What began as a drab Tuesday evening in Trang province turned into a scene ripped from a thriller — only this time the protagonists were ordinary people, a temple, and an accusation that went badly wrong. Around 7:30pm on September 2, monks at Rai Pru Temple in Mueang Trang district received a frightened, wounded visitor: 22-year-old Nattawut had staggered into the compound seeking help after being shot while riding pillion on a motorcycle.
Monks quickly called the Nam Phud Sub-district Office Rescue Foundation. The rescuers found Nattawut nursing three gunshot wounds to his right leg and left ankle. His 19-year-old companion — who had been driving the motorcycle — escaped without physical harm. The rescue team rushed Nattawut to hospital and alerted Mueang Trang Police Station to investigate what local media later called a tragic case of mistaken identity.
By the time officers arrived on scene, the man accused of pulling the trigger was already waiting on the roadside of Trang-Nam Phud Road, apparently ready to surrender. Sixty-three-year-old Jaroonsak — who had been at the same funeral as the injured man earlier that evening — told police he and his son handed the 11mm handgun used in the incident over to officers.
His version of events was straightforward and steeped in fear. As he later told investigators, he and his son had left the temple after the funeral and were driving home when they noticed the motorcycle tailing them. When the biker stayed behind them, even mimicking a right turn he made, Jaroonsak grew convinced the pair were thieves stalking them. Instead of turning down the alley to his house, he kept driving in an attempt to avoid confrontation. When the motorcycle continued to shadow the car, he stopped, got out holding a gun, and confronted the two men. According to Jaroonsak, they tried to flee — and he fired. The shot struck Nattawut, who had been sitting as a passenger.
But the account from Nattawut’s friend tells a different — and much less sinister — story. The 19-year-old said the pair worked for a local moneylender and had just finished a routine debt-collection run when the shooting took place. They were on their way home, he insisted, not stalking anyone, and had no knowledge of or intent to confront Jaroonsak. In other words, their path only coincidentally coincided with the driver of the car.
Those clashing narratives are now the core of a police investigation. Authorities charged Jaroonsak with attempted murder — a grave charge under Section 288 of Thailand’s Criminal Law, which treats attempted murder as carrying roughly half the penalty of murder. Under that law, a murder conviction can lead to the harshest penalties, including death, life imprisonment, or a 15–20 year term, which means attempted murder still carries very heavy consequences.
On top of the attempted murder charge, police filed an additional count under Section 8 of the Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks and Imitation Firearms Act for carrying a gun in a public place without authorization. That offence carries a maximum of five years in prison, a fine of up to 10,000 baht, or both — a significant penalty, though far less severe than the attempted murder charge.
The episode has stirred unease in the local community. The fact that two young workers ended up shot after what one side says was misidentification and the other says was an innocuous ride home has prompted questions about the easy escalation of fear into violence. Social media posts and local news outlets, including photos shared by Andamantime News, captured the tense atmosphere — a roadside surrender, a temple acting as an emergency refuge, and a town buzzing with worry.
Legal experts will likely focus on whether Jaroonsak’s belief that he and his son were under threat was reasonable under the law. Self-defence can be a valid defence in some cases, but Thai criminal courts will look closely at whether the force used was proportionate and whether there was an imminent danger that justified shooting at fleeing suspects. Given the discrepancies between witness statements and the physical injuries suffered, police investigators have their work cut out for them.
For now, the hospital is looking after Nattawut’s wounds, and the matter is in the hands of law enforcement and the courts. The case underscores how quickly ordinary interactions on the road can spiral into life-altering events when fear, assumptions, and firearms mix. It also serves as a reminder of the pivotal role local institutions — from temples offering sanctuary to volunteer rescue teams racing to the scene — play in Thailand’s communities when things go wrong.
As the investigation continues, residents of Mueang Trang are left with questions: Were two young men just unlucky bystanders, or was there more at play in the moments before shots rang out on that quiet evening road? Police will piece together CCTV, witness testimony and ballistic evidence in the coming days, but the human cost is already clear — an injured young man, a shaken community, and a 63-year-old driver now facing serious criminal charges.
Whatever the court ultimately decides, the incident is a sobering snapshot of how fear can cascade into tragedy. For now, prayers at Rai Pru Temple mix with police sirens and the low hum of conversation in Trang, as the town waits for answers.
This is outrageous — a 63-year-old man pulled a gun and shot a kid who might have been on his way home. Fear is not a license to use deadly force, and the law should be clear about that. The community needs accountability, not excuses.
I get your anger, but we should consider he was scared after a funeral and thought he was being followed; older people feel vulnerable at night.
Feeling scared doesn’t make shooting someone proportionate — if he believed there was danger, fleeing or calling police would have been better than firing.
Yeah! My dad says never point guns at people unless you want trouble.
But why didn’t the driver just speed away? Something smells like debt-collector drama to me.
The friend said they work for a moneylender, but that doesn’t mean they were attackers; assumptions can kill.
Legally, the key is whether the perceived threat was reasonable and imminent; firing at a fleeing motorcycle will be judged harshly unless clear danger is proved.
Victim blaming is dangerous; this young man is injured and his life changed in seconds, whether he was a debtor or not.
I’m on the fence — self-defence laws exist for a reason, but the proportionality of force matters and shooting to stop a tailing motorcycle seems extreme.
From a legal standpoint, Section 288 will hinge on intent and necessity; prosecutors will analyze CCTV, ballistics, and witness credibility. Courts often scrutinize whether the defendant had alternatives and whether the force used corresponded to a real, imminent threat. This case will test how Thai jurisprudence balances fear and the sanctity of life.
Do we know if CCTV from the temple or nearby shops recorded the chase? That evidence could decide everything.
Police said they would check CCTV and ballistic evidence, but those things take time and the public is already forming opinions on social media.
This incident also highlights wider societal issues: gun accessibility, vigilante impulses, and how communities handle perceived threats without escalating violence.
I’m suspicious: local moneylenders and informal debt collection often bring danger. Maybe those two were targeted because of their work, not random misidentification.
Even if they were debt collectors, that doesn’t justify shooting civilians; we can’t slide into ‘they had it coming’ logic.
This is exactly why tighter gun controls matter — too many people think a gun solves problems when it often makes them worse.
The temple acting as a refuge shows how local institutions step in when emergencies happen, but it’s tragic a sanctified place became part of a crime scene. The rescue team’s quick action probably saved the young man’s life.
Yes, the monks did what any community would hope for — shelter and fast calls to help the injured.
Why is the shooter 63 and carrying an 11mm handgun in public? Laws are supposed to stop this kind of casual armament. He should have known better.
He did hand the gun to police, which may suggest he didn’t intend to hide it; still, carrying it without authorization is a crime under the firearms act.
Five years max for illegal carry seems lenient compared to attempted murder; the sentencing gap is striking.
Penalties are scaled, but the combined social stigma and criminal record will be severe; however, deeper prevention requires cultural change, not just sentences.
I just can’t stop thinking about Nattawut hobbling into a temple with wounds — that’s heartbreaking and avoidable violence. Whoever is found guilty must face justice so this doesn’t become routine.
We should be careful about expecting quick justice; investigations must be thorough to avoid miscarriages.
I agree a careful investigation is needed, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to let fear-driven shootings slide.
This is scary. Why would someone shoot instead of calling police or driving away? Shooting seems wrong and dangerous.
Many people act irrationally under fear; the law recognizes that but also requires that force be proportionate and necessary.
Families in Trang must be terrified — elderly shooter, wounded youth, and a temple caught in the middle. This will ripple through the town’s sense of safety.
Exactly, community trust erodes fast when neighbors shoot at each other; rebuilding that will take time and transparency.
If the driver was really tailing and mimicking turns, why not report suspicious driving before confronting? It’s risky to escalate, even if you fear theft.
Sometimes people panic and choose confrontation out of anger or pride, especially after funerals when spirits and emotions run high.
From a policing view, we look for motive, opportunity, and evidence like bullet trajectories and CCTV timestamps. If Jaroonsak’s story doesn’t match the physical evidence, charges will stick.
Good — hope investigators do their job and don’t let his age or ‘fear’ excuse lethal force.
This case is a microcosm of how modern anxieties (crime, debt, mistrust) intersect with older social spaces like temples. It’s complex and demands multidisciplinary analysis.
Agreed. Legal outcomes will be shaped by social narratives, media framing, and the quality of forensic work.
And public policy must follow: reduce gun access, improve conflict de-escalation training, and regulate private debt collection.
So many big words, but I get it: less guns, more talking.
Social media photos from Andamantime News fanned the flames too quickly; online outrage can pressure courts and shape testimony, which is dangerous. Let the facts speak before the mobs decide.
While caution is sensible, silence also protects the guilty; people are allowed to be angry and demand justice.
Will the 19-year-old driver be investigated for possible wrongdoing? The article says they work for a moneylender; the police should look at both sides carefully.
Yes, every party is a subject of inquiry — but being thorough doesn’t mean blame is equal, only that facts are sought.
If the shooter truly thought he was being followed by thieves, why not drive to the nearest police station instead of stopping in the open and confronting them? That choice undermines his self-defence claim.
In the moment people don’t always think clearly; fear compresses time and choices into panic.