Bangkok: Police spokesperson clarifies that all aspects of the case involving a homeowner shooting and killing an intruder must be investigated, emphasizing that the act was in self-defense and proportionate to the circumstances.
According to Thai News Agency, Pol. Lt. Gen. Trairong Phiwphan, Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Thai Police and spokesperson for the Royal Thai Police, explained the legal principles regarding the case of a homeowner shooting and killing an intruder, stating that all aspects must be investigated. He revealed that Section 68 allows for self-defense if the danger is imminent and the action is proportionate to the threat. However, if force is still used after the danger has ended, it may be considered excessive force.
Today, Pol. Lt. Gen. Trairong commented on legal issues via his Facebook page, Trairong Phiwphan, following a social debate regarding the question: "To what extent does a homeowner have the right to defend themselves against intruders?" He stated that there has been much discussion recently about cases where intruders entered a house and the homeowner used a firearm, resulting in the intruder's death, and the relevant legal aspects of the case. Therefore, as a police officer, he wanted to explain the relevant legal principles to ensure a common understanding.
The general principle is that when a person is shot and killed, it is considered a criminal case that requires police investigation, verification of facts, and collection of evidence to determine what happened. Whether the person using the weapon is guilty and what their legal status is will depend on the facts and evidence presented. Once the investigation is complete, legal procedures will be followed, including submitting a case opinion to the public prosecutor for consideration. Therefore, it is not possible to simply conclude a legal conclusion based on whether "the deceased was a trespasser" or "the incident occurred inside a house."
At the same time, the law clearly guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves and others. Section 68 of the Criminal Code establishes the principle of lawful self-defense. If there is imminent danger arising from an unlawful act, and the action taken in self-defense is proportionate to the circumstances, the perpetrator is not guilty. Therefore, there is no simplistic principle that says, "If a criminal enters your house, you can shoot them in any case," and conversely, there is no principle that says, "If you shoot an intruder in your house, the homeowner is always guilty."
The key is the circumstances at the time of the incident. For example, did the intruder enter the house at night, approach the homeowner closely, refuse to stop when questioned, or exhibit behavior that led the homeowner to reasonably believe their life, body, or property was in danger? These are all crucial facts in determining whether the response was a justified and proportionate act of self-defense. Conversely, if the danger had ended but the intruder continued to pursue the homeowner using force or weapons, the legal interpretation may differ depending on the circumstances.
If the facts constitute justified and proportionate self-defense under Section 68, the perpetrator is not guilty. However, if there was a genuine reason for self-defense but the action exceeded what was proportionate, it may fall under the principle of Section 69, which allows the court to consider imposing a lesser punishment than prescribed by law. Furthermore, if the action resulted from excitement, shock, or fear, the court may not impose any punishment at all.
Another point to clarify is that police investigations do not automatically mean that the person defending themselves is guilty. When someone dies, the police have a duty to examine the crime scene, the weapon and wounds, conduct forensic analysis, review CCTV footage, interview witnesses and those involved, and gather all the evidence to determine what happened at the time the person decided to use a weapon.
The judicial process then considers the facts and evidence at each stage, from the investigating officer to the prosecutor, and if the case goes to court, it is the court's authority to make a final judgment.
Therefore, I believe it's unnecessary to view it in a two-sided manner, arguing between "shooting is permissible" or "shooting is not permissible." More importantly, citizens have the right to defend themselves and others as guaranteed by law, and the justice system has a duty to investigate the facts to determine whether the defense was within the conditions of the law.
Ultimately, the law does not consider only whether the incident occurred "inside the house" or "outside the house," but takes into account all the circumstances at the time of the incident, especially whether there was an imminent danger of unlawful assault and whether the actions taken in self-defense were proportionate to the circumstances.