Thread: Police beat Bangkok gambling man to death in full public view

Police beat Bangkok gambling man to death in full public view

Police officers have beaten a gambler to death in the middle of a residential area. The officers disappeared after the gambler’s death, according to a witness.
On 3 November 2016, police officers from Suthisan District Police Station raided an illegal gambling house in Bangkok and beat Don Daengchantip, 34, to death, reported Manager Online.
The gambling house is located in a high density area of Rungruang. The incident was as such witnessed by surrounding residents.
Wichan Kwanmueng, a witness aged 45, told media that he and Don were playing high-low with their friends before some seven authorities raided the house. Wichan knew the officers were from Suthisan District Police Station since some of them were his friends.
Don then tried to run away but officers caught him, so he swung his fist into an officer’s face. The other officers then beat him so violently he collapsed. The authorities also stamped on Don’s body until he blacked out.
After blacking out, Don began choking but the police thought that he was pretending and put him in handcuffs. Residents then came to help Don but he remained unconscious so they called an ERT. The team spent half an hour in vain attempting to save Don’s life.
According to Wichan, after Don was declared dead, the authorities who beat him disappeared from the crime scene.
Several people in Thailand, including suspects and conscripts, are killed every year by extrajudicial killing, ill-treatment and torture performed by authorities. However, few officers have ever been prosecuted. The government usually dismisses torture allegations and ignores family claims.

Police beat Bangkok man to death in full public view - BangkokJack - Bangkok News

To encourage the others , while managing their other enterprises in Intha Mara

Wouldn't back a conviction in this one.

Yeah and don't hit a policeman again!

Well they've already said if if turns out he died of heart failure, they're in the clear.

Should have any problem showing that isn't fucking working any more.

Originally Posted by snakeeyes

Several people in Thailand, including suspects and conscripts, are killed every year by extrajudicial killing, ill-treatment and torture performed by authorities. However, few officers have ever been prosecuted. The government usually dismisses torture allegations and ignores family claims.

Defamation case about to be brought against a journalist? Or is the tide turning and justice will be served?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Defamation case about to be brought against a journalist? Or is the tide turning and justice will be served?
[at] [at]

It can easily be proven to be true so it can't be defamation. Also, because no specific person or organization is mentioned, it would be difficult to sue. It certainly doesn't mean the tide is turning or justice will ever be served.

As it was explained to me: Police cannot be corrupt. If they're corrupt, how did they become a policeman?

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Defamation case about to be brought against a journalist? Or is the tide turning and justice will be served?
[at] [at]

It can easily be proven to be true so it can't be defamation. Also, because no specific person or organization is mentioned, it would be difficult to sue. It certainly doesn't mean the tide is turning or justice will ever be served.

As it was explained to me: Police cannot be corrupt. If they're corrupt, how did they become a policeman?

Nope...Thailand defamation law disregards if it is true or not. If it causes loss of face (or harms a person's reputation or business), it can be brought about.
Just ask Andy Hall.

An organisation was mentioned: "the government" was specifically mentioned in that they "The government" usually dismiss torture allegations and ignore family claims"

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Defamation case about to be brought against a journalist? Or is the tide turning and justice will be served?
[at] [at]

It can easily be proven to be true so it can't be defamation. Also, because no specific person or organization is mentioned, it would be difficult to sue. It certainly doesn't mean the tide is turning or justice will ever be served.

As it was explained to me: Police cannot be corrupt. If they're corrupt, how did they become a policeman?

Would anyone expect anything less from the proverbial military/police state and justifications thereof? .......and conveniently [historically] tying most everything and anything with the revered institution - yet, most are oblivious to such activity.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Nope...Thailand defamation law disregards if it is true or not. If it causes loss of face (or harms a person's reputation or business), it can be brought about.
Just ask Andy Hall.

I can absolutely promise you I'm probably more conversant in Thai defamation law than most Thai lawyers. What I said is true.

For journalists, it has to also be about informing the public. If reporting a true fact brings shame on an individual that's deemed to be for the public good, it's ok.

You do realize most of the charges against Andy have been dismissed? I do believe he was convicted of defamation to save face for the the Thai company, but his conviction will almost certain be overturned on an appeal who's verdict won't make the Thai news.

CSFFan does know of what he speaks.

Unfortunately for him.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Nope...Thailand defamation law disregards if it is true or not. If it causes loss of face (or harms a person's reputation or business), it can be brought about.
Just ask Andy Hall.

I can absolutely promise you I'm probably more conversant in Thai defamation law than most Thai lawyers. What I said is true.

For journalists, it has to also be about informing the public. If reporting a true fact brings shame on an individual that's deemed to be for the public good, it's ok.

You do realize most of the charges against Andy have been dismissed? I do believe he was convicted of defamation to save face for the the Thai company, but his conviction will almost certain be overturned on an appeal who's verdict won't make the Thai news.

I gladly stand corrected.

It has done the rounds time and time again (on TVisa) that the truth doesn't matter, except when that truth is in the public interest.
Why do the courts even entertain cases that are patently about some self-important dude losing face and the defamatory remarks were clearly true?
Andy was convicted...that he will hopefully win on appeal does not change the fact that he wrote the truth, someone didn't like it, and he got done.

Originally Posted by CSFFan

I do believe he was convicted of defamation to save face for the the Thai company, but his conviction will almost certain be overturned on an appeal who's verdict won't make the Thai news.

Ahhhh, I see. I recall the Fruit guy or his spokesman saying "We are vindicated".
So, it allowed that statement, to save face publicly, but the conviction will be quietly overturned.
Do I read that right?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Andy was convicted...that he will hopefully win on appeal does not change the fact that he wrote the truth, someone didn't like it, and he got done.

His appeal will be easy to write, I know that for a fact.

Thai courts look firstly at the person/organization bringing the suit. The judge asks themselves, "Why would a upstanding company like XXXX have these things said about them? They must be a good company because they make so much money."

The case then becomes about not whether the statements are true, but if it's beneficial to the public (in Andy's case) and not to merely shame the plaintiff. As the workers were Burmese that Andy reported about, it only shamed the company but didn't expose any real harm to Thai citizens, thus was deemed not to be in public interest as foreign labors don't comprise the Thai public.

This is from conversations....I've never read the Thai verdict.

The case dismissed here was about an interview on Al-Jazeera, there are 3 other cases, including one where Andy Hall was judged guilty (fine and jail term, suspended pending appeal) for the content of the study (biased and unsubstantiated according to the company)

Contrary to the other law, Truth is a good defence in defamation cases, but then statements must be substantiated ... In this case, Andy Hall refused to disclose his material (recordings of employee interviews for example) as he is protecting the employees who trusted him enough to share their insight ... good on him, don't know if he will be able to defend his case properly in appeal without disclosing too much data ...

edit : oops I though I was in (one of) the topic(s) on Andy Hall cases