Jump to content

Drug fugitive shot dead in a hail of bullets as he takes his wife hostage


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, z42 said:

I'm no military expert but shouldn't a good sniper be able to shoot a targrt without riddling the human shield with bullets.

Their seeming incompetence has by the reports' words seriously injured this poor lady.

And by all accounts what preceeded this disgraceful incident is farcical to put it mildly

once a crim opens fire it is 'weapons free' everyone gets to return fire. with so many guns around the wife is lucky to be alive. putting snipers in place and getting a clear shot is not as easy as you might think. good job by the shooters in this this case. one dead crim and no other fatalities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

once a crim opens fire it is 'weapons free' everyone gets to return fire. with so many guns around the wife is lucky to be alive. putting snipers in place and getting a clear shot is not as easy as you might think. good job by the shooters in this this case. one dead crim and no other casualties.  

 

No casualties except for the hostage being shot at least twice and seriously injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

 

No casualties except for the hostage being shot at least twice and seriously injured.

used the wrong word. meant to say fatalities. only fatality was the guy who fired first and thats what happens if you shot at cops. his wife got away with only paying a small price for marrying the guy. wonder if it was her wedding finger that got shot off. would be fitting if it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One or two on here are giving far too much credit as to the abilities of the inept people referred to as a SWAT team.

 

Kids plucked up and taken into the Army with as much training as their police counterparts. Bear in mind the whole concept of the Thai Army and police is to control their population and not as an outside fighting force to protect the country in a war.They are not designed or skilled to be a deterrent in the event of external conflict so therefore the foot soldiers on the ground are very poorly trained and have the cheapest and minimal amount of money invested in them.

 

They are completely out of their depth in real hostage situations, as are their leaders and superiors all in ' bought ' positions of rank.

 

I am equally surprised given their disregard for human life and love of high drama after watching too many B movies, that the hostage is alive at all. That is more through sheer luck than management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am impressed with all the SWAT experts on Thai Visa.....I think they have been watching to many movies. Sometimes I think we should change the name to Totality Vapid.......

okay, time for breakfast after I clean my sniper rifle, adjust my scope, polish my rounds, (bullets to you) and find my bigger balls before I go out with my SWAT guys to talk about head shots over lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, z42 said:

I'm no military expert but shouldn't a good sniper be able to shoot a targrt without riddling the human shield with bullets.

Their seeming incompetence has by the reports' words seriously injured this poor lady.

And by all accounts what preceeded this disgraceful incident is farcical to put it mildly

Yes, and on the other hand, she knew he was a fugitive and gave him shelter and was present when the shootout occured.

Tough titties as Ma Shiela would have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raymonddiaz said:

shot a the back. In any civilized country, there would be an investigation, we don't shoot in the back unless it is a self defense.

Where I used to work any police open fire case was subject to a very in depth and through investigation and so it should be.

Incidentally I was trained that if someone was a clear danger to anyone shooting in the back was appropriate as the Code of The West didn't apply but then,  of course,   came that in depth enquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, digibum said:

 

There's no such thing as shooting to wound.  You shoot to kill.  I'm currently sitting in the same office with someone who's husband is a SWAT officer in the US and I can assure you that he would get a good chuckle if someone suggested he try to only wound a suspect.  

 

I'm not saying Thai SWAT couldn't use better training and perhaps there were ways to deescalate the situation but once it becomes a gun fight, shooting to wound is something cooked up by Hollywood.  

 

Keep in mind, 70% - 80% of bullets fired by police in the US miss their target.  A gun fight is a highly stressful situation and shots are often taken on the move either seeking cover or revealing oneself from a covered position.  There are very few people in the world who could land an intentional "wound" shot (vs. a kill shot) under those conditions.  
 

 

 

 

Oh come on now - I have seen stallone/eastwood etc. shoot the gun out of another man's hand from at least 50 yards !!  You telling me that aint real??  Next thing you know you will try to tell me that Nixon and Clinton didn't lie, that the Kardashians have no talent, and that Harold's ex-porn star didn't marry him for love !!

 

But seriously - some people do think that whatever they see on TV/Movies is true.  I guess that is a good reason that everyone should fire a gun (at a gun range) at least once in their lives - reality is very very different to the movies/TV.  And you can do that in Thailand too (use a gun range).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Someone escaping from a "safe house" after stealing a gun from his guard and is then later shot in the back, the back, in a "hail of bullets" doesn't make you go hmm? 

 

 

Yes,

 

And these ' safe houses '  which are anything but, are just rooms where they hand out torture, elicit bribes, and have been used to extra judicially kill people. These should not ever be allowed. These are the places where plastic bags are put over peoples heads and electric shocks are administered.

 

They were supposed to be illegal.They are not government areas of detention.

 

Why was the guy not transported to a police jail cell?? If he had been correctly arrested, why the need for going to some ridiculous ' safe house ' away from public view, no access to lawyers ( not that they are any good at the best of times but something to keep Dad's Army in check ) and questioning eyes and/ or journalists, who are known to hang around police stations for their stories.

 

The drug dealing guy I have no sympathy for, the processing of alleged criminals however, should be dealt with in transparent fashion. A photo can be looked at and mean anything and has probably only been released as it seems to show it was the fugitive acting dangerous and aggressive.(If it had showed armed forces in anything less than favorable, it wouldn't be out there). Was it through being angry of getting caught or fear of being severely beaten?

 

How do we know that he wasn't beaten in the ' safe house ' leading him through fear, to take desperate measures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leeneeds said:

One wonders what training the soldier had having his pistol taken away in the safe house,

then you think about SWAT , does that mean special weapons and tactics, who"s skill in placing single shots away from the centre mass,

it all just seems to be a bit cowboy-ish, 

 

 

Amateurish and reckless to be sure. Normal protocol is for snipers and marksmen to be deployed to keep his cranium in the cross-hairs for a controlled shot to the cerebral cortex yielding the perp terminated with a single shot and little or no collateral damage. It would appear that the injured wife would, under first world standards, have a case against the unwarranted trigger-happy amateurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

How do we know that he wasn't beaten in the ' safe house ' leading him through fear, to take desperate measures?

 

We don't.  

 

But we also don't know if the police took him there because the Queen of England actually runs the dope biz in that part of town and she was going to personally teach him never to sell dope on her turf.  

 

That's the cool thing about just making stuff up.  Anybody can do it and there's no limit to how unrealistic it can become.  

 

Bottom line is that whether he was there under legit reasons or otherwise, small chance the police are ever going to reveal the the full details to the public anyway.  There are plenty of valid questions about how this played out but not wanting to do 15 to life in a Thai prison sounds like just as valid a concern for the guy as does your hypothesis.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not been on forum that long or in Thailand that long, but it seems to me that a lot of posters on here, forget that they are not in the west anymore, our traditions, laws and perception, do not count here. If training here is not up to western standards that is because we are not in the west. Surely you can't expect a third world country to have the same standards. I accept Thailand the way it is, my misses keeps me on the straight and narrow, if I didn't  adjust to its quirks, life here wouldn't be worth staying for. If it takes 100 police and soldiers to apprehend 1 crime so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, borisloosebrain said:

Hiding out with his brother in law...must have put a lot of thought into that ingenious idea. 

 

well now ... ehhh.... whats her name is now a widow ? hmmmm.... leme alookie hear ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, arrowsdawdle said:

 

Amateurish and reckless to be sure. Normal protocol is for snipers and marksmen to be deployed to keep his cranium in the cross-hairs for a controlled shot to the cerebral cortex yielding the perp terminated with a single shot and little or no collateral damage. It would appear that the injured wife would, under first world standards, have a case against the unwarranted trigger-happy amateurs.

 

Unless he began firing at police officers which is what he did.  Then they are fully justified in returning fire and neutralizing the danger.  

 

And for all of those folks appalled that he was shot in the back, the report doesn't indicate whether or not police where already behind him.  Which means one possible scenario that hasn't been considered by this group is that he was surrounded (highly likely if enough time  had elapsed for SWAT to get on scene).  And in that case, if he fired on police, police to his rear would have opened fire to protect their fellow officers as they had the best shot that minimized risk to the hostage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bob9 said:

 

Oh come on now - I have seen stallone/eastwood etc. shoot the gun out of another man's hand from at least 50 yards !!  You telling me that aint real??  Next thing you know you will try to tell me that Nixon and Clinton didn't lie, that the Kardashians have no talent, and that Harold's ex-porn star didn't marry him for love !!

 

But seriously - some people do think that whatever they see on TV/Movies is true.  I guess that is a good reason that everyone should fire a gun (at a gun range) at least once in their lives - reality is very very different to the movies/TV.  And you can do that in Thailand too (use a gun range).

 

 

Hollywood's Eastwoods are real according to the script. When you have been there done that from 50 yards without a script it will give you a new perspective on reality.

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...