Probe Of Japanese Cameraman's Death Is Worrying

[AleG]

The people who died there deserve the truth. It doesn't matter if they were yellow, red, army or innocent bystanders they all deserve justice and whoever is responsible in one way or another should face the consequences. The sad truth is that every side denies responsiblity and hide behind accusations, cover ups and lies and both sides have something to hide.

Fear not! Chalerm is personally directing the efforts, and we know that there couldn't possibly be anyone more capable, diligent and truthful as Chalerm to solve a murder case.

Yes, yes, it is to cry.

[animatic]

The people who died there deserve the truth. It doesn't matter if they were yellow, red, army or innocent bystanders they all deserve justice and whoever is responsible in one way or another should face the consequences. The sad truth is that every side denies responsiblity and hide behind accusations, cover ups and lies and both sides have something to hide.

Little doubt on this.

I still feel none the less, that those ringleaders who pushed the issue

till violence was the ONLY possible response,

bear the most culpability of all.

[Credo]

One of the roles of a government is to prevent a situation from escalating to the point where the ONLY option is violence. The PAD should have been stopped long before the airport situation and the Red Shirts certainly should have been stopped long before the situation got out of hand. After the PAD situation, I would think the gov't would have learned something.

The Red shirts should never have been allowed to infringe on the most basic rights of others to movement throughout the city. Surely there are laws about such things?

Had there been early intervention, there might have been violence, but the scale would have been limited and most likely journalists wouldn't have found themselves interested.

[whybother]

One of the roles of a government is to prevent a situation from escalating to the point where the ONLY option is violence. The PAD should have been stopped long before the airport situation and the Red Shirts certainly should have been stopped long before the situation got out of hand. After the PAD situation, I would think the gov't would have learned something.

The Red shirts should never have been allowed to infringe on the most basic rights of others to movement throughout the city. Surely there are laws about such things?

Had there been early intervention, there might have been violence, but the scale would have been limited and most likely journalists wouldn't have found themselves interested.

Had the government stopped the protests earlier, the red shirts would have blasted them for infringing on their right to protest. The government were screwed if they stopped it and screwed if they let it continue. The red shirts knew that, so they kept raising the stakes, always pushing a bit more every step of the way.

[Credo]

Of course they would have been criticized. It never was a win-win situation, but there was a point fairly early on when the writing was on the wall.

Again, is there no law that prevents people from taking over roads and blocking traffic without official permission?

I once saw a protest where the police surrounded the demonstrators and simply out-waited them. They slowly and carefully moved in on them and as they caught them, they were hauled off to a minimally secure area out of the city.

In that situation, no one was allowed into the protest sight. The press was quite upset.

This is the 3rd time in recent years we've seen this happen. First with the PAD and the airport situation; then with the Red Shirts and more recently with the excessive rain and full dams ignored until it flooded.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. If some posters think they can bring their Red/Yellow argument from another thread here, they are sadly mistaken.

Posting holidays will be given.

[AleG]

One of the roles of a government is to prevent a situation from escalating to the point where the ONLY option is violence. The PAD should have been stopped long before the airport situation and the Red Shirts certainly should have been stopped long before the situation got out of hand. After the PAD situation, I would think the gov't would have learned something.

The Red shirts should never have been allowed to infringe on the most basic rights of others to movement throughout the city. Surely there are laws about such things?

Had there been early intervention, there might have been violence, but the scale would have been limited and most likely journalists wouldn't have found themselves interested.

The failure of the Abhisit government was in not reforming the police force in the meantime, no small task though.

After the events of 2009 (and the Yellow shirt protest before that) it was obvious that the police needed an overhaul, their handling of the protests range from useless to unprofessional and downright complicit. If anything it got worse by 2010

At the very least they should have tried to create and train a reliable riot unit.

I remember seeing on live TV, as the events of May 19th unfolded, a single Red Shirt at the Sukhumvit/Ekamai intersection piling up some tires and sticks at his own leisure, then setting them on fire. About 20 meters from a police box where two or three officers just stood watching.

Absolutely useless.

[Credo]

The Japanese government seems to be doing its job by wanting answers as to why one of its citizens was killed.

The Thai government seems to be doing its job now. Maybe.

I am reluctant to blame any one government for the conditions that lead to these problems, since both sides of the divide seem to be unable to control/prevent/foresee the extent of problems and take action which seems to be appropriate.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Credo

[pitrevie]

The people who died there deserve the truth. It doesn't matter if they were yellow, red, army or innocent bystanders they all deserve justice and whoever is responsible in one way or another should face the consequences. The sad truth is that every side denies responsiblity and hide behind accusations, cover ups and lies and both sides have something to hide.

Fear not! Chalerm is personally directing the efforts, and we know that there couldn't possibly be anyone more capable, diligent and truthful as Chalerm to solve a murder case.

Yes, yes, it is to cry.

I could not agree more, if anyone knows the justice system inside out it is our dear deputy Prime Minister Chalerm. My guess is that the perpetrators of this crime are shaking in their boots at the likelihood of Charlerm fingering them for this crime. Who needs judges or courts when we have such an assiduousness interior minister?

[Pi Sek]

On topic - animatic has it spot on, there's no way anyone can deduce who fired the bullet(s) that killed Hiro Muramoto... both sides had Thai soldiers using Thai military issue weapons. It's a shame that there were and still are efforts to simplify this coming from both sides (the DSI's obfuscation regarding which weapon was used, the quite unbelievable witness statement) which no doubt have made finding the real culprit harder.

Off topic, on the topic of who's to blame for the deaths in general - Abhisit is to blame for not going in harder earlier; Thaksin is to blame for funding it; Kwanchai is to blame for attacking the 1st Infantry barracks earlier in the day; Arisaman, Jatuporn and Nattawut are to blame for fanning the flames of hatred, Suthep is to blame for botching the operation, Seh Daeng is to blame for training the Black Shirts in guerilla warfare... and I think I could go on for another page or so.

[Bakseedaa]

Reueters and HRW both conducted own investigations and came up with

Sure would be nice to be able to read that Reuters investigation... that hasn't been released.

.

You can find it on the website of Andrew Macgregor Marshall and some here http://www.reuters.c...E6B90OR20101210 and on the website of HRW (it is a more than a 100 pages report about April and May 2010) .

Title:

Descent into Chaos

Thailand's 2010 Red Shirt Protests and

the Government Crackdown

That report says that he was "likely" killed by a soldier... it does not say he was definately killed by a soldier...

[TAWP]

hanuman2543>> I asked you to supply any evidence that the internal report by Reuters reported on conclusive evidence that the military - or even that they had reached this conclusion. As the report isn't public we cannot know what it says.

To therefor state with absolute certainty that the Reuters report stated that the military was responsible for the killing is incorrect and presumptuous.

[hanuman2543]

That report says that he was "likely" killed by a soldier... it does not say he was definately killed by a soldier...

The word likely is good enough for me, especially when the investigation was conducted much later and most of the evidence was gone. It is much more believable than what the Abhisit Government wanted us to believe. Life is not CSI. When it is for you a reason to believe someting else, up to you.

P.S. It is very unlikely that Thaksin shot him

[animatic]

That report says that he was "likely" killed by a soldier... it does not say he was definately killed by a soldier...

The word likely is good enough for me, especially when the investigation was conducted much later and most of the evidence was gone. It is much more believable than what the Abhisit Government wanted us to believe. Life is not CSI. When it is for you a reason to believe someting else, up to you.

P.S. It is very unlikely that Thaksin shot him

But you have to wonder how "likely" it is that;

down the food chain on Thaksin's extended payroll of these riots, is there someone who DID shoot Muramoto to embarrass the government and army? This was primarily an exercise in removing the government by all means, and sidelining the army, deaths of innocents attributed to the army would be an easy to engineer ruse.

A soldier's weapon, but on which side?

We saw Sae Daeng with Thaksin weeks before this, real face time, the bad general no doubt had access to war weapons for his "Ronin Warriors" and we heard all Sae Daeng's intentionally leading, but opaque, statements about his actions.

Still, "likely" does not get past the point of reasonable doubt.

Plausible and probably also are 'not beyond a reasonable doubt ; for courts and governments.

Bottom line:

They need to match 'round' to 'gun' to 'serial number',

and the' soldier' that 'carried it' to PROVE 'beyond a reasonable doubt' who killed him.

Everything else is supposition, wishful thinking or propaganda.

Edited December 5, 2011 by animatic

[hanuman2543]

That report says that he was "likely" killed by a soldier... it does not say he was definately killed by a soldier...

The word likely is good enough for me, especially when the investigation was conducted much later and most of the evidence was gone. It is much more believable than what the Abhisit Government wanted us to believe. Life is not CSI. When it is for you a reason to believe someting else, up to you.

P.S. It is very unlikely that Thaksin shot him

But you have to wonder how likely it is that;

down the food chain on Thaksin's extended payroll of these riots, is there someone who DID shoot Muramoto to embarrass the government and army?

A soldier's weapon, but on which side?

We saw Sae Daeng with Thaksin weeks before this, real face time, the bad general no doubt had access to war weapons

and we heard all Sae Daeng's intentionally leading, but opaque, statements about his actions.

Still, "likely" does not get past the point of reasonable doubt.

Plausible and probably also are 'not beyond a reasonable doubt ; for courts and governments.

Bottom line:

They need to match 'round' to 'gun' to 'serial number',

and the' soldier' that 'carried it' to PROVE 'beyond a reasonable doubt' who killed him.

Everything else is supposition, wishful thinking or propaganda.

Couldn't agree more with you that the whole story must be seriously investigated and that there should be no room for cover ups and whitewashs. The problem is : Who is neutral and has the power to do that?

Edited December 5, 2011 by hanuman2543

[animatic]

That report says that he was "likely" killed by a soldier... it does not say he was definately killed by a soldier...

The word likely is good enough for me, especially when the investigation was conducted much later and most of the evidence was gone. It is much more believable than what the Abhisit Government wanted us to believe. Life is not CSI. When it is for you a reason to believe someting else, up to you.

P.S. It is very unlikely that Thaksin shot him

But you have to wonder how likely it is that;

down the food chain on Thaksin's extended payroll of these riots, is there someone who DID shoot Muramoto to embarrass the government and army?

A soldier's weapon, but on which side?

We saw Sae Daeng with Thaksin weeks before this, real face time, the bad general no doubt had access to war weapons

and we heard all Sae Daeng's intentionally leading, but opaque, statements about his actions.

Still, "likely" does not get past the point of reasonable doubt.

Plausible and probably also are 'not beyond a reasonable doubt ; for courts and governments.

Bottom line:

They need to match 'round' to 'gun' to 'serial number',

and the' soldier' that 'carried it' to PROVE 'beyond a reasonable doubt' who killed him.

Everything else is supposition, wishful thinking or propaganda.

Couldn't agree more with you that the whole story must be seriously investigated and that there should be no room for cover ups and whitewashs. The problem is : Who is neutral and has the power to do that?

There's the rub.

Only shot.

Find the specific gun and the records of who carried it.

Trying to say 'Suthep did it' is far too many cogs away in the mechanism for it to work.

There is no way in hell he said, or wrote anything, anywhere at any time, that said kill red protestors.

He may be dislikable, but he's clearly not that stupid.

The army was told go do it's job,

there would have been agreed on rules of engagement.

That went to hell when the commander was blown away,

and not by the army itself.

Chaos reigned for sometime before control was restored.

In scenes of Chaos, Accidents happen. That is the most likely finding possible.

Edited December 5, 2011 by animatic

[Orac]

Is there a possibility that both the army and the red-shirts shot him if it was crossfire - I am sure I saw somewhere that the autopsy claimed it was shots to the head AND chest that killed him???

[hanuman2543]

An investigation has to focus on the people who are political responsible for what went wrong, on all sides. It makes no sense focussing on small soldiers or Red Shirt guards. They have to go after the ones which are responsible for the escalation of the violence. But we all know that responsibility is not on the agenda of "influential" Thai people.

[whybother]

Is there a possibility that both the army and the red-shirts shot him if it was crossfire - I am sure I saw somewhere that the autopsy claimed it was shots to the head AND chest that killed him???

If he was shot multiple times, it's entirely possible. But it wouldn't make any difference to finding out who did it because he could have been shot once, turned, and been shot again - by one or both sides.

If it is shown that the army did shoot him, what difference will that make? It is extremely unlikely that it was deliberate, even more unlikely that it was ordered. There is no way it can be proved which individual shot him (from either side). It is known that the army killed people, and that the "men in black" killed people. The army wasn't using force against unarmed civilians. They were using force against the armed "men in black". Some unarmed civilians (including the cameraman) were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Orac]

Is there a possibility that both the army and the red-shirts shot him if it was crossfire - I am sure I saw somewhere that the autopsy claimed it was shots to the head AND chest that killed him???

If he was shot multiple times, it's entirely possible. But it wouldn't make any difference to finding out who did it because he could have been shot once, turned, and been shot again - by one or both sides.

If it is shown that the army did shoot him, what difference will that make? It is extremely unlikely that it was deliberate, even more unlikely that it was ordered. There is no way it can be proved which individual shot him (from either side). It is known that the army killed people, and that the "men in black" killed people. The army wasn't using force against unarmed civilians. They were using force against the armed "men in black". Some unarmed civilians (including the cameraman) were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You are right of course. The problem is that the situation is so political that any investigation will be difficult as both sides are far too blinded by the blame part of it that the opportunity to learn from mistakes and ensure that it doesn't happen again will be missed.

[whybother]

You are right of course. The problem is that the situation is so political that any investigation will be difficult as both sides are far too blinded by the blame part of it that the opportunity to learn from mistakes and ensure that it doesn't happen again will be missed.

Agreed. Also the "We did nothing wrong. You did everything wrong." attitude (from both sides).

[scorecard]

What worries me is that so many farongs can take this seriously.

Yes it was a tragic thing but that is part of the danger in being in a combat zone.

As has been pointed out he was an experienced corespondent he was not a dummy he knew the danger.

His being shot was no more serious than the civilians and army personnel being shot.\

They were all in a combat zone and unless they were really stupid they had to know the danger.

Well being a red shirt there is a high possibility that they did not know it was dangerous.

let me guess, the only thing you read is the Nation right ?

you wasnt in thailand or something ? you cant talk thai either ? why not simply be silent on a theme where you have such a big hole of information got filled with missinformations ?

all was peacefull till the day they force abisith to step down and people behind him ordered him to not step down and instead gave the order of start shooting.........buddy how about u start use you brain instead of simply replay what you read daily in a newspaper has the worth of toilet paper ?

...........

explain me following oke ?

there is 30 thousend soldiers in bangkok, fairytails about black shirt people are on the red side, close to 2000 people injured.may you explain me why we never saw any of this war weapon armed black shirt laying in a bath of blood ?

a) was there no black shirts and its all a fairytail to back up the use of live ammunition to secure the democrat goermant

is the army full of douchbags cannot use guns, or all they all blind

then ask urselve why there was a declared combat zone ............and who had a pluss from that zone, or why it was created.

because of this dangerous black shirts noone ever found or saw in real ?

if you read the bibel you also belive god exist right ?

gosh start use ur brain men, im sure u have one so use it and stop coppy and past shit from others here in TV or the nation

go look on youtube plenty of live action with the blackshirts firing,and a few redshirts getting shot from behind,and were you not blind to see who got shot at first.belive what you want dont wash with me

Agree, there is plenty of substantive evidence that the black shirts did / do exist.

[scorecard]

What worries me is that so many farongs can take this seriously.

Yes it was a tragic thing but that is part of the danger in being in a combat zone.

As has been pointed out he was an experienced corespondent he was not a dummy he knew the danger.

His being shot was no more serious than the civilians and army personnel being shot.\

They were all in a combat zone and unless they were really stupid they had to know the danger.

Well being a red shirt there is a high possibility that they did not know it was dangerous.

let me guess, the only thing you read is the Nation right ?

you wasnt in thailand or something ? you cant talk thai either ? why not simply be silent on a theme where you have such a big hole of information got filled with missinformations ?

all was peacefull till the day they force abisith to step down and people behind him ordered him to not step down and instead gave the order of start shooting.........buddy how about u start use you brain instead of simply replay what you read daily in a newspaper has the worth of toilet paper ?

...........

explain me following oke ?

there is 30 thousend soldiers in bangkok, fairytails about black shirt people are on the red side, close to 2000 people injured.may you explain me why we never saw any of this war weapon armed black shirt laying in a bath of blood ?

a) was there no black shirts and its all a fairytail to back up the use of live ammunition to secure the democrat goermant

is the army full of douchbags cannot use guns, or all they all blind

then ask urselve why there was a declared combat zone ............and who had a pluss from that zone, or why it was created.

because of this dangerous black shirts noone ever found or saw in real ?

if you read the bibel you also belive god exist right ?

gosh start use ur brain men, im sure u have one so use it and stop coppy and past shit from others here in TV or the nation

go look on youtube plenty of live action with the blackshirts firing,and a few redshirts getting shot from behind,and were you not blind to see who got shot at first.belive what you want dont wash with me

Agree, there is plenty of substantive evidence that the black shirts did / do exist.

"...all was peacefull till the day they force abisith to step down and people behind him ordered him to not step down and instead gave the order of start shooting.........buddy how about u start use you brain instead of simply replay what you read daily in a newspaper has the worth of toilet paper ? "

News to me, please share some details.

[scorecard]

The people who died there deserve the truth. It doesn't matter if they were yellow, red, army or innocent bystanders they all deserve justice and whoever is responsible in one way or another should face the consequences. The sad truth is that every side denies responsiblity and hide behind accusations, cover ups and lies and both sides have something to hide.

Little doubt on this.

I still feel none the less, that those ringleaders who pushed the issue

till violence was the ONLY possible response,

bear the most culpability of all.

Agree with that.

[whybother]

...

all was peacefull till the day they force abisith to step down and people behind him ordered him to not step down and instead gave the order of start shooting.........buddy how about u start use you brain instead of simply replay what you read daily in a newspaper has the worth of toilet paper ?

...

"...all was peacefull till the day they force abisith to step down and people behind him ordered him to not step down and instead gave the order of start shooting.........buddy how about u start use you brain instead of simply replay what you read daily in a newspaper has the worth of toilet paper ? "

News to me, please share some details.

I don't think he'll be showing any details ... at least under that guise.

[maeab]

He was shot by the red shirts it has already been proven beyond a doubt.

[maeab]

Bangkok city of death, Not city of life....LOL

[GentlemanJim]

Goldankauf

You are right. Non of the redshirts or blackshirts had weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgl_cgEmzxA&feature=related

As regrettable as the death is of the Japanese Journo, it is clear from these photo's and the videos you will find on youtube and elsewhere on the internet that being around these people in Bangkok was a very dangerous place to be. The possible consequences would always have been apparent to a professional.

Edited December 5, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[nurofiend]

He was shot by the red shirts it has already been proven beyond a doubt.

has it? show me.

[ThaiOats]

Goldankauf

You are right. Non of the redshirts or blackshirts had weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgl_cgEmzxA&feature=related

As regrettable as the death is of the Japanese Journo, it is clear from these photo's and the videos you will find on youtube and elsewhere on the internet that being around these people in Bangkok was a very dangerous place to be. The possible consequences would always have been apparent to a professional.

Clearly the video and photos were Photoshopped . The Reds were peaceful! (/end sarcasm) No matter how much evidence shows that the Red Shirts were far from peaceful and those who died CHOSE to be there either as a) a reporter or supporter of the Red Shirts, advocating violence.

None of the Red Shirt leaders came out and told the protesters to stop using violence. If they were truly peaceful and carried no weapons, it would've pushed their agenda further if the Army decided to use live ammunition. Of course, they wanted bloodshed, plain and simple.

Edited December 5, 2011 by ThaiOats