Thai Troops Shot Italian Photographer: Police

[Ferangled]

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.

"Police Colonel Suebsak Pansura, who is heading a team investigating the case, said they had questioned 47 witnesses and experts over the death of Fabio Polenghi and gathered evidence to submit to prosecutors.

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty," he told Bangkok's Criminal Court on the opening day of the inquest."

Crazy stuff eh? The police gathering witness statements and interviewing experts... whatever next?!

This isn't some random comment from a policeman, this is the conclusion they have drawn from the evidence gathered, which is to be presented in court. If it doesn't stand up, the court will presumably throw it out. We all know that the army were shooting people in Bangkok at the time just not whether they deliberately shot this photographer and stole his camera...

Edited July 24, 2012 by Ferangled

[khunken]

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.

Well Thaksin would be numero uno as he is responsible for over 2,000 'drug deaths', Tak Bai, Kru Be & yes, more responsible than any for the 2010 riots.

[carra]

"...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.

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

[OzMick]

"...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.

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

[chotthee]

It was a mistake. He shouldn't have worn black.

[Macmundi]

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?

Some had water pistols.

[Macmundi]

Whoever the red shirts are, or were, they surely aren't such a peaceful bunch. They are still rolling down Ratchada Road as I write. When does it end?

[phiphidon]

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.

I love the way that you perceive the investigation of 47 witnesses and experts as "someone says they believe the photographer was shot by the army" and to top it all come with your considered opinion that "Any competent judge would throw this out in 5 minutes."

[carra]

"...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.

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

How can i tell you something again that I have not said before, i do not believe they only had weapons to defend themselves from soldier, i have never said this and this is not my opinions. How about you try and stick to facts rather than accusing posters of things they have never said.

the second part of your post is just bullshit, If I am part of a group but sitting alone in the toilet while someone else in the group has a gun 1km away, am i armed?

[OzMick]

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 415 posts
  

Posted Today, 11:34

let me get this straight, if you plant bombs in the south and plan murders of soldiers, police, teachers etc you are an insurgent, if you attend a rally in Bangkok and then have to defend yourself from the army attacking you then you are a terrorist (before all the holier than thou posters start I am referring to those reds branded as terrorists on this site despite sitting there peacefully and making no threat or doing any damage)

Short term memory loss?

[chotthee]

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 415 posts
  

Posted Today, 11:34

let me get this straight, if you plant bombs in the south and plan murders of soldiers, police, teachers etc you are an insurgent, if you attend a rally in Bangkok and then have to defend yourself from the army attacking you then you are a terrorist (before all the holier than thou posters start I am referring to those reds branded as terrorists on this site despite sitting there peacefully and making no threat or doing any damage)

Short term memory loss?

Spot on.

[Ferangled]

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 415 posts
  

Posted Today, 11:34

let me get this straight, if you plant bombs in the south and plan murders of soldiers, police, teachers etc you are an insurgent, if you attend a rally in Bangkok and then have to defend yourself from the army attacking you then you are a terrorist (before all the holier than thou posters start I am referring to those reds branded as terrorists on this site despite sitting there peacefully and making no threat or doing any damage)

Short term memory loss?

What have you proved, that you can't find a quote where Carra has stated "they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army" !!!???

This thread goes from the surreal to the ridiculous to just plain idiotic!

I guess the fact that he ended the post you have quoted by quite deliberately adding that he was referencing only those branded terrorists but not actually engaged in any violence is irrelevant, because you are trying (but failing miserably) to make a point?!

[Ferangled]

"...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.

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

This is a classic, so now you can be pregnant by proxy???!!!

Is that what your wife told you, it wasn't the milkman Mick, I stood next to a friend that was pregnant, it's contagious you know!!!

[carra]

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 415 posts
  

Posted Today, 11:34

let me get this straight, if you plant bombs in the south and plan murders of soldiers, police, teachers etc you are an insurgent, if you attend a rally in Bangkok and then have to defend yourself from the army attacking you then you are a terrorist (before all the holier than thou posters start I am referring to those reds branded as terrorists on this site despite sitting there peacefully and making no threat or doing any damage)

Short term memory loss?

Where does this say they carried weapons to defend themselves from the army which is what you stipulated in your post? I am referring here to unarmed people which is clear from the writing in the brackets, peaceful people had to defend themselves from the army, this does not mention picking up arms in any way or even hint at picking up arms in any way. people carrying weapons could not be classed as peaceful people.

I suggest you read and understand things or you just make yourself look silly, well done you, you have made yourself look silly by not reading the full post

[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.

I love the way that you perceive the investigation of 47 witnesses and experts as "someone says they believe the photographer was shot by the army" and to top it all come with your considered opinion that "Any competent judge would throw this out in 5 minutes."

If you believe the Thai police have interviewed 47 independent witnesses (i.e. not red shirts) then you are extremely gullible (which you have to be to continuously trot out red shirt propaganda). The key word in the sentence is 'believe' which together with Thai police, does indeed reduce the veracity of the statement. As for 'experts' - who are they?

I love the way you always have an open mind when it comes to the red shirts.

[maidu]

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.

whomever wrote the above is either heavily biased against the administration which preceded PT, or that person has very little insight to what happened in Bkk in Spring 2010. I wasn't there, but I followed it avidly, moment by moment, on several different media. What I saw and heard showed me, without a doubt, there were armed people embedded among the protesters. If the reporter got shot by someone in uniform, that's regrettable, but Fabio made a conscious choice to be in the thick of a situation which he knew was dangerous. Shit happens. It seems highly doubtful that an authority would shoot to kill someone he knew was a reporter. Mistaken identity.

[animatic]

...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.

You are attempting to attach an emotional response to my statement that is not in evidence.

[attento]

Regardless of the debate on here regarding what exactly "may have" happened, we find that, once again, we are provided with a very damning headline:

"Thai Army Shot Italian Photographer",

only to find within the text that:

"The conclusion found that the cause of his death was believed to have been a gunshot from the authorities on duty".

How does the journalist responsible for this story move from that particular statement to the headline that we have been provided with??

It's sensationalist journalism at its worst, and fails to consider the point that a large quantity of high-velocity military weapons were seized from Army barracks, and that even now, no-one knows where these weapons are, or where they were at the time of the shooting.

So, even if it is concluded that the weapon that was used was a high-velocity weapon, there can never be any speculation that the weapon was in the hands of a soldier, unless there is solid evidence proving that, and there isn't.

BTW, I served in the British military for 22 years, and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that a low-velocity weapon, such as a 9mm pistol, can easily succeed in piercing the heart, and leave the body through a small exit wound; it would, therefore, be very useful to know what size the exit wound was. So even this point is speculative, particularly as there is no forensic evidence on the type of projectile that the unfortunate individual was struck by.

In summary, I support neither side, but I am strongly opposed to conclusions drawn based upon speculation, particularly from a group such as the Police, every single member of which was conspicuous by their lack of action, or even presence, at any time during the unfortunate events of 2010.

It is usual for Sub-editors to compose Headlines, and not the reporter/journalist who wrote the initial Copy. Not sure if that was so in this case?

[robertson468]

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."

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."

Yes, and please remember there was a major arms theft from a military barracks around that same time, involving high caliber weapons, which has also not been fully explained, but I doubt very much it was the army raiding an army barracks!

[tlansford]

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.

I love the way that you perceive the investigation of 47 witnesses and experts as "someone says they believe the photographer was shot by the army" and to top it all come with your considered opinion that "Any competent judge would throw this out in 5 minutes."

If you believe the Thai police have interviewed 47 independent witnesses (i.e. not red shirts) then you are extremely gullible (which you have to be to continuously trot out red shirt propaganda). The key word in the sentence is 'believe' which together with Thai police, does indeed reduce the veracity of the statement. As for 'experts' - who are they?

I love the way you always have an open mind when it comes to the red shirts.

perhaps it is better than a closed mind... although it appears that a closed mind is very efficient, it can throw out the case faster, even in 5 minutes...

After 2 years, AFAIK multiple cases against the UDD were prosecuted, but unless I missed it, none of the cases against the gov't have been prosecuted.

Now, finally, there are results from investigations. It is amazing that people dismiss the investigations out of hand which are finally, now, over 2 years later, being passed to the prosecution. I mean, these have not even gone to court yet.

Edited July 24, 2012 by tlansford

[waza]

The redshirts had plenty of the militaries weapons..........

The guy who stole his camera and helped carry him to safety.

Remember who ever did this, including the thief will get amnesty under the PTPs charter change.

Edited July 24, 2012 by waza

[rubl]

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

How can i tell you something again that I have not said before, i do not believe they only had weapons to defend themselves from soldier, i have never said this and this is not my opinions. How about you try and stick to facts rather than accusing posters of things they have never said.

the second part of your post is just bullshit, If I am part of a group but sitting alone in the toilet while someone else in the group has a gun 1km away, am i armed?

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

[backtonormal]

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

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

It may have escaped the notice of the Dem sympathisers that there is always a good chance you kill somebody innocent if you spray around 117,000 bullets and over 2500 sniper rounds. Personally I believe the press were targetted

[backtonormal]

Does not matter red or yellow, people with scopes on their sniper rifles should not have difficulty in seeing who is armed and unarmed.

Very true. Then why did the army use over 2000 sniper rounds, there was not over 2000 people armed. Shoot to kill orders...anybody

[backtonormal]

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

How can i tell you something again that I have not said before, i do not believe they only had weapons to defend themselves from soldier, i have never said this and this is not my opinions. How about you try and stick to facts rather than accusing posters of things they have never said.

the second part of your post is just bullshit, If I am part of a group but sitting alone in the toilet while someone else in the group has a gun 1km away, am i armed?

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

This is one dead Italian journalist (shot in the back) being relieved of his camera by what appears to be a man in an army helmet. Opportunist thief not likely, its maybe what he had taken pictures of that got him killed

Edited July 24, 2012 by metisdead
: Possibly copyrighted photo removed.

[backtonormal]

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.

I hope this is a wind up

[rubl]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

This is one dead Italian journalist (shot in the back) being relieved of his camera by what appears to be a man in an army helmet. Opportunist thief not likely, its maybe what he had taken pictures of that got him killed

The 'dead journalist' Fabio Polenghi was rumoured to have been shot in the chest. That's the part of the body mostly considered to be the front, rather than the back. Of course there's a distinct possibility that another Italian journalist was killed that day under similar circumstances, but I'm sure we'd have heard by now.

The person with funny helmet is still being searched for. It is unknown till now if he's a member of the armed forces, a militant red-shirt or just a friendly person helping.

Conclusion: stick to the truth, it will set you free

Edited July 24, 2012 by metisdead
: Possibly copyrighted photo removed.

[backtonormal]

"...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.

so in your opinion, was there more armed red shirts than unarmed?

the quote says 'Mostly unarmed' and I think I would agree with that.

Tell us again, that one where they only had weapons to defend themselves against the army!

Armed is like pregnant. A group is armed or it is not. And if you are armed, and those weapons are used, "peaceful protest" is a joke.

Well by using snipers you can illiminate unnecessary deaths. They fire 2000+ sniper rounds and there was still hoardes of black shirts running around, Do you know how unbelievable that is. The story is unravelling very slowly

[rubl]

Does not matter red or yellow, people with scopes on their sniper rifles should not have difficulty in seeing who is armed and unarmed.

Very true. Then why did the army use over 2000 sniper rounds, there was not over 2000 people armed. Shoot to kill orders...anybody

Over 2000 rounds of sniper type of ammunition and 117,000 or so 'normal' rounds were not returned to army depots after the dust settled. Not quiet the same as having been fired, TiT and all that. Of course firing a round is not really the same as 'shoot to kill' or even having received a 'shoot to kill' order.

Our dear lawyer Robert A. wrote that on the 10th of April the army was firing into densely packed protesters, and said more nice things about the later days (no mention of grenades I think, but the army wasn't using those, only being on the receiving side). No disrespect meant towards killed and wounded, but 85 dead and 117,000 + 2,000 rounds fired? 'Shoot to kill and damned the expenses', or 'shoot and avoid killing if possible'?

BTW just a wee moment and post before you mentioned 2500 sniper rounds, you went down to 2000, did you check to correct yourself, or are you just floating numbers to annoy? And how does 'spraying bullets around you're bound to hit' matches with 'shoot to kill'?

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[backtonormal]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

This is one dead Italian journalist (shot in the back) being relieved of his camera by what appears to be a man in an army helmet. Opportunist thief not likely, its maybe what he had taken pictures of that got him killed

The 'dead journalist' Fabio Polenghi was rumoured to have been shot in the chest. That's the part of the body mostly considered to be the front, rather than the back. Of course there's a distinct possibility that another Italian journalist was killed that day under similar circumstances, but I'm sure we'd have heard by now.

The person with funny helmet is still being searched for. It is unknown till now if he's a member of the armed forces, a militant red-shirt or just a friendly person helping.

Conclusion: stick to the truth, it will set you free

His fellow journalist was hit at the same time (I believe in the leg) and he was infront of him so how did he get hit in the chest they were running away. The bullet was never found because the thief, in funny helmet, recovered it from the front of the journalist vest after it had passed thru the body. Who can believe he nicked the camera and then pulled him to safety. He was there to recover the film and the incrimminating round which is the most feasible explanation on this thread