was acting illegally in using lethal force to stop the victim. It was brainless, immoral, and in your words, wrong. That is why his superior officer had to tell those obvious lies. Otherwise there was no way to get the cop of the hook. In this case, the truth would not have set him free.

Furthermore, since your only source of information about the incident consists of a video and a "highly suspect" report, I submit that your opinion might at the least be premature.

I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense, but the last time I checked, that is not the official and legal policy of this beautiful country. I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise. It's just plain disrespectful.

So here's my question: do you advocate the same use of deadly force against a person who demonstrates disrespect of our ethical and law abiding police on the internet by suggesting that they should act illegally?

[vogie]

20 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

Ok, since you said "please", let me be more clear.

By law, the victim of this police brutality and potential murder is not guilty of anything at this point. That is because the police are not empowered to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, the victim might be a murderer, or then again he may have been a special agent empowered by parliament to not stop for police checks because he was delivering an urgent report needed to avert an act of terrorism. Honestly, I doubt either of these scenarios are true, but the fact is that the cop did not know when he intentionally created a high-speed and potentially deadly traffic accident.

So while you are free to make your opinion known, the law is clear that the police officer was acting illegally in using lethal force to stop the victim. It was brainless, immoral, and in your words, wrong. That is why his superior officer had to tell those obvious lies. Otherwise there was no way to get the cop of the hook. In this case, the truth would not have set him free.

Furthermore, since your only source of information about the incident consists of a video and a "highly suspect" report, I submit that your opinion might at the least be premature.

I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense, but the last time I checked, that is not the official and legal policy of this beautiful country. I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise. It's just plain disrespectful.

So here's my question: do you advocate the same use of deadly force against a person who demonstrates disrespect of our ethical and law abiding police on the internet by suggesting that they should act illegally?

 

[IvanLaw]

16 hours ago, BangkokNicky said:

what did i say yesterday people.

O dear so sorry.

My Mum had Alzheimer's as well 

[katana]

Here's another one from a few months ago in Ratchaburi province, but with a less fortunate result.
At the start of the video, the police kicked 2 teens off their bike for failing to stop.
The police then do a U-turn and come back to take a look at the injured bikers before racing off and leaving them!

 

[Monkeyrobot]

Good job police , what if that run away rider hit a pedestrian or killed someone . He was told to stop and did not. That the fact Jack. 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, inquisitive said:

Ok, since you said "please", let me be more clear.

By law, the victim of this police brutality and potential murder is not guilty of anything at this point. That is because the police are not empowered to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, the victim might be a murderer, or then again he may have been a special agent empowered by parliament to not stop for police checks because he was delivering an urgent report needed to avert an act of terrorism. Honestly, I doubt either of these scenarios are true, but the fact is that the cop did not know when he intentionally created a high-speed and potentially deadly traffic accident.

So while you are free to make your opinion known, the law is clear that the police officer was acting illegally in using lethal force to stop the victim. It was brainless, immoral, and in your words, wrong. That is why his superior officer had to tell those obvious lies. Otherwise there was no way to get the cop of the hook. In this case, the truth would not have set him free.

Furthermore, since your only source of information about the incident consists of a video and a "highly suspect" report, I submit that your opinion might at the least be premature.

I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense, but the last time I checked, that is not the official and legal policy of this beautiful country. I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise. It's just plain disrespectful.

So here's my question: do you advocate the same use of deadly force against a person who demonstrates disrespect of our ethical and law abiding police on the internet by suggesting that they should act illegally?

 

"I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse."

 

That about sums it up a treat.

[sambum]

56 minutes ago, inquisitive said:

Ok, since you said "please", let me be more clear.

By law, the victim of this police brutality and potential murder is not guilty of anything at this point. That is because the police are not empowered to determine guilt or innocence. Yes, the victim might be a murderer, or then again he may have been a special agent empowered by parliament to not stop for police checks because he was delivering an urgent report needed to avert an act of terrorism. Honestly, I doubt either of these scenarios are true, but the fact is that the cop did not know when he intentionally created a high-speed and potentially deadly traffic accident.

So while you are free to make your opinion known, the law is clear that the police officer was acting illegally in using lethal force to stop the victim. It was brainless, immoral, and in your words, wrong. That is why his superior officer had to tell those obvious lies. Otherwise there was no way to get the cop of the hook. In this case, the truth would not have set him free.

Furthermore, since your only source of information about the incident consists of a video and a "highly suspect" report, I submit that your opinion might at the least be premature.

I know that in some groups the prevailing view is that anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense, but the last time I checked, that is not the official and legal policy of this beautiful country. I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise. It's just plain disrespectful.

So here's my question: do you advocate the same use of deadly force against a person who demonstrates disrespect of our ethical and law abiding police on the internet by suggesting that they should act illegally?

Actually I said please don't bother, but thank you for your time and effort!

 

I certainly am not a member of the "groups" that you talk about that think that   "anyone that seems to disrespect a policeman should be killed without recourse, and anyone suspected of any violation of the law should be murdered by the state before they get a chance to present their defense" ................... "I am sure that many of us who live here resent your saying otherwise." is a complete fabrication on your part, so in answer to your question - to keep it simple - NO!

 

I also think that there is a lot wrong with the way that the police normally operate, but in this instance, when it was obvious that the lawbreaker (regardless of whether he has been found guilty by a court or not) was being a danger to himself, other road users, pedestrians, AND the police who were trying to apprehend him, the "deadly force"  was justified.

 

You seem to be obsessed with "murder" "lethal force", "deadly force", "killed without recourse", "murdered by the state" etc etc  - your whole post reeks of violence, which in itself is quite inflammatory when all that has happened is a lawbreaker has been knocked off his bike while trying to evade arrest, and got a few cuts and bruises for his trouble. 

 

 

[mommysboy]

36 minutes ago, katana said:

Here's another one from a few months ago in Ratchaburi province, but with a less fortunate result.
At the start of the video, the police kicked 2 teens off their bike for failing to stop.
The police then do a U-turn and come back to take a look at the injured bikers before racing off and leaving them!

 

In many other countries that may be considered attempted murder.