BANGKOK: Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pic) on Wednesday (Aug 12) defended remarks that triggered a social-media backlash, saying he ment that homeowners who shot intruders dead would initially be treated as suspects in a criminal case, and explaining that even a claim of self-defence would have to be examined by the courts.
He linked the controversy to the government’s broader effort to tighten firearms controls, reiterating that Thailand’s tens of millions of guns needed to be brought under stricter regulation.
“We have to bring guns in Thailand under control. There are tens of millions of them. That is too much when the population is only 70 million,” Anutin said.
Speaking at Sanam Luang at 7.35am on Wednesday (August 12), the prime minister and interior minister acknowledged that his earlier explanation might have been too brief but insisted that the law on self-defence had not changed.
“There has been no misunderstanding,” he said. “The main point is to make everyone understand that firearms benefit no one.”
Anutin said that whenever a firearm was used against another person, whether the shooter argued that the act was unavoidable or proportionate to the threat, the circumstances would have to be examined through the justice system.
The person involved could face an investigation and initially be treated as a suspect before a court decided whether the act amounted to lawful self-defence, he said.
His intention, Anutin added, was to warn people about the consequences of keeping or using firearms rather than to deny their legal right to defend themselves.
A person shot with a firearm could be injured or killed, while the shooter could face questioning, bail proceedings and repeated court appearances before receiving a ruling on whether the response was justified and proportionate, he said.
“The law has not gone anywhere. It has not been changed. It is best to stay away from guns,” Anutin said.
Anutin was also questioned about an instruction issued during a meeting of Bhumjaithai Party MPs that they should not carry firearms.
He said the instruction did not apply only to his party’s MPs because, according to him, all existing gun-carry permits in Thailand had expired.
“It was not just an instruction to MPs. No one can carry a gun now because there are no longer any valid carry permits in Thailand,” he said.
Asked about Bhumjaithai politicians who collect firearms, Anutin said ownership was a personal matter, provided that the weapons were held legally and disclosed in their asset declarations.
He nevertheless stressed that politicians and candidates for public office had a particular responsibility to comply with firearms laws.
Anyone found carrying or possessing an illegal firearm could face legal action, while the case might also be interpreted as an ethical violation with consequences for their political future, he said.
Anutin said it was unclear whether such a breach could ultimately result in a person being barred from standing in an election or holding political office, but public figures and elected representatives should set an example by obeying the law.
The prime minister also confirmed that the Cabinet’s August 11 decision to halt the issuing of Por 3 permits meant that people would not be allowed to obtain permission to purchase firearms until the policy was changed.
Asked whether the decision meant no one could buy a gun, Anutin replied: “Yes, until there is an order changing it.”
He said the scale of firearm ownership in Thailand made a wider reorganisation of the system necessary, pointing to what he described as tens of millions of guns among a population of about 70 million.
Pol Lt Gen Trirong Piwpan, Deputy Inspector-General of the Royal Thai Police and police spokesman, separately explained the legal principles governing cases in which homeowners use force against intruders.
He said the death of any person following a shooting required police to investigate the circumstances and collect evidence. That process did not mean officers had already concluded that the person claiming self-defence was guilty.
Investigators must determine what happened before deciding the legal status of those involved and submitting their findings to prosecutors, he said.
The legal outcome could not be determined solely by the fact that the person killed was an intruder or that the incident occurred inside a home.
At the same time, Thai law expressly recognises the right of people to defend themselves and others.
Section 68 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is not guilty of an offence when acting to defend themselves or another person against an imminent unlawful threat, provided that the response is proportionate to the circumstances.
Trirong said there was therefore no simple rule that an intruder entering a home could be shot in every case. Equally, there was no rule that a homeowner who shot an intruder would automatically be guilty.
The decisive issue was what was happening at the time force was used.
Relevant circumstances could include whether an intruder entered at night, moved towards the homeowner, refused to stop when challenged or behaved in a way that gave the homeowner reasonable grounds to believe that their life, physical safety or property faced an imminent threat.
The legal assessment could be different if the danger had already ended and the homeowner pursued the intruder before using force or a weapon.
Where the evidence showed that the response was lawful and proportionate under Section 68, the person who acted in self-defence would not be criminally liable, Trirong said.
Where a genuine need for self-defence existed but the response exceeded what was proportionate, Section 69 allows a court to impose a lighter sentence than normally prescribed.
The court may also decide not to impose punishment if the excessive response resulted from excitement, shock or fear, depending on the circumstances.
Trirong stressed that a police investigation following a fatal shooting was a required part of the justice process rather than proof of guilt.
Officers may inspect the scene, examine the firearm and injuries, conduct forensic tests, review security-camera footage and question witnesses and other people involved.
Investigators, prosecutors and, if the case proceeds to trial, the court will then consider the evidence at each stage.
The issue should not be reduced to opposing claims that homeowners either could or could not use force against intruders, Trirong said.
The law instead requires an examination of whether there was an imminent unlawful threat and whether the action taken in response was proportionate to that danger. - The Nation/ANN
