Thailand judge shoots himself in court after criticising system | Hacker News Reader

Thailand judge shoots himself in court after criticising system

bbc.com

65 pointsmiles12 comments

If you read the news Thailand is a very active area politically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand

Lately, I've been listening to a good class on law in general (mostly US law). I'd like to recommend a course called Law School for Everyone on Audible by Molly Bishop Shadel (at least that's who is narrating the episodes I've heard so far)

The reason I bring it up is it talks about what we do in USA to try make our court system fair. One of the major things is having representation is basically required to survive, a layperson won't be looped in on how to let evidence in / out, how to question witnesses, how/when to object so stuff can be appealed later, etc. The series explains it better than I could.

Off topic: This law professor has more material on YouTube. There are parables to being in front of a jury she cites in popular cases that hold true for public presentation in general, like being self-assured (good!) but not coming off as standoff-ish / bullying (bad, hurts credibility!). This sounds like common sense, but it happens with smart people and its impacted juries before.

Anyone here a lawyer from Thailand and could happen to explain their opinion on the judicial process? Maybe we can get lucky, worth a try. :)

Well, I'm Thais. the story 'bout the judge receive some secret memorandum from higher ranking judge officer. order him to executed 3 out of 5 suspected Muslim peoples, without clearly evidence. In the court room after the judge release that 5 people against secret memorandum he then shot himself. before the court begin he publish 25 page document about the story via Facebook.

here are the copy of document https://www.facebook.com/GoodLordAbove/posts/241741368164546... the original post on judge facebook wall got deleted after he shot himself, no idea who access his mobile phone.

I assume he was afraid that someone would "suicide him" after his speech - otherwise there should be an inquiry into who exactly he was referring to, who was pressuring him or asked him to find anyone "guilty" of the crime. I hope he's being protected.

>>otherwise there should be an inquiry into who exactly he was referring to, who was pressuring him or asked him to find anyone "guilty" of the crime. I hope he's being protected.

https://www.dw.com/en/thailands-muslim-rebellion-has-army-li... Probably pressure to find the Muslim men guilty. But usually, those that would in a perfect world protect the judiciary are the ones behind the pressure to find x side guilty. Everyone "knows" and all but a few toe the line.

he survived.

Can we change the title to 'attempts suicide' because this is disturbing until you read the article?

I don't think the title is sensationalist or inaccurate. Attempting suicide could be any number of things. Here, he actually shot himself in the chest. That's pretty wild.

I understand, but it seems clickbait to not convey the information that the judge survived the shot.

It doesn’t to me. Had he killed himself it would have been described as lethal. It’s standard practice to describe only what’s known, even when doing so is at odds with how the average person would characterize the event — it may well have been his intention to cause a spectacle without taking his life, so it’s premature to describe it as an “attempted suicide”.

I agree with the parent insofar as the title is misleading. I immediately assumed he had died from the title. It's heavily implicit.

I also think it's pretty clear that it was a suicide attempt, and, though I could be wrong, the article itself describes it as a suicide attempt, so they've already made that judgement when choosing the title. Of course, regardless of whether or not it was a suicide attempt, the information that he didn't kill himself could be conveyed in the title.

Reading the article wasn't disturbing?

FWIW I assumed from the title that he hadn't killed himself; if he had, the title certainly would have stated it.

The implication is that he tried to kill himself, and the absence of the phrase "attempted suicide" implies he succeeded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com