Thai Troops Shot Italian Photographer: Police

[waza]

Good to see the TV Thaksin haters' Society keeping up Suthep's line that not a single protester was killed by the army. They just shouldn't have run into the bullets.

Your the only one that has posted that

[nurofiend]

The situation with this case is that the reporter's widow is aligned with Robert Amsterdam and a Red shirt lawyer. Thaksin's brother in law is the chief of police and Amsterdam also represents Thaksin.

How much more conflict of interest could there be?

How many of the 47 are red shirts?

How many actually saw the reporter at the moment he was shot and can recall which direction he was in relation to the armed forces?

Unfortunately this case now stinks politically.

what stinks, is your immediate thoughts that it wasn't the rta when all the evidence points otherwise.

and don't say 'unfortunately' when you don't mean it.

Don't tell me what I mean when you haven't a clue.

whatever.

[Moruya]

Good to see the TV Thaksin haters' Society keeping up Suthep's line that not a single protester was killed by the army. They just shouldn't have run into the bullets.

It's really quite simple. If you don't know anything then you don't know anything

[chotthee]

The army were using Rubber bullets.

The men in black were using life bullet stolen from the army.

If Polenghi was killed by a rubber bullet, he would have been killed by the army.

But the fact is that Polenghi was killed by a life bullet, so he must be killed by the men in black, which all PAD also knew, that they are paid private mercenaries of Thaksin.

Edited July 24, 2012 by chotthee

[mistitikimikis]

The army were using Rubber bullets.

The men in black were using life bullet stolen from the army.

If Polenghi was killed by a rubber bullet, he would have been killed by the army.

But the fact is that Polenghi was killed by a life bullet, so he must be killed by the men in black, which all PAD also knew, that they are paid private mercenaries of Thaksin.

if the story was not so sad. You should have been better informed!!!!!!!!!!!!

[creck]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

9mm and .45 ACP are considered low velocity at around 1250 and as low as 900ft/s respectively compared to 7.62 NATO @ 2700ft/s and 5.56mm NATO at ~3000ft/s. Slow and heavy can transfer as much energy as fast and light(er) and its the energy transfer (shock) that does the damage.

Can a low velocity gun penetrate a heart? Usually it's the bullet, but yes, quite easily - and not necessarily the heart to be fatal.

Which side had them? Both, though not what you would expect from "peaceful protesters."

As there is no history of the ‘authorities’ shooting peaceful protestors they do not need to arm themselves. Or am I wrong?

[chotthee]

The army were using Rubber bullets.

The men in black were using life bullet stolen from the army.

If Polenghi was killed by a rubber bullet, he would have been killed by the army.

But the fact is that Polenghi was killed by a life bullet, so he must be killed by the men in black, which all PAD also knew, that they are paid private mercenaries of Thaksin.

if the story was not so sad. You should have been better informed!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Only rubber bullets were used, which was the last measure,” said Suthep

http://asiancorrespondent.com/50776/dsi-goes-after-jatuporn/

[mistitikimikis]

Demotte suspends arms export licenses to Thailand

Walloon Minister Rudy Demotte has decided Sunday licenses for arms exports to Thailand to suspend. The Asian country is currently groaning under a heavy political crisis. The government of the Walloon government leader gave a message to that effect attached RTBF.

The Walloon authorities to follow the political situation in the country already longer. The companies with export licenses were contacted. Which showed itself very carefully, it was claimed by the government-Demotte. The export licenses have been suspended until peace returned in Thailand.

Arms Manufacturer FN Herstal, which has several contracts with Thailand, was officially informed of the suspension of licenses. "We respect the decision and await the course off," said FN spokesman Robert Sauvage. (Belga / lb)

(Translated text)

“It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been ‘in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’ but premeditated and willful acts of killings.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

[asiawatcher]

...Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters...

And this does not successfully imply that ONLY soldiers had high powered rifles.

Yes and then of course the implied... "troops are believed to have shot" and from a Police Colonel ... "his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities...". Duh... both Army and Police are authorities!! I mean why does the Nation even raise this issue? Are they that desperate for stories by muck raking? Remarks that are speculation do not solve the issue and who cares - it is past - drop it, leave it, Reds seized a city, Police allowed them, when enough was enough, the army solved the issue, collateral damage to a journalist who got caught in crossfire and from whose side is sadly, irrelevant. Let it rest and stop the shitty sensationalising gutter journalism.

[rubl]

“It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been ‘in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’ but premeditated and willful acts of killings.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

It's a pity that with such diametrically opposite and heavily politisized sides any "evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties" is immedialely suspect. Sorry, but that's the way it is, especially as no outsiders have been given clear insight in the material. I also wonder how 'evidence' submitted can clearly distinquish between 'shoot to defend' and 'shoot to kill'.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

[smutcakes]

“It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been ‘in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’ but premeditated and willful acts of killings.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

It's a pity that with such diametrically opposite and heavily politisized sides any "evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties" is immedialely suspect. Sorry, but that's the way it is, especially as no outsiders have been given clear insight in the material. I also wonder how 'evidence' submitted can clearly distinquish between 'shoot to defend' and 'shoot to kill'.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

Yeah because I am sure the ACHR dont take things like that into account before commenting! and rely solely on what the opposition poltical party have said without question.

[rubl]

“It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been ‘in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’ but premeditated and willful acts of killings.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

It's a pity that with such diametrically opposite and heavily politisized sides any "evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties" is immedialely suspect. Sorry, but that's the way it is, especially as no outsiders have been given clear insight in the material. I also wonder how 'evidence' submitted can clearly distinquish between 'shoot to defend' and 'shoot to kill'.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

Yeah because I am sure the ACHR dont take things like that into account before commenting! and rely solely on what the opposition poltical party have said without question.

That's not what I said, but now that you mention it. K. Suhas indeed only mentioned evidence from opposition political parties. That raised two questions, 1.) which opposition party (timing is important here with the field having changed after the last General Electon). and 2.) did the ACHR also receive evidence from other parties or groups?

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[Ferangled]

“It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been ‘in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’ but premeditated and willful acts of killings.”- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

ACHR PRESS RELEASE

It's a pity that with such diametrically opposite and heavily politisized sides any "evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties" is immedialely suspect. Sorry, but that's the way it is, especially as no outsiders have been given clear insight in the material. I also wonder how 'evidence' submitted can clearly distinquish between 'shoot to defend' and 'shoot to kill'.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

Yeah because I am sure the ACHR dont take things like that into account before commenting! and rely solely on what the opposition poltical party have said without question.

That's not what I said, but now that you mention it. K. Suhas indeed only mentioned evidence from opposition political parties. That raised two questions, 1.) which opposition party (timing is important here with the field having changed after the last General Electon). and 2.) did the ACHR also receive evidence from other parties or groups?

Surely when evidence submitted that is so damning that it would provoke that conclusion, it matters not who submitted it.

For example if during an investigation of a murder, an anonymous source gave investigators a signed confession from the murderer, along with CCTV footage showing the accused committing the act, time stamped and verified, who submitted the evidence pales into insignificance when compared with the evidence itself...

[mistitikimikis]

Update: the next hearing for court will be September 19. At that date the prosecuter shall choose the witnesses.

[Fookhaht]

Next headline (I give it about a week):

"Thai Police Shot Italian Photographer: Army"

[rubl]

It's a pity that with such diametrically opposite and heavily politisized sides any "evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties" is immedialely suspect. Sorry, but that's the way it is, especially as no outsiders have been given clear insight in the material. I also wonder how 'evidence' submitted can clearly distinquish between 'shoot to defend' and 'shoot to kill'.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here

Yeah because I am sure the ACHR dont take things like that into account before commenting! and rely solely on what the opposition poltical party have said without question.

That's not what I said, but now that you mention it. K. Suhas indeed only mentioned evidence from opposition political parties. That raised two questions, 1.) which opposition party (timing is important here with the field having changed after the last General Electon). and 2.) did the ACHR also receive evidence from other parties or groups?

Surely when evidence submitted that is so damning that it would provoke that conclusion, it matters not who submitted it.

For example if during an investigation of a murder, an anonymous source gave investigators a signed confession from the murderer, along with CCTV footage showing the accused committing the act, time stamped and verified, who submitted the evidence pales into insignificance when compared with the evidence itself...

Surely with an issue so full of conflicting 'evidence', and all sides emphasizing their view on the truth, you cannot just say 'evidence is dmning'. It only serves to deepen the gap between the confronting camps. Provide some of those details rather than just saying 'we have some'.

In that sense your example is irrelevant as we (i.e. the general public) are still stuck in a 'insufficient data' phase. After watching hundreds of youtube clips the situation and circumstances seem more confused than ever. It needs experts to investigate and document. It doesn't need emotional outbursts from TV posters.

Regarding the case of this topic, we'll see how it procedes. No offence, but in a way we only know the army was most likely shooting at that time, just like some unknowns were busy lobbing grenades. The rest without further (reliable) details is hearsay which needs expert investigation and documentation to become clear evidence

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[animatic]

Who killed Fabio Polenghi? A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. An M 16 is not very precise beyond a distance of one hundred meters, unless equipped with a sharp shooting vision device. ..........

After Fabio was hit on 19 May, man of Asian appearence rushed on the Canon 5 D camera Fabio had dropped when he collapsed. The man took the camera then dragged and helped to carry Fabio out of the fire zone. An investigation among Thai and Foreign journalists shows that this mysterious man is not a journalist, nor a photographer. He could just be a person who seized the opportunity of the chaos created by the shooting to steal a camera worth 4,000 Euros.

http://asiapacific.a...fabio-polenghi/

It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear.

Hmmm obviously is the wrong word, I think its possible that he was killed by the RTA, its possible he was shot for his camera or its contents too.

I'd say this is plausible, and possible, but not obvious.

Certainly the idea of some one making nearly a years pay,

by one act in a riot situation, is a possiblity that can't be discounted.

I had said at the time, his a ) choice of clothing and b ) location

had put himself at severe risk, a bad set of personal judgments that he surely paid for.

A little bit of research would have shown that:

wearing a black shirt, ( known redshirt allies)

while reporting from the Red Shirt side,

during an active firefight between Redshirts and army,

while carrying a large lens camera,

could easily make him appear in the heat of the moment as

being a black shirt ringer, having a grenade launcher.

All in all sad, but that doesn't mean anything( so far) i

s more than conjecture from several disconnected sources.

Edited July 24, 2012 by animatic

[phiphidon]

...Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters...

And this does not successfully imply that ONLY soldiers had high powered rifles.

Yes and then of course the implied... "troops are believed to have shot" and from a Police Colonel ... "his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities...". Duh... both Army and Police are authorities!! I mean why does the Nation even raise this issue? Are they that desperate for stories by muck raking? Remarks that are speculation do not solve the issue and who cares - it is past - drop it, leave it, Reds seized a city, Police allowed them, when enough was enough, the army solved the issue, collateral damage to a journalist who got caught in crossfire and from whose side is sadly, irrelevant. Let it rest and stop the shitty sensationalising gutter journalism.

You'd be quite happy with that , wouldn't you. Ignore it , carry on, just like it's always been done. Times have changed.

[Colabamumbai]

Why would the Thai Military or rogue Thai Troops do this purposefully? They should know that it is going to result in enquiries and bad foreign relations unless it was done to make it like the Red Shirts were behind it? Two journalists were killed was it because they were thought to be covering the oppositions side of the story?

[phiphidon]

Who killed Fabio Polenghi? A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. An M 16 is not very precise beyond a distance of one hundred meters, unless equipped with a sharp shooting vision device. ..........

After Fabio was hit on 19 May, man of Asian appearence rushed on the Canon 5 D camera Fabio had dropped when he collapsed. The man took the camera then dragged and helped to carry Fabio out of the fire zone. An investigation among Thai and Foreign journalists shows that this mysterious man is not a journalist, nor a photographer. He could just be a person who seized the opportunity of the chaos created by the shooting to steal a camera worth 4,000 Euros.

http://asiapacific.a...fabio-polenghi/

It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear.

"It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear".

Well thats OK then, no wonder he was shot - what gets into you peoples heads? How about he was correctly identified as a photographer and targeted deliberately? Does that ever cross your mind?

[rubl]

"It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear".

Well thats OK then, no wonder he was shot - what gets into you peoples heads? How about he was correctly identified as a photographer and targeted deliberately? Does that ever cross your mind?

Interestingly it has been suggested before that Fabio may have been targetted on purpose. Mind you if I remember correctly about half of the speculation suggested the RTA, the remainder thought militant red-shirt supporters. As far as I'm concerned, 'insufficient data'

[mistitikimikis]

"It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear".

Well thats OK then, no wonder he was shot - what gets into you peoples heads? How about he was correctly identified as a photographer and targeted deliberately? Does that ever cross your mind?

Interestingly it has been suggested before that Fabio may have been targetted on purpose. Mind you if I remember correctly about half of the speculation suggested the RTA, the remainder thought militant red-shirt supporters. As far as I'm concerned, 'insufficient data'

well, at least the Reds were less interested to eliminate Fabio than the authorities were as the authorities couldn't use worldwide covering...................

[rubl]

"It obvious that he was killed by the Thai military who may have mistaken him for a blackshirt given that he was running with the redshirts dressed in black paramilitary gear".

Well thats OK then, no wonder he was shot - what gets into you peoples heads? How about he was correctly identified as a photographer and targeted deliberately? Does that ever cross your mind?

Interestingly it has been suggested before that Fabio may have been targetted on purpose. Mind you if I remember correctly about half of the speculation suggested the RTA, the remainder thought militant red-shirt supporters. As far as I'm concerned, 'insufficient data'

well, at least the Reds were less interested to eliminate Fabio than the authorities were as the authorities couldn't use worldwide covering...................

I will not go too deep into this, BOTH sides may not have wanted too much 'wrong coverage'. Like vanderGrift with a deathwish, he should have known better than to run around with the army one of our local reporters once wrote.

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[soinowinbkk]

"...and mostly unarmed protesters"

What red-shirt uprising were they at? I seem to recall a number of "black shirts" operating in those crowds.

Anyway, as many said, the article is yellow-journalism, pure and simple. The headline claim distorts the actual facts as reported in the article itself but 'better' reported by AP.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Rimmer
colored fonts

[arrowsdawdle]

...Street battles between soldiers with rifles and mostly unarmed protesters...

And this does not successfully imply that ONLY soldiers had high powered rifles.

Are you implying that what is not implied, e.g., conjecture, be given equal weight as facts?

[kimamey]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

compared to 7.62 NATO @ 2700ft/s and 5.56mm NATO at ~3000ft/s. Slow and heavy can transfer as much energy as fast

Or an AK47 at 2350 ft/s

The Chinese copies are a little slower........

Well I suppose it's unlikely Thais would have purchased anything that wasn't a fake.

[mistitikimikis]

"Well I suppose it's unlikely Thais would have purchased anything that wasn't a fake." (or hardly usable) .......................

Edited July 24, 2012 by mistitikimikis

[khunken]

So someone (the watermelon police) says they 'believe' the photographer was shot by the army. Any competent judge would throw this out in 5 minutes.

The pro-red-shirts have once again attempted to turn someones opinion into 'fact'. Just as the same crowd did in the Abhisit 'draft dodging' case which is even more based on opinion & heavily biased opinion at that.

Yes, it is possible - maybe even probable - that the army shot the photographer, but let's see how strong the proof is before making a judgement.

[tragickingdom]

It is just a matter of time before the people responsible including the politicians Abhisit and Suthep are behind bars. In Latin America the politicians and army did the same. After a coup d'etat they passed a new basic law and gave themselves amnesty. it took 4 decades but crooks like army leaders and local politicians ended all up in jail. It is going to happen in Thailand too, and it will even happen in a country like Spain.

[jerrysteve]

History makes the rules, and if the courts are running true to form as most of them do here, it is certain that absoluteyl nothing will come of this!!! nothing from nothing is nothing