FirstAlerts
Mass Casualty IncidentsVersion 2

Police give timeline of Nonthaburi school shooting that killed five

Thai police, in a case review meeting, laid out a minute-by-minute sequence at Debsirin Nonthaburi School, from a teacher shot at 9.53am to the suspect shooting himself at 10.10am; abc57.com reported five people killed and 30 injured.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 11, 2026, 1:09 a.m. ET
people were killed and injured in a shooting at in Bang Kruai district, , north of Bangkok, abc57.com reported. Those figures were current as of the day of the attack, after an earlier toll of three teachers and three students was revised down later the same day by Thailand's Prime Minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, according to abc57.com. Counts in an incident such as this are frequently revised. It was a school day. abc57.com described Debsirin Nonthaburi as a well-known secondary school of about 3,000 students on a busy highway, with students in classes — including an English class — when the shooting began; the Bangkok Post reported that teachers and students were in classrooms and on multiple floors of the building. One student who barricaded a classroom described crouching on the floor for minutes waiting for help, Khaosod English reported. CNN said the shooting began at about 10 a.m. local time. In a case review meeting, police set out a sequence of events: a student suspect arrived at the school at 9.53am and fatally shot a teacher in Classroom 3/8 on the sixth floor; at 9.54am he descended to the fifth floor, inserted a fresh magazine in his gun and attempted to continue shooting, but the gun reportedly jammed; police arrived at 10.02am; officers attempted to talk with him and ordered him to stop shooting at 10.08am; and at 10.10am he . The suspect is dead, according to both abc57.com and the Bangkok Post. The Bangkok Post reported that he , and Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said he turned the weapon on himself, according to abc57.com. An emergency worker, Kiatikhun Verapongpradith, said: "We rushed up and found that the perpetrator had shot himself in the right side of the head and collapsed." Police were the responding agency named by both outlets. Officials have not released the identities of those killed or injured. No motive has been established, and authorities have not said what led to the attack.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 211 Aug 2026, 05:09current

    Removed both bare weekday references ("as of Friday", "revised down later Friday"), replacing them with "as of the day of the attack" and "later the same day" — the fact set contains no calendar date, so none was invented. Dek reworded to drop an arithmetic inference ("ended 17 minutes later") in favour of the times police gave, printed exactly. Restored the "inserted a fresh magazine" detail from the police timeline, attributed the suspect's death to both outlets, and named police as the responding agency.

  2. Version 19 Aug 2026, 00:27

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.