Thai Democrat MP Khanchit Sought In Murder Case

[otherstuff1957]

I suspect that there are some political games being played here. The Democrats want the parliament to vote to suspend his political immunity, rather than just kick him out of the caucus, so as to set a parliamentary precedent. PT is reluctant to do so for exactly the same reason!

Edited December 30, 2011 by otherstuff1957

[phiphidon]

Geriatrickid acts like a redshirt. Complains about double standards but uses it constantly.

<snip>

Agreed. He's forever defending red shirts (and PTP MPs) that are CHARGED with serious crimes, but thinks the world should stop when a Democrat MP is ACCUSED of a serious crime.

It works both ways. There is another step to go after being charged and that is being convicted. Several Red Shirts have been charged with serious crimes but have been found not guilty of them - being charged is not the same as being convicted. That is why there are court cases.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/516298-7-red-shirts-get-jail-terms-for-emergency-decree-violation-theft/

[phiphidon]

Democrat MP Kanchit turns himself in following issuance of arrest warrant for murder of Samut Sakhon PAO chief/TAN_Network

What?? He didn't do a runner?? He'd never cut it as a red shirt.

No Red Shirts who "have done a runner" have been directly implicated in the murder of a fellow MP so the comparison hardly stands does it?

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

"No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes."

To be perfectly honest the same could be said of Abhisit, Suthep, CRES, The Army and DSI.

[animatic]

What?? He didn't do a runner?? He'd never cut it as a red shirt.

No Red Shirts who "have done a runner" have been directly implicated in the murder of a fellow MP so the comparison hardly stands does it?

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

"No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes."

To be perfectly honest the same could be said of Abhisit, Suthep, CRES, The Army and DSI.

Of course none of them have done a runner have they? Which was the point in discussion.

Such a very narrow criteria used:

"Red Shirts

who "have done a runner"

have been directly implicated

in the murder of a fellow MP"

But you remove one part like:

"Red Shirts

who "have done a runner"

have been directly implicated

in the murder of ....

and that widens the field of comparison immeasurably.

It is a stretch to assume that :

Abhisit had control of individual troupe actions on the ground in the heat of battle.

and same that

Suthep and CRES gave orders to intentionally kill protestors,

since that did NOT support their interests in any way.

You speak of the Army as if it were an individual. Not so.

How would the Thai Armed Forces do a runner, and to where?

And the DSI blows with the winds of BOTH sides depending

on how the government of the day can suborn it's more honest investigators.

The DSI has worked for Thaksin interests and Democrats, so the point is nullified.

But videos MANY videos show Arisman calling for the burning of Bangkok.

Many videos show the other Red Leaders inciting mayhem if they don't get their way.

They are more than peripherally involved and conspiracy to criminal acts is not a stretch at all.

So we have the Democrat turning himself in, and Arisaman splitting for 1.5 years.

We have Red Leaders rewarded with MP seats that will stave off for a time court dates they are due for.

Circumstantially there IS a vast conspiracy at work, and this one Dem MP fool is not a part of it.

Edited December 30, 2011 by animatic

[Crushdepth]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

More Gold Medal Hypocrisy from the Grand Master. How many PTP members are presently using their Parliamentary immunity to evade criminal charges? I can think of at least one alleged brutal murderer on that side of the house as well. Have you advocated their removal? No? Why don't you apply your high moral standards to all sides of the house, or stop trolling and bugger off?

[Arkady]

If the victim was indeed shot with a .40 calibre handgun, that should make the police's job relatively simple. In the US certain law enforcement agencies such as the FBI adopted the .40 calibre round as a compromise between 9mm and .45 which forced European manufacturers, such as Glock, Beretta and Browning into producing .40 editions of their own flagship handguns for the US market. However, in Europe and elsewhere in the world 9mm luger ammunition remains the most commonly available semi automatic handgun ammunition and .40 calibre handguns and ammuntion are rare in Thailand. They are certainly not used by professional hitmen who always use a .45 or 9mm weapon as these and their ammo are more readily available and more difficult to trace. It seems that the suspect wanted to stand out from the crowd by having a legally registered .40, probably a trendy Glock,.

[nurofiend]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

More Gold Medal Hypocrisy from the Grand Master. How many PTP members are presently using their Parliamentary immunity to evade criminal charges? I can think of at least one alleged brutal murderer on that side of the house as well. Have you advocated their removal? No? Why don't you apply your high moral standards to all sides of the house, or stop trolling and bugger off?

how is he trolling in this thread by pointing out the hypocrisy of the fact that if this was the other way around, most people would be in here ranting and raving about the MP and the party...

this thread would probably be about 40 pages of hate filled venom by now

[udonguy]

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat Party leader and opposition head, was aware of the warrant but decided not to react, pending police taking regular steps to deal with the case, party spokesman Chavanont Intharakomalsut said.

TVF would have erupted in angry comments from the anti government contingent if the killer was alleged to have been PTP and PM Yingluck not reacted. Why the double standard here?

spot on!!!

[udonguy]

although I support all the posts about the yellow contingent on here using double standards I think this is so obvious to the casual observer that it's part of TV 'culture' and laughable and expected mostly.

Back to the OP - I could not care whether he is Dem, PTP or Santa Party I am amazed the Police 'hesitate' and have asked for his gun 'and he has not yet produced it' &lt;deleted&gt; is it serious that MP's can have such immunity? that Abhisit has not suspended this guy from the party? Amazing Thailand

[phiphidon]

Of course none of them have done a runner have they? Which was the point in discussion.

Such a very narrow criteria used:

"Red Shirts

who "have done a runner"

have been directly implicated

in the murder of a fellow MP"

But you remove one part like:

"Red Shirts

who "have done a runner"

have been directly implicated

in the murder of ....

and that widens the field of comparison immeasurably.

It is a stretch to assume that :

Abhisit had control of individual troupe actions on the ground in the heat of battle.

and same that

Suthep and CRES gave orders to intentionally kill protestors,

since that did NOT support their interests in any way.

You speak of the Army as if it were an individual. Not so.

How would the Thai Armed Forces do a runner, and to where?

And the DSI blows with the winds of BOTH sides depending

on how the government of the day can suborn it's more honest investigators.

The DSI has worked for Thaksin interests and Democrats, so the point is nullified.

But videos MANY videos show Arisman calling for the burning of Bangkok.

Many videos show the other Red Leaders inciting mayhem if they don't get their way.

They are more than peripherally involved and conspiracy to criminal acts is not a stretch at all.

So we have the Democrat turning himself in, and Arisaman splitting for 1.5 years.

We have Red Leaders rewarded with MP seats that will stave off for a time court dates they are due for.

Circumstantially there IS a vast conspiracy at work, and this one Dem MP fool is not a part of it.

I was answering your post stating

"No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes"

That post does not include

"Red Shirts who "have done a runner" have been directly implicated in the murder of ....”

despite your Nationesque attempt to join two seperate posts together, therefore I would not be replying to it would I? .

I gave you a clue as to what post I was replying to by quoting that very post.

Perhaps in your verbosity you lose your way at times.

I stand by my comments, if the Red Shirts could be said to be "implicit in the deaths of many" and "covering up" then so could Abhisit, Suthep, CRES etc. No matter what tangent you go off on and how many sentences you string together, you really can't argue with my statement, can you?

[geriatrickid]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

Ah but you are going for the hang em high approach on this case,

and makes it proper for comparison to your past comments defending

PTP and Redshirt suspects. Or do you subscribe to double standards yet again?

There is more than enough publicly viewable evidences to support my conclusion,

the context for which that you have EDITED OUT of this continuation of the discussion.

And by using your logic, such as it is, then the redshirts MP's

and the PTP MPs who colluded with them,

as caught on video and pictures and public statements,

should all be asked to step down till their cases are properly adjudicated.

And that is likely enough to remove parliamentary advantage.

There is no hanging high sentiment expressed on my part, nor have I edited out any of your comments.

How can you justify the Democrats retaining an alleged murderer in caucus?

The issue here is one of the Democrats staking out the higher moral ground yet failing to act on their statements of ethics and integrity.

In respect to the Redshirts, they are not a political party in the house that has made the same claims to morality as has Mr. Abhisit and the Democrats. At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

[TAWP]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

[valerian]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

Ah but you are going for the hang em high approach on this case,

and makes it proper for comparison to your past comments defending

PTP and Redshirt suspects. Or do you subscribe to double standards yet again?

There is more than enough publicly viewable evidences to support my conclusion,

the context for which that you have EDITED OUT of this continuation of the discussion.

And by using your logic, such as it is, then the redshirts MP's

and the PTP MPs who colluded with them,

as caught on video and pictures and public statements,

should all be asked to step down till their cases are properly adjudicated.

And that is likely enough to remove parliamentary advantage.

There is no hanging high sentiment expressed on my part, nor have I edited out any of your comments.

How can you justify the Democrats retaining an alleged murderer in caucus?

The issue here is one of the Democrats staking out the higher moral ground yet failing to act on their statements of ethics and integrity.

In respect to the Redshirts, they are not a political party in the house that has made the same claims to morality as has Mr. Abhisit and the Democrats. At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

You are so right. And I'm glad to see you take the same high moral ground as the Democrats.

Also, the easiest way to bring down an entire government should be to simply walk in to the nearest police station and accuse every MP of something bad.

Why didn't the red shirts think of this last year?

[Buchholz]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

All the Pheu Thai Party MP's under indictment are facing charges with prison-terms of longer than 2 years.

A majority of them face the potential for the death penalty to be implemented as their sentence.

.

[sparebox2]

Please guys/gals.

This is Thailand. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. This MP is not a murderer as of now, and should not be treated as one.

[Oberkommando]

Please guys/gals.

This is Thailand. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. This MP is not a murderer as of now, and should not be treated as one.

He's an alleged murderer, or accomplice to murder and should be treated as one.

[OzMick]

No, just peripherally or circumstantially implicated in the deaths of many.

And many more circumstantially implicated in covering up crimes.

If you live in a glass house P don't throw stones, you'll get cut by the shards.

Your logic is that because you perceive the Redshirts to have done wrong, that it is ok for an alleged cold blooded killer to sit in the Democrat caucus. Need I remind you of Mr. Abhisit's repeated statements on the need for honesty and ethics? What bigger fail on the subject than to allow an alleged brutal murderer to remain in caucus. The right thing to do is to ask the MP to withdraw until he is cleared. This thread is not about Redshirts. it concerns an MP that is alleged to have planned a murder and then shot the victim in the head. The refusal of Mr. abhisit to remove the man from the caucus is nothing short of tacit support for the accused. Mr. Abhisit has demonstrated once again that he talks alot but can't meet the standards he demands of others.

Ah but you are going for the hang em high approach on this case,

and makes it proper for comparison to your past comments defending

PTP and Redshirt suspects. Or do you subscribe to double standards yet again?

There is more than enough publicly viewable evidences to support my conclusion,

the context for which that you have EDITED OUT of this continuation of the discussion.

And by using your logic, such as it is, then the redshirts MP's

and the PTP MPs who colluded with them,

as caught on video and pictures and public statements,

should all be asked to step down till their cases are properly adjudicated.

And that is likely enough to remove parliamentary advantage.

There is no hanging high sentiment expressed on my part, nor have I edited out any of your comments.

How can you justify the Democrats retaining an alleged murderer in caucus?

The issue here is one of the Democrats staking out the higher moral ground yet failing to act on their statements of ethics and integrity.

In respect to the Redshirts, they are not a political party in the house that has made the same claims to morality as has Mr. Abhisit and the Democrats. At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

There are PTP MPs charged with terrorism which led to 91 deaths, and was certainly premeditated. No evidence has been presented yet that Kanchit acted in a premeditated way in the alleged murder.

Of course, one death is a tragedy, 91 is a mere statistic.........(apologies to Joe Stalin)

[nurofiend]

so this guy hasn't obeyed the police by handing in his gun and his truck before the deadline

strange

[TAWP]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

[geriatrickid]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

I have already replied. Any MP accused of premeditated murder should excuse him/herself from his/her respective caucus until the charges are cleared. If the MP does not excuse him/herself, then the party must do so. Such an action is not an accusation of guilty, but is intended to preserve the integrity of the political party.

In respect to political activities that may involve legal proceedings, each case requires individual attention. For example, former PM Abhisit is accused of illegal activities and improprieties included the alleged ordering of the killing of some protestors. As these accusations are political in nature and relate to his conduct as PM and as a politician, I would not expect him to resign from caucus. Trust this explains my position.

[TAWP]

I have already replied. Any MP accused of premeditated murder should excuse him/herself from his/her respective caucus until the charges are cleared. If the MP does not excuse him/herself, then the party must do so. Such an action is not an accusation of guilty, but is intended to preserve the integrity of the political party.

In respect to political activities that may involve legal proceedings, each case requires individual attention. For example, former PM Abhisit is accused of illegal activities and improprieties included the alleged ordering of the killing of some protestors. As these accusations are political in nature and relate to his conduct as PM and as a politician, I would not expect him to resign from caucus. Trust this explains my position.

Only premeditated murder or do you wish to extend to other charges?

[whybother]

I have already replied. Any MP accused of premeditated murder should excuse him/herself from his/her respective caucus until the charges are cleared. If the MP does not excuse him/herself, then the party must do so. Such an action is not an accusation of guilty, but is intended to preserve the integrity of the political party.

In respect to political activities that may involve legal proceedings, each case requires individual attention. For example, former PM Abhisit is accused of illegal activities and improprieties included the alleged ordering of the killing of some protestors. As these accusations are political in nature and relate to his conduct as PM and as a politician, I would not expect him to resign from caucus. Trust this explains my position.

Only premeditated murder or do you wish to extend to other charges?

He'll extend it to "include any charges against non-PTP MPs and exclude any charges against PTP MPs".

[animatic]

I have already replied. Any MP accused of premeditated murder should excuse him/herself from his/her respective caucus until the charges are cleared. If the MP does not excuse him/herself, then the party must do so. Such an action is not an accusation of guilty, but is intended to preserve the integrity of the political party.

In respect to political activities that may involve legal proceedings, each case requires individual attention. For example, former PM Abhisit is accused of illegal activities and improprieties included the alleged ordering of the killing of some protestors. As these accusations are political in nature and relate to his conduct as PM and as a politician, I would not expect him to resign from caucus. Trust this explains my position.

Only premeditated murder or do you wish to extend to other charges?

He'll extend it to "include any charges against non-PTP MPs and exclude any charges against PTP MPs".

By his logic in my estimation there are a good dozen MPS, at least, who should retire for premeditated causing of deaths. If his logic is pursued to it's logical conclusion.

Edited January 5, 2012 by animatic

[Buchholz]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

Do you mean like capital crimes where the Red Shirt defendants are facing the death penalty for their shenanigans?

,

[phiphidon]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

Do you mean like capital crimes where the Red Shirt defendants are facing the death penalty for their shenanigans?

,

That's not the first time you've mentioned the death sentence. Are you looking forward to that Buchholz? Do you really want it to get to that stage, I've got a feeling you do? Do you think they deserve the death penalty? All on the words of one man who used the throwaway (in this post 9/11 world war on terror) label of terrorist. The same man who refers to the 4000 odd murders in the south of the country as being the work of insurgents?

[geriatrickid]

At this time there are no redshirt aligned MPs accused of premeditated murder. If they were I would also expect that they should be removed from their respective caucus.

Just so we know, for what crimes should a party remove an MP from the caucus? And for what major crimes should they not?

In my opinion any MP that is above questioned, aka charged with a crime, that can lead to a prison-term of longer than 2 years, should by himself step down 'to focus on the trial' and the party remove him from the caucus. But I also oppose the notion that MPs should have any form of immunity...

Any reply to this yet?

I just want to make sure we are not going to have any double-standards here and I apply equal damning critic to all sides.

Do you mean like capital crimes where the Red Shirt defendants are facing the death penalty for their shenanigans?

You do not seem to understand. I will write it ou again. If any sitting MP is facing charges in respect to premeditated murder then that MP should be removed from caucus until the charges are cleared. I will even broaden the statement, to include murder.

In this case we have a sitting MP who is alleged to have planned and then carried out a brutal assasination. I do not think such a person should sit in caucus, particularly with Mr. Abhisit. The former PM has made many public statements in respect to his position on integrity and ethical behaviour. The continued participation in caucus of an accused murder, undermines Mr. Abhisit's position.

It seems that the same legal council/political strategists that guided Mr. Abhisit to his crushing defeat in the last election have demonstrated their ineptness in this matter by not insisting that Mr. Abhisit distance himself from the alleged murderer. One is left to wonder if Mr. Abhisit approves of the man's conduct, or has no concerns about sitting in caucus with an alleged murderer. It speaks to Mr. Abhisit's hypocrisy if he continues to allow the man inc caucus. Mr. Abhisit is the Democrat party leader. He has to show some common sense and backbone.

[TAWP]

So only murder, no other crimes. Alright, you have made your opinion clear. What what (...) it is worth.

I on the other hand disagree with that and think all crimes that can give a penalty of over 2 years should be enough for anyone to take a self-imposed time out.

[animatic]

....

Not picky , Just tired of the endless dragging in of Red Shirts/Thaksin/Yingluck et al into every f****** thread that appears on this forum. And Yes I know it was a PTP MP that was murdered but give it a rest.

And more so tired the endless defending of the indefensible actions of far too many redshirts and blatantly corrupt TRT/PPP/PTP politicians, like a thoughtlessly repeated drone here. LIke a greek chorus of sheeple bleating alleged, yet incorrect factoids, endlessly.

And your comment about the accused, in a previous post above, is doing what exactly

"Of course we don't know what ELSE is going on between these two.

This may well have been the tit for the others tat."

Surely not "defending of the indefensible actions"

If one has put out a contract on the other for example,

there is no getting the police to do any protection based on no real facts,

but maybe he thought to 'get them first, before they get you' kind of thing...

but that is supposition of one possibility.

I am actually at a loss to understand how you can read ANY support for their actions into my comment. There IS NONE. It says no more than 'there is likely more to the story that we know.'

Edited January 8, 2012 by animatic

[473geo]

If one has put out a contract on the other for example,

there is no getting the police to do any protection based on no real facts,

but maybe he thought to 'get them first, before they get you' kind of thing...

but that is supposition of one possibility.

I am actually at a loss to understand how you can read ANY support for their actions into my comment. There IS NONE. It says no more than 'there is likely more to the story that we know.'

Please explain to me the reason for delivering fabricated supposition, is mitigation not a form of support?

[Lite Beer]

Samut Sakhon police to ask Parliament to hand over Democrat MP Kanchit for prosecution in Samut Sakhon PAO murder tomorrow/TAN_Network