According to Green & Ward's (2004) definition, state crime means human right violations or state organizational deviance. Based on the 2020 political conflicts in Thailand, at least four historical actions can potentially identify as state crimes—the 2014 coup, the 2017 constitution, the usage of the lèse majesté law, and the state officers using violence to force people to remain in silence. Beyond that, there are two contradicting political narratives—the conservative and the reformist. While the conservative justified the four actions mentioned earlier, the reformists do not. This study aims to explore the development of the political narratives of the two conflicting sides based on their own verbal explanation. In addition, it discovers the linkages between those narratives and the actions taken towards the current situation in Thailand. The researcher uses the Narrative Approach to Qualitative Inquiry to interview participants from both political narrative sides. Then the results are analyzed by the Narrative Thematic Analysis process. The analysis reveals that the surroundings (political news, for example) influence conservatives and reformists in their political narrative development process. Furthermore, they make political moves accordingly to their interpretation of those inputs. Hence, it is clear that political narrative impacts the justification of state crime in this particular situation. Lastly, stepping out of the echo chamber, the justice system based on the rule of law, and using digital media with self-awareness potentially decreases state crime justification, the study finds.