Thai Troops Shot Italian Photographer: Police

[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

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'?

This is the same man removing the dead Pelonghi, if you look closely you will see the camera in question. Defunately not the actions of a 'sneak thief'. That funny flap over the ear should help identify the helmet and its users

[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

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'?

I wrote 2000+ which covers from 2001 -2999 If I spent the amount of time you do on this news forum defending the behaviour of others I may have all the info 'at hand'

[brianP]

That is the high cost of being a journalist at dangerous places. I have a professional cameraman friend who has been to many a much more dangerous place and he said you have to accept the consequences. Hazardous jobs are just that. Shame it was all brought about by those with political ambitions who watched from a cozy,safe location. And what did it accomplish except hurt and divide Thailand? Send the thugs to strong arm the working people.

In chess,we call them Pawns, to be used up to save the most important chess pieces, where the real strategies are involved.

[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

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'?

I wrote 2000+ which covers from 2001 -2999 If I spent the amount of time you do on this news forum defending the behaviour of others I may have all the info 'at hand'

Why has this man never been found. Stinks of coverup

[philw]

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'?

This is the same man removing the dead Pelonghi, if you look closely you will see the camera in question. Defunately not the actions of a 'sneak thief'. That funny flap over the ear should help identify the helmet and its users

That is a very interesting picture.........

The thief argument goes out of the window.

He does not feel the need to hide the camera.

The helmet is probably a very real clue.

Who is assisting ??

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Any idea how long after he was shot ?

[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

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'?

Read the red. You have justified the firing of nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammunition with the phrase TIT. What did they fire all the rounds at if not people. You sound ridiculous

Edited July 24, 2012 by metisdead
: Red removed: 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[Buchholz]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Buchholz

[philw]

That is the high cost of being a journalist at dangerous places. I have a professional cameraman friend who has been to many a much more dangerous place and he said you have to accept the consequences. Hazardous jobs are just that. Shame it was all brought about by those with political ambitions who watched from a cozy,safe location. And what did it accomplish except hurt and divide Thailand? Send the thugs to strong arm the working people.

In chess,we call them Pawns, to be used up to save the most important chess pieces, where the real strategies are involved.

I suppose you are right, if one fondles lizards one can't be pissed when they bite................

However, Fabio was murdered while doing his job, which was bringing photographic journalism to the world.

Photographic evidence of news worthy events.

It is despicable that some posters on here take the view "som nom na " , "serves him right for being there", " shit happens" etc etc.

The man was doing a public service and his murder deserves an answer, a proper investigation and justice.

The same goes for all the people who were killed and injured, soldiers included.

[philw]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

[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

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

Written by Robert Amsterdam Thailand:

"Polenghi’s family has expressed concerns about the government’s opaque response to his death. His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, told CPJ that her family has repeatedly requested, but has not received, an official autopsy report. She said there are conflicting accounts from police and the Justice Ministry about the precise location of her brother’s wounds, which she did not see herself before his body was cremated. She also noted that many of Polenghi’s personal belongings, including his camera and telephone, are now missing. Such contradiction and obfuscation have fueled her fears that Polenghi could have been targeted for being a journalist.

She and a group of Polenghi’s colleagues have pieced together video clips—some received from journalists who were in Polenghi’s vicinty, others downloaded from unknown sources on the Internet—to develop a timeline of movements before and after the shooting. There is no known footage of the shooting itself. One video clip shows that an unidentified man wearing a silver helmet was the first to reach Polenghi after he was shot. The brief footage shows him feeling around Polenghi’s chest and briefly jostling with his camera, while another unidentified man wearing a yellow helmet kneels and takes his photograph. (…)"

http://fabiopolenghi...2:news&Itemid=2

"Of the five victims there is also an Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, 45, shot in the abdomen and chest by bullets fired during clashes between the army and demonstrators. He arrived in hospital, "already a corpse." A Dutch colleague, Michel Maas, who works for a public television based in Jakarta, was wounded in the shoulder by a bullet, but it is not life threatening."

http://www.asianews....lled-18444.html

I'm willing to submit to more reliable sources, like mistitimikis who is in contact with Elisabetta the sister of he late Fabio. Seems like a better way than speculation on doubtfull info. IMHO

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

[Buchholz]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

Calm down, Phil.

I never said they aren't real photos.

Who took the photo?

Every photo ever posted on this forum on hundreds of news topics is subject to providing sourcing of its origin.

For another reason, if it's a media-sourced photo, it's posting is prohibited by forum rules (which led to a number of my own posted photos being deleted) due to copyrighting.

.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Buchholz

[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'?

Read the red. You have justified the firing of nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammunition with the phrase TIT. What did they fire all the rounds at if not people. You sound ridiculous

I wrote "Not quiet the same as having been fired, TiT". I fail to see how you manage to translate that into "You have justified the firing of nearly 120,000 rounds with TiT". If you allow me, I'd like to use your words here, 'You sound ridiculous'.

[Moruya]

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.

On what basis are they guilty?

[mistitikimikis]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

ALL info concerning Fabio can be found HERE (fabiopolenghi.org) (scroll a bit down for English!!!)

Edited July 24, 2012 by mistitikimikis

[Moruya]

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...

"We all know....."

How? What evidence?

[Moruya]

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."

What solid evidence have you heard that would convince you of guilt?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Moruya

[Buchholz]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

ALL info concerning Fabio can be found HERE (fabiopolenghi.org) (scroll a bit down for English!!!)

A quick check of the website did not reveal any of the photos posted in Posts #85 87 90 91 94 95 100.

Assuming you are more knowledgeable of the website, can you say whether the source for the photos posted is that website? And if so, could provide a direct link to the specific page.

Thank you.

.

[Moruya]

• 
  
• 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

You truly believe there were no arms?

[Moruya]

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.

So who is pushing so hard for amnesty and why?

Who is refusing amnesty?

[Moruya]

"...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

Have you put yourself and your massive array of evidence forward to the judges?

Or is it all just another gust on the forum?

[mistitikimikis]

Buchholtz, if you go to page 4 and you click "read more" under the well-known photo (NOT on "who is this man because than you have to sign-in into Facebook" ) than you see scrolling down all the photos and specs of the camera................... (including the credits...............)

[mistitikimikis]

Sorry, here is the direct link to the page, easier

[brianP]

That is the high cost of being a journalist at dangerous places. I have a professional cameraman friend who has been to many a much more dangerous place and he said you have to accept the consequences. Hazardous jobs are just that. Shame it was all brought about by those with political ambitions who watched from a cozy,safe location. And what did it accomplish except hurt and divide Thailand? Send the thugs to strong arm the working people.

In chess,we call them Pawns, to be used up to save the most important chess pieces, where the real strategies are involved.

I suppose you are right, if one fondles lizards one can't be pissed when they bite................

However, Fabio was murdered while doing his job, which was bringing photographic journalism to the world.

Photographic evidence of news worthy events.

It is despicable that some posters on here take the view "som nom na " , "serves him right for being there", " shit happens" etc etc.

The man was doing a public service and his murder deserves an answer, a proper investigation and justice.

The same goes for all the people who were killed and injured, soldiers included.

He was doing a "Paid" public service and he knew the risks involved. He was there by his own free choice. Did he do everything to minimize his own safety?

It appears not .The distinction of someone under orders to be at risk and those who chose to for other reasons doesn't make it any less of a loss. And now with the pictures of him and the "camera thief," Further investigation and justice needs to be amplified. These people, like my cameraman friend, who put their lives at great risk are indeed important people, and i believe they have motivations far beyond the meager money they earn for the danger they put themselves in. No he didn't deserve what he got, and he deserves justice and truth too.

[Moruya]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

ALL info concerning Fabio can be found HERE (fabiopolenghi.org) (scroll a bit down for English!!!)

I am 100% sure that "all info concerning Fabio" cannot be found on any earthly web site.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Moruya

[metisdead]

Posts have been edited to remove possibly copyrighted photos, In future post the link(s) to the photo for members to view, as long as the source is not from a forbidden source.

This applies for all copyrighted pictures where posters are not owners.

[phiphidon]

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.

If you look closely animatic, my reply is to asiawatcher. Your post although I might not agree with the gist of it would not and did not merit my reply - If I shed any more posts I am accused of answering somebody without the context of the body of posts that preceded it - what am I to do?

[tlansford]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

from "Mr Photobucket"

[phiphidon]

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!

Yes it was explained and yes it was army soldiers raiding an army barracks which Gen Anupong admitted had happened.

[rubl]

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!

Yes it was explained and yes it was army soldiers raiding an army barracks which Gen Anupong admitted had happened.

No offence, here my memory fails me and I'm too lazy at this time of the day to search. Was it a raid, or were weapons slowly and mincemeatwise stolen?

[mistitikimikis]

Thanks for your post rubl

A post to the point, which cannot be stated concerning lots of .............. in other posts unfortunately. However the phrase "Written by Robert Amsterdam Thailand" will spark (again) aggression of certain posters which are not able to see both sides clearly and "judging" will be done by the court we hope, and not only for Fabio and his next of kin but also for more mysteries concerning killings done to, for example, non-paid first-aid volunteers.

Edited July 24, 2012 by mistitikimikis