News Forum - Police claim that officer didn’t commit a hit and run, admit the driver hit someone and left

[Thaiger]

The Metropolitan Police Bureau is claiming that the officer who allegedly plowed his truck through a group of pro-democracy protesters over the weekend did not commit a hit and run. 1 protester was injured as a result of the incident. Pol Lt Gen Phukphong Phongpetra concedes that a prisoner transport vehicle was involved in the incident but claims that it was not a case of hit and run as pro-democracy protesters would have you believe online. Phukphong says the truck was attacked by protesters as it drove past the Din Daeng intersection on Sunday. A location that is notable for […]

The post Police claim that officer didn’t commit a hit and run, admit the driver hit someone and left appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[DoUKnowWhoIAm]

11 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

did not commit a hit and run

No it was a hit and injure

[Graham]

No, they jumped in front of the vehicle and the brakes failed so the driver was unable to stop in time. Happens all the time in Thailand,  you'd be amazed how many tree's, walls etc. jump out in front of vehicles. 555

[Bob20]

The technical term would be: "unintentional not-really hit and only run because the victim could still get up".

By the time he's said that he would have hit another 5 people....

Uh, I mean "unintentionally not-really hit and only run because those 5 could still get up".

Oops that was enough time for another 6...

[colinneil]

When i read a senior policeman saying.... A fact finding probe is underway, i immediately think, whitewash time, any probe into this incident will clearly blame anybody but the driver.

Heres a thought how do you know when a senior policeman is not being truthful?

Simple answer his lips are moving.

[Smithydog]

When he gets out of hospital the boy will probably be charged with deliberately damaging a police vehicle and the driver awarded a medal for his bravery!

[HolyCowCm]

2 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

When he gets out of hospital the boy will probably be charged with deliberately damaging a police vehicle and the driver awarded a medal for his bravery!

Sued for mental anguish by the driver as well.

[HolyCowCm]

Now, does this video back up all the claims that the officer and police are saying happened? I know what I think. Hard to tell what the kid was trying to do.

Reminds me of a joke. Why did the Thai kid protestor running like a headless chicken cross the road in front of a speeding police jail truck?

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Thaiger said:

Thai PBS says Phukphong claims the driver didn’t intentionally drive into the protesters, thus, the incident can’t be considered a hit and run because it wasn’t done on purpose.

A bit worrying if a police chief doesn't know that a hit and run isn't "done on purpose" but is an accident, and that if it was on purpose it would be assault / manslaughter / murder.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, HolyCowCm said:

Now, does this video back up all the claims that the officer and police are saying happened? I know what I think. Hard to tell what the kid was trying to do.

The video doesn't show what had happened before, but it does clearly show the boy walking diagonally across the road and the police pick-up speeding and driving straight into him, with no-one else in the immediate area, then speeding away with no sign of the burst right-rear tyre that's off the rim in later pictures or of any broken windscreen (although the latter's not clear).

[MTa449]

Why not run people over if you can" bag " someone to death then the police figure it's easier to run them over with a truck ! Regardless of the video they've ( police) already justified the officers careless actions . Just another atrocity fueling an upcoming revolution cause people are not going to put up with this injustice for long and unfortunately matters will turn to outright violent retaliation ! The government entities are looking more like a public enemy than a political foe and that's the beginnings of a revolution in the people's eyes ! 

[Poolie]

That wouldn't be anything to do with  the reporting would it?

Have you heard about the police Lance Corporal that's been in a coma with a serious head injury for two weeks caused by an explosive device? No, neither has anyone else, much.........................

[MrStretch]

I've watched the video 6 times now.

While I can't vouch for what happened prior to the truck appearing, it surely is a hit and run, and without question, it looks intentional.

[Bob20]

7 minutes ago, MrStretch said:

I've watched the video 6 times now.

While I can't vouch for what happened prior to the truck appearing, it surely is a hit and run, and without question, it looks intentional.

Keep watching, the 11th time he doesn't hit him

[MrStretch]

1 minute ago, Bob20 said:

Keep watching, the 11th time he doesn't hit him

I saw the comment on the right, from the main page and spit all over my monitor laughing.

[Bob20]

Just now, MrStretch said:

I saw the comment on the right, from the main page and spit all over my monitor laughing.

Sorry  

[DiJoDavO]

9 hours ago, DoUKnowWhoIAm said:

No it was a hit and injure

They claimed it wasn't a hit and run, but to be precise a hit and drive. 

[Lawyers_Guns_and_Money]

12 hours ago, Thaiger said:

The Metropolitan Police Bureau is claiming that the officer who allegedly plowed his truck through a group of pro-democracy protesters over the weekend did not commit a hit and run. 1 protester was injured as a result of the incident. Pol Lt Gen Phukphong Phongpetra concedes that a prisoner transport vehicle was involved in the incident but claims that it was not a case of hit and run as pro-democracy protesters would have you believe online. Phukphong says the truck was attacked by protesters as it drove past the Din Daeng intersection on Sunday. A location that is notable for […]

The post Police claim that officer didn’t commit a hit and run, admit the driver hit someone and left appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

 

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, MrStretch said:

I've watched the video 6 times now.

While I can't vouch for what happened prior to the truck appearing, it surely is a hit and run, and without question, it looks intentional.

"intentional" is questionable, to be fair. He doesn't change his line at all, to either steer away from him or to steer towards him, but just keeps going absolutely straight; you can also clearly hear the brakes squeal just before he hits him, and see the pick up slow down and the front of the pick up dip from the braking.

It's impossible to say why - if he was panicked, on the phone, stoned, meditating, enjoying a BJ, having a heart attack, or anything else.

It clearly wasn't as he described it, though.

[JohninDublin]

13 hours ago, Stonker said:

A bit worrying if a police chief doesn't know that a hit and run isn't "done on purpose" but is an accident, and that if it was on purpose it would be assault / manslaughter / murder.

Whether intentional or not, under UK law, this would be classed as "Failing to stop after an accident" (Hit and Run).  Intent is not relevant. There is a requirement under UK law, that you stop long enough to provide people with your name and address. The only real defence that is open to the driver is that he had urgent medical needs such as needing to transport a wife to a maternity hospital, or if he reasonably believed that he might be in fear of mob violence if he remained at the scene. Even then, he is obliged to notify the police ASAP

Thus as he has used "lack of intent" as a defence, he cannot really change his story now and would almost certainly be convicted, Unfortunately, the penalty in the UK is a fine and a maximum of 5 pts on your license, even if you kill someone for that specific crime.

However, as someone has suggested already, this cop will probably receive a bravery award.

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Whether intentional or not, under UK law, this would be classed as "Failing to stop after an accident" (Hit and Run).  Intent is not relevant. There is a requirement under UK law, that you stop long enough to provide people with your name and address. The only real defence that is open to the driver is that he had urgent medical needs such as needing to transport a wife to a maternity hospital, or if he reasonably believed that he might be in fear of mob violence if he remained at the scene. Even then, he is obliged to notify the police ASAP

Thus as he has used "lack of intent" as a defence, he cannot really change his story now and would almost certainly be convicted, Unfortunately, the penalty in the UK is a fine and a maximum of 5 pts on your license, even if you kill someone for that specific crime.

However, as someone has suggested already, this cop will probably receive a bravery award.

Thailand has the same law - leaving the scene of an accident - and it even includes witnesses.

There are exceptions, but none apply here.

[DiJoDavO]

I didn't commit a hit and run, but I hit someone and drove away...

This guy might have sex with your wife and says: I didn't have sex with her. I just put my penis inside her.

[kerryd]

It is clear that the vehicle was "at speed" and driving straight when the pedestrian/protestor ran out into the traffic lane and then ran directly in front of the truck.

WTF was he thinking ? That the truck would be able to stop in 2 meters ? I'm sure the driver never thought anyone would be stupid enough to run in front of a speeding vehicle.

Think about this.
According to the wiki article "Braking Distance" and some other sites, a vehicle travelling at (30 mph or 48 km/h) takes from 23-27 meters to stop.

I'm sure that truck was doing over 50 km/h as well. Probably 70+.

Lets say he was doing 65 km/h. That means it would take him 36-42 meters to stop (depending on his reaction time).

Now go back and look at the video again and decide at which point the driver should have known that the pedestrian was about to jump in front of him. 

I used to teach Defensive Driving and was always amazed in places like Vancouver where people would simply walk out into an intersection without looking and expect 2 ton vehicles travelling at 50 km/h to instantly stop for them. And then curse the driver for a near miss (or blame them for an accident).

I used to point out to students to watch people at crosswalks and intersections and see how many of them look both ways before crossing and how many just simply walk out onto the roadway. It's scary how many simply assume they have the right-of-way and that all traffic should be able to stop instantly for them.

And what do you think would have happened if he'd stopped (as he should have done by the law) ? 

It's all nice to think that the protestors would have just stood by and done nothing but I'm sure most of you know that wouldn't have been the case.
The driver would have been dragged from the vehicle and beaten, possibly killed.

Nothing a mob loves better than blood on the street. And an authority figure to vent their anger on.
 

21 hours ago, Graham said:

No, they jumped in front of the vehicle and the brakes failed so the driver was unable to stop in time. Happens all the time in Thailand,  you'd be amazed how many tree's, walls etc. jump out in front of vehicles. 555

Actually, that is one of the most common excuses people use when filing insurance claims (in the US at least). There was a meme going around a long time ago that listed the top excuses people gave when filing claims for (single person) accidents.
Trees and lamp posts and barriers that "jumped" in front (or behind) a vehicle from out of nowhere was a very common excuse ! 

Most often (so it seems) in mall parking lots and people's driveways. In broad daylight. 

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

21 hours ago, Graham said:

No, they jumped in front of the vehicle and the brakes failed so the driver was unable to stop in time. Happens all the time in Thailand,  you'd be amazed how many tree's, walls etc. jump out in front of vehicles. 555

Very much sounds like they have seen Jasper Carrots insurance claim forms ……

The bloke was all over the road. I had to swerve a number of times before I hit him. 
The car in front hit the pedestrian but he got up so I hit him again 
The other car collided with mine without giving warning of its intentions. . 
The pedestrian had no idea which direction to run so I ran over him. 
The pedestrian ran for the pavement, but I got him. 
The telephone pole was approaching and I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it struck the front end of my car. 
There was no damage done to the car, as the gate post will testify. 
There were plenty of lookers-on but no witnesses. 
To avoid a collision I ran into the other car. 
To avoid hitting the bumper of the car in front I struck a pedestrian. 
When I saw I could not avoid a collision I stepped on the gas and crashed into the other car. 
 

[Stardust]

On 9/15/2021 at 9:11 AM, kerryd said:

It is clear that the vehicle was "at speed" and driving straight when the pedestrian/protestor ran out into the traffic lane and then ran directly in front of the truck.

WTF was he thinking ? That the truck would be able to stop in 2 meters ? I'm sure the driver never thought anyone would be stupid enough to run in front of a speeding vehicle.

Think about this.
According to the wiki article "Braking Distance" and some other sites, a vehicle travelling at (30 mph or 48 km/h) takes from 23-27 meters to stop.

I'm sure that truck was doing over 50 km/h as well. Probably 70+.

Lets say he was doing 65 km/h. That means it would take him 36-42 meters to stop (depending on his reaction time).

Now go back and look at the video again and decide at which point the driver should have known that the pedestrian was about to jump in front of him. 

I used to teach Defensive Driving and was always amazed in places like Vancouver where people would simply walk out into an intersection without looking and expect 2 ton vehicles travelling at 50 km/h to instantly stop for them. And then curse the driver for a near miss (or blame them for an accident).

I used to point out to students to watch people at crosswalks and intersections and see how many of them look both ways before crossing and how many just simply walk out onto the roadway. It's scary how many simply assume they have the right-of-way and that all traffic should be able to stop instantly for them.

And what do you think would have happened if he'd stopped (as he should have done by the law) ? 

It's all nice to think that the protestors would have just stood by and done nothing but I'm sure most of you know that wouldn't have been the case.
The driver would have been dragged from the vehicle and beaten, possibly killed.

Nothing a mob loves better than blood on the street. And an authority figure to vent their anger on.
 

Actually, that is one of the most common excuses people use when filing insurance claims (in the US at least). There was a meme going around a long time ago that listed the top excuses people gave when filing claims for (single person) accidents.
Trees and lamp posts and barriers that "jumped" in front (or behind) a vehicle from out of nowhere was a very common excuse ! 

Most often (so it seems) in mall parking lots and people's driveways. In broad daylight. 

What an absurd comment. Everybody could see the video and could see the police car is driving behind the running victim then speeded up and hit him. This brings the question who pay you for such absurd statement and do you think everybody has no eyes and could not see it. By the way the biggest criminal mob is who take power by a coup and guns!