Gunfire tears through a South Pattaya apartment as a serving policeman fires repeatedly after a violent clash. CCTV later shows him being struck with a gun-like object, while his drug test is negative. Detectives now race to establish who started the fight.
Gunfire shattered the early-morning quiet in South Pattaya on Saturday after a serving policeman fired repeatedly inside a third-floor apartment. Yet a case first portrayed as an intoxicated officer running berserk has taken a dramatic turn. Police Sergeant Major Nithis Phamontri, 35, tested negative in an initial drug screening, while CCTV appears to show him being attacked and struck around the head with a gun-like object. Nobody was shot despite at least eight rounds being reported and 10 spent casings later recovered. Now Pattaya City Police detectives must unravel conflicting accounts involving four young women, suspected ketamine use, a violent intervention and the officer’s claim of self-defence.
Gunfire and commotion shattered the early hours of Saturday morning in South Pattaya. The disturbance came from an apartment building in Soi Yensabai, close to the resort city’s nightlife areas.
Inside a third-floor room, a serving policeman had repeatedly fired a 9mm handgun. Bullet strikes were later found across walls and the ceiling. Remarkably, nobody was hit.
The shooting has created a considerable investigative headache for Pattaya City Police detectives. What initially appeared straightforward became significantly more complicated after investigators examined CCTV. Police Sergeant Major Nithis Phamontri, 35, is the policeman at the centre of the investigation. He serves with the prevention and suppression unit at nearby Bang Lamung Police Station.
Early reports of a frenzied policeman are complicated by CCTV evidence and a negative initial drug test
Initial local media reports painted an alarming picture. They described an apparently intoxicated policeman becoming frenzied before repeatedly firing his handgun inside an apartment. That reporting reflected statements emerging from the scene during Saturday morning. Witnesses described shaking, aggressive behaviour, suspected drug use and a disturbance involving several young women.
However, important evidence emerged later. CCTV appears to show Police Sergeant Major Nithis being attacked during the confrontation. Another man apparently carries a gun-like object before striking the policeman around the back of his head. The officer then falls to the floor. Notably, Police Sergeant Major Nithis also returned a negative result during an initial drug screening.
Therefore, early claims that ketamine caused his behaviour remain unsubstantiated against him. Police subsequently sent him for a more detailed hospital examination. Nevertheless, neither development settles the case. The CCTV captures only part of a longer confrontation, while further toxicology testing was ordered. Pattaya detectives must consequently reconstruct what happened before the shots were fired.
The apartment stands in Soi Yensabai in South Pattaya, Nong Prue subdistrict, Bang Lamung district, Chonburi. One report gave its address as 247/17 Moo 10. Reports described the premises as a three-storey apartment or daily-room establishment. Room No. 7 on the third floor became the principal crime scene.
Four women rented the South Pattaya room before concern, police intervention and gunfire followed
Police Sergeant Major Nithis had reportedly transferred to Chonburi from Saraburi. On Friday night, he joined a group involving several young women at the apartment. Four women, aged approximately 18 to 25, had reportedly rented the room. Among them was 23-year-old Patthama, known as Bam. She was identified as Police Sergeant Major Nithis’s girlfriend.
The property reportedly prohibited the women from bringing male visitors into their room. Even so, one woman went downstairs and brought the policeman upstairs. From that point, accounts differ sharply. During the early hours, something serious developed inside the third-floor apartment. People associated with the building became concerned and eventually went upstairs.
Then came the gunfire. One initial report recorded the emergency call at 5.36 am. Police Lieutenant Colonel Sontaya Khonsap subsequently led Pattaya City Police officers to the building. He is deputy inspector for crime prevention and suppression at Pattaya City Police Station. In response, officers cordoned off the property because they believed an armed man could remain inside.
Police then moved towards the third-floor room. There, the scale of the shooting became apparent. Bullet impacts marked walls and the ceiling. Early witnesses spoke of eight shots, while later forensic reporting said 10 cartridge cases were recovered. Other preliminary reports suggested more than 10 shots. Despite the confined setting, nobody suffered a gunshot wound.
Police seize a 9mm pistol as witnesses describe an agitated officer and claims of suspected ketamine use
Police subsequently secured a SIG Sauer P365 9mm pistol for detailed forensic examination. Officers also took Police Sergeant Major Nithis and the four women for questioning. At first, statements gathered around the apartment pointed heavily towards the policeman.
Dada, 32, the caretaker’s younger sister, was among those describing events. She said she followed Police Sergeant Major Nithis upstairs. According to Dada, she feared trouble could disturb foreign guests staying on the upper floors. She described the policeman as shaking and appearing agitated. Furthermore, she said he appeared to be attempting to damage property.
Dada described his behaviour as frenzied and said a firearm was present. Alarmed, she went downstairs and informed her brother. The caretaker and others then went upstairs to investigate. Under the original account, Police Sergeant Major Nithis retrieved a handgun from beneath a pillow after people entered. He then allegedly opened fire. Those present fled, and police were called.
Separately, one young woman provided claims which strengthened the initial picture of an intoxicated policeman. She said Police Sergeant Major Nithis had earlier left to obtain something called “Pork K” or “Pod K”. Reports described the term as an electronic-vaping product supposedly containing ketamine. According to the woman, Police Sergeant Major Nithis returned appearing intoxicated.
Drug claims face a setback after the officer tests negative before CCTV reveals part of the confrontation
She also accused him of sexually harassing women inside the room and assaulting Bam. Consequently, she said the women became frightened and sought assistance from people associated with the apartment. The woman believed suspected intoxication had contributed to his behaviour.
In parallel, the four women reportedly acknowledged that drugs had been consumed by people inside the room. They referred to ketamine and substances described as “Pork K” or “Pod K”. Police later recovered at least one electronic-cigarette device. Yet investigators had not established what that device contained. Laboratory confirmation was still required before linking it to ketamine.
The claims against Police Sergeant Major Nithis then encountered their first significant evidential complication. His preliminary drug screening returned negative. As part of the investigation, police sent him to Pattaya Pathumkhun Hospital for a more detailed examination. By Sunday, no reliable final toxicology result had been publicly confirmed. Accordingly, available testing did not substantiate claims that the policeman was intoxicated by ketamine.
The investigation then took another turn. CCTV footage provided Pattaya detectives with an independent record of part of the physical confrontation. At approximately 3.19 am, the footage reportedly shows a man identified as Ta heading upstairs towards Room No. 7. Reports described Ta as a caretaker or a man helping the caretaker. A woman follows him into the room.
CCTV shows Ta with a gun-like object before he appears to strike the policeman around the back of his head
Roughly two minutes later, at about 3.21 am, Ta emerges. Crucially, the footage appears to show an object resembling a handgun in his right hand. Police Sergeant Major Nithis follows him outside. Moments later, Ta appears to attempt to kick the policeman. The footage then apparently shows him striking Police Sergeant Major Nithis around the back of his head.
The apparent blow involves the gun-like object. Police Sergeant Major Nithis falls to the floor, while a woman attempts to intervene. For Pattaya detectives, that CCTV sequence significantly altered the evidence available after the first reports. It provides apparent independent evidence that Police Sergeant Major Nithis was physically attacked during the confrontation.
Yet the footage does not show everything that happened inside Room No. 7. Likewise, it does not explain why Ta entered the room. The caretaker’s side had already given police an explanation for its involvement. They said concerns about events upstairs prompted their intervention. The women had reportedly sought assistance. Thus, detectives must establish what Ta and the others encountered after entering the apartment.
On another front, Bam subsequently gave an account supporting important parts of her boyfriend’s version. She said she, Police Sergeant Major Nithis and another woman had been sleeping inside the room. According to Bam, Ta opened the door and entered. She said Police Sergeant Major Nithis was then attacked around his face and the back of his head.
Bam says the officer was attacked as detectives investigate who controlled the pistol during the struggle
As a result, the officer began bleeding and a fight followed. Significantly, Bam could not determine who possessed the pistol throughout every stage of the struggle. She said events became too confused to establish who controlled it at particular moments. That uncertainty now presents detectives with one of the case’s most important questions.
They must identify the gun-like object visible in Ta’s hand on CCTV. Specifically, investigators need to determine whether it was Police Sergeant Major Nithis’s SIG Sauer P365. If it was, detectives must establish how the handgun left the officer’s possession. They must then determine how and when Police Sergeant Major Nithis recovered it.
Those findings are particularly important because the policeman has claimed self-defence. Police Sergeant Major Nithis told investigators he fired after people entered the room. He said he mistakenly believed they intended to harm him. Initially, his explanation stood against statements describing an aggressive policeman and a frightened group seeking outside help.
Subsequently, CCTV appears to have confirmed that Police Sergeant Major Nithis was attacked during one stage. It apparently shows him struck around the head with a gun-like object before falling. Even so, that evidence cannot establish whether every subsequent shot was fired during an immediate threat. That question belongs to the continuing criminal investigation.
Self-defence claim gains context from CCTV as detectives establish the threat when the shots were fired
Equally, detectives must examine the actions of Ta and the caretaker fairly. Their account places their intervention after concerns were raised about Police Sergeant Major Nithis inside the room. Dada also said she feared the disturbance could affect other guests. Consequently, police need to determine whether the men went upstairs solely to assist the women. They must then establish how that intervention became a physical fight involving a firearm.
The timeline presents another problem. The CCTV sequence was reported at approximately 3.19 am and 3.21 am. Meanwhile, one initial report placed the police notification at 5.36 am. Other reporting gave earlier times for reports of gunfire. For that reason, police records and CCTV timestamps will be important in fixing the definitive chronology.
The physical crime scene offers another route towards resolving the conflicting accounts. Forensic officers have the SIG Sauer P365 pistol and the recovered cartridge cases. They also have numerous bullet strikes inside the apartment. Later reporting put the number of recovered spent cases at 10. Accordingly, their locations can be compared with the bullet impacts.
Investigators may then establish where Police Sergeant Major Nithis stood when he fired. The evidence could also establish the direction and sequence of the shots. Notably, nobody was struck despite repeated firing inside a relatively confined space. Blood at the scene therefore appears connected to the physical struggle rather than a gunshot wound.
Detectives examine caretaker intervention, disputed timeline and forensic evidence from the apartment
Police Sergeant Major Nithis suffered injuries during that confrontation. The CCTV apparently records at least one blow around the back of his head. However, investigators must establish whether additional injuries occurred inside the room. At the same time, the allegations concerning Bam remain part of the inquiry.
One woman claimed Police Sergeant Major Nithis assaulted his girlfriend before outside help was sought. Bam’s later account instead described Police Sergeant Major Nithis being attacked after Ta entered. The sexual-harassment allegation also came from one of the women. Each claim therefore requires examination against other statements and available evidence.
Elsewhere in the inquiry, the drug allegations require laboratory findings. The women reportedly acknowledged consuming drugs, including substances they described as ketamine. However, investigators still need to establish precisely what substances were present. Similarly, the recovered vaping device requires scientific testing.
Police Sergeant Major Nithis’s negative preliminary screening is important evidence concerning his condition. Still, investigators ordered a more detailed hospital examination before reaching conclusions. The final toxicology findings should provide a clearer answer.
Police examine injuries, assault claims and drug evidence as hospital toxicology tests remain outstanding
Meanwhile, Pattaya City Police Station is investigating the incident rather than Police Sergeant Major Nithis’s Bang Lamung station. Police Colonel Anek Srathongyu, superintendent of Pattaya City Police Station, was informed following the shooting. Investigators also coordinated with the Chonburi Provincial Forensic Science Division.
Forensic personnel examined the room, handgun, spent cartridge cases and bullet impacts. Police Colonel Anek ordered investigators to collect evidence comprehensively before determining responsibility. For detectives, the central task is now sequencing several established events.
Something serious happened inside Room No. 7 before people associated with the apartment intervened. A physical confrontation then developed. CCTV appears to show Police Sergeant Major Nithis being struck around the head and falling. At another stage, he possessed the SIG Sauer P365 and repeatedly fired it.
Eight shots were initially reported, while forensic officers reportedly recovered 10 spent casings. Yet no one was shot. Moreover, the officer’s preliminary drug screening returned negative. The women, however, reportedly admitted drug use during the gathering. Laboratory examination of the recovered vaping equipment remained outstanding.
Pattaya City Police and forensic officers reconstruct shooting from CCTV, gunfire and physical evidence
Against that background, the dramatic first reports require context. Local media initially encountered witness descriptions of a shaking policeman, suspected drugs, frightened women and repeated gunfire. Those accounts placed Police Sergeant Major Nithis at the centre of an alarming early-morning incident.
Later evidence, however, made the sequence substantially more complicated. The negative preliminary drug screening weakened the unproven claim that ketamine intoxication explained the officer’s behaviour. More significantly, CCTV appears to show the policeman himself becoming the target of physical violence.
Yet that does not invalidate the caretaker’s explanation for going upstairs. Nor does it establish the circumstances surrounding the subsequent gunfire. Pattaya City Police must therefore separate what witnesses believed was happening from what physical evidence can establish.
Fortunately for investigators, they have considerable material available. Detectives have CCTV, the SIG Sauer pistol, spent casings, bullet impacts and toxicology testing. Additionally, they have statements from Police Sergeant Major Nithis, Bam, the other women and people associated with the apartment.
Detectives must establish who started the violence, held the gun and what threat existed during the shooting
The investigation must now establish who initiated the violence and what happened immediately before the shooting. It must also determine whether the handgun changed hands during the fight. Above all, detectives must establish what threat existed when Police Sergeant Major Nithis fired.
Until those questions are resolved, Saturday’s South Pattaya gunfire remains a complicated case rather than a simple rampage. For residents and guests nearby, however, the immediate event was unmistakable. Repeated gunshots and commotion broke the early-morning quiet in Soi Yensabai.
Police officer bursts into tears as he surrenders to police led by son a day after murdering his wife
Pattaya police probe a nightclub shooting on the city’s Southside in the early hours of Monday morning
By daylight, a third-floor apartment carried multiple bullet strikes. Meanwhile, Pattaya City Police detectives had a difficult investigation on their hands. Now CCTV, forensic evidence and laboratory findings must establish exactly what happened inside Room No. 7.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Follow Thai Examiner on Google here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
Police search for Russian siblings who disappeared after Sunday morning motorbike ride in Pattaya
