Jump to content

Hospital director mistaken as illegal logger, shot dead in Kanchanaburi


webfact

Recommended Posts

Hospital director mistaken as illegal logger, shot dead in Kanchanaburi

By The Nation

 

A hospital director was shot dead by a forest protection official who mistook him for an illegal logger and fired at his car on Monday night.
 

Police said Chalit Jintana, 39, director of the Tambon Plai Na Suan Hospital in Kanchanaburi's Sisawat district, was killed on the Mae Lamoon-Plai Na Suan road in Ban Mae Lamoon village in Tambon Na Suan in Si Sawat.

 

Songwut Udom, chief of Mae Lamoon forest protection unit, later surrendered to police. He admitted that he fired twice at Chalit's car with his HK 33 assault rifle because he mistook the hospital director for a logger smuggling wood.

 

Songwut has been detained on a murder charge.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30336918

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

" illegal logger and fired at his car on Monday night."

You can get quite a few Teak logs in a car !,seems

like shot first ,ask questions later,same as other

shooting at Chiang Rai check point .

regards worgeordie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FPU are "irregular" militia, long used by the "authorities", along with vocational school gangs, for the "dirtiest" of work that even the ISOC and shadier elements of the RTP are reluctant to carry out. That they get trigger happy every once and a while, not being able to gun down pesky students and red shirts, is but a minor drawback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, petermik said:

Bloody hell,its getting like the wild west now............I,ll avoid Kanchanaburi in the future.....absolute madness firing on any car especially at night.

R.I.P. to the innocent doctor :wai:

Better steer clear of Chiang Rai as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

The FPU are "irregular" militia, long used by the "authorities", along with vocational school gangs, for the "dirtiest" of work that even the ISOC and shadier elements of the RTP are reluctant to carry out. That they get trigger happy every once and a while, not being able to gun down pesky students and red shirts, is but a minor drawback.

True. I once saw them in action on remote burmese border doing shooting exercises. I was there around 6pm after a day of border-dwelling / birdwatching. They told me i shouldnt be there as it's dangerous. The only danger i ever noticed in 15 years of nature walks were these guys shooting around... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

" illegal logger and fired at his car on Monday night."

You can get quite a few Teak logs in a car !,seems

like shot first ,ask questions later,same as other

shooting at Chiang Rai check point .

regards worgeordie

I did not see any mention of the time of day or night this incident happened. There must surely have been some suspicious activity in the area. Anyway, a very rash action which will put the shooter in jail if convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Why would it be manslaughter?  You do't think he was trying to kill him by shooting his car with an assault rifle?

I'd advise you to research the meaning of the word. He considered it lawful as he thought he was a logger and it was not premeditated.

 

murder

 
 

NOUN

mass noun
  • 1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PattayaAngel said:

I'd advise you to research the meaning of the word. He considered it lawful as he thought he was a logger and it was not premeditated.

 

murder

 
 

NOUN

mass noun

  • 1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

 

 

Hillarious, and I suggest you do some reading into what is lawful, I will get you started, it is not lawful, and thus murder, to purposely kill loggers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hillarious, and I suggest you do some reading into what is lawful, I will get you started, it is not lawful, and thus murder, to purposely kill loggers.  

 

Funny... the defense will be... he did not mean to kill, was undertaking his lawful duty and felt under threat. No prosecutor, that I know of, would think of a murder charge as it was NOT premeditated but I do understand that people who have no understanding of the law might think ;'murder'.

You do understand the word 'premeditated'?  I know it's a bit long but it means 'pre-planned' bit like 'I'm planning to go have a beer' ok?  I don't think the guy 'planned' to go kill a logger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PattayaAngel said:

I'd advise you to research the meaning of the word. He considered it lawful as he thought he was a logger and it was not premeditated.

 

murder

 
 

NOUN

mass noun

  • 1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

 

Trying to explain that in a court other than in Thailand would attract the ridicule it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, evadgib said:

Trying to explain that in a court other than in Thailand would attract the ridicule it deserves.

 

It's a technical point only and as I said in my first post killing anyone for wood is madness and despicable in every way but I doubt it was premeditated unelss more information comes out that eh was having an affair with the guy's wife or something (quite possible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to know how this really happened if it's true.

 

However I believe this is simply a cover story for a killing that was either done in the heat of an argument or done for another unspecified reason. Since Songwut was seen by witnesses, he has gone down the 'admit it but go for the lightest punishment' route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PattayaAngel said:

 

It's a technical point only and as I said in my first post killing anyone for wood is madness and despicable in every way but I doubt it was premeditated unelss more information comes out that eh was having an affair with the guy's wife or something (quite possible).

Whilst I agree with you that killing over wood is madness, I would also point out that illegal loggers, often close to the Cambodia border have killed a number of NP and FPU rangers over the last few years and routinely are armed with automatic weapons. So, there has been an escalation in violence.

 

But this was not near the Cambodian border, in fact not particularly near the Burmese border. So this excuse sounds weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

Funny... the defense will be... he did not mean to kill, was undertaking his lawful duty and felt under threat. No prosecutor, that I know of, would think of a murder charge as it was NOT premeditated but I do understand that people who have no understanding of the law might think ;'murder'.

You do understand the word 'premeditated'?  I know it's a bit long but it means 'pre-planned' bit like 'I'm planning to go have a beer' ok?  I don't think the guy 'planned' to go kill a logger. 

 

The premeditation does not have to be long in the making, there just has to have been a consideration for the persons life.  If he did not plan to kill him then he should not have shot him, everyone knows shooting someone can kill them thus it is murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PattayaAngel said:

 

It's a technical point only and as I said in my first post killing anyone for wood is madness and despicable in every way but I doubt it was premeditated unelss more information comes out that eh was having an affair with the guy's wife or something (quite possible).

Discharging a firearm in the general direction of an occupied car on the offchance that it might just contain someone who is up to no good is clearly likely to endanger life and falls entirely within the bounds of pre-meditation for legal purposes.

 

Dare I wonder if the plonker was licenced, proficient or adhered to an audit trail re firearm, ammunition or parameters of operation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

Trying to explain that in a court other than in Thailand would attract the ridicule it deserves.

Why?

 

For murder you need the mens rea and the actus reus, as with any crime. The means rea in murder is intent, guilty mind, and the acts reus speaks for itself, the guilty act.

 

What I would disagree with is the word premeditated as that infers forward planning, that planning could be immediate and a split second before the act if your intention was to unlawfully kill someone. As I had also mentioned before is the act is transferable in s much as if I I intended to kill Mr A but missed him and killed Mr B then it is still murder even though I did not intend to kill Mr B.

 

In this case he just needs to say his intent was to stop the car and not kill the guy, a manslaughter charge would be correct although a murder charge could still be brought and a decision made on the intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

Why?

 

For murder you need the mens rea and the actus reus, as with any crime. The means rea in murder is intent, guilty mind, and the acts reus speaks for itself, the guilty act.

 

What I would disagree with is the word premeditated as that infers forward planning, that planning could be immediate and a split second before the act if your intention was to unlawfully kill someone. As I had also mentioned before is the act is transferable in s much as if I I intended to kill Mr A but missed him and killed Mr B then it is still murder even though I did not intend to kill Mr B.

 

In this case he just needs to say his intent was to stop the car and not kill the guy, a manslaughter charge would be correct although a murder charge could still be brought and a decision made on the intent.

 

You mean if he intended to disable the car by shooting it and mistakenly hit the occupant?  That would be no different to hitting Mr B, a murder charge should be brought in that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forest official faces murder probe over Kanchanaburi killing

By The Nation

 

A Mae Lamoon forest protection official who shot dead a man on Monday night in Kanchanaburi’s Sisawat district and then claimed to have mistaken him for an illegal logger has been dismissed from the civil service pending a murder investigation.
 

In addition to the police investigation, Songwuth Udom also faces a departmental inquiry over the killing of Chalit Jintana, the director of Tambon Plai Na Suan Hospital.

 

Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation chief Thanya Netithammakun said on Tuesday that an initial investigation had found that the shooting might be related to Songwuth’s personal conflict with the 39-year-old Chalit.

 

Thanya also instructed supervisors to enact stricter controls over forest protection officials’ possession of HK33 assault rifles and ensure that rifles are returned after patrols are completed.

 

Songwuth reportedly was armed with an HK33 rifle while he was out on a forest patrol and did not return the weapon afterwards.

 

Salak Phra wildlife conservation chief Paitoon Intharabutr said he did not know the motive for the killing and his inquiry with other officials could not confirm that Songwuth had had a conflict with Chalit, who had been working in the area for two years.

 

He also described Songwuth as “a diligent official” who was “well-loved by his co-workers”. He added that he would let justice run its course.

 

Chalit was killed at 6.45pm on Monday on a local road in Ban Mae Lamoon village.

 

Songwuth later surrendered to police and admitted he had fired twice at Chalit’s car with his HK33 rifle because he had mistaken the man for an illegal logger.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30336946

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You mean if he intended to disable the car by shooting it and mistakenly hit the occupant?  That would be no different to hitting Mr B, a murder charge should be brought in that case.

No, you can not kill a car whether you intended to kill it or not.

 

The intent can be transferred from one person to another, not an object to a person. There needs to be an intent to unlawfully kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

No, you can not kill a car whether you intended to kill it or not.

 

The intent can be transferred from one person to another, not an object to a person. There needs to be an intent to unlawfully kill.

 

So you think I can shoot up someones car but if I accidentally kill the occupant in the process then I can only get charged with manslaughter?  Are you out of your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

So you think I can shoot up someones car but if I accidentally kill the occupant in the process then I can only get charged with manslaughter?  Are you out of your mind?

My degree is based on UK law, others differ and mine was some time ago now, as was my police service so I could be blurred or even outdated. No need to resort to a petty comment.

 

There is an act of recklessness in relation to a 'reasonable' man test as to whether a reasonable man would forsee the outcome of his actions, but I believe murder is still not covered by recklessness, only manslaughter. Someone may correct me if I am wrong but the Mens Rea for murder must be an intention to kill or cause previous bodily harm, and the Actus Reus is the unlawful killing of another human being, the two must be together for murder, guilty mind and guilty act.

 

So no, I am not out of my mind.

 

In relation to Thai law, I don't think even Thai lawyers know it half of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

So you think I can shoot up someones car but if I accidentally kill the occupant in the process then I can only get charged with manslaughter?  Are you out of your mind?

 

No he's not 'out of his mind' he obviously understands law which, alas, you do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kingkenny said:

My degree is based on UK law, others differ and mine was some time ago now, as was my police service so I could be blurred or even outdated. 

 

In relation to Thai law, I don't think even Thai lawyers know t half of the time.

"In relation to Thai law, I don't think even Thai lawyers know t half of the time".

 

It sounds as though the same applies to you and your attempted interpretation of Thai law using your "blurred and outdated" (and irrelevant to specific Thai laws) knowledge of English common law.

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...