Moruya Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I wonder what this can open up ??I suppose it's a surprisingly unsurprising verdict and it must have some serious implications for the armed forces and those who issue their orders. I think the vast majority of sane people would support an order permitting the armed forces to fire in self defence given the violence of the protesters. Er..........self defence at an unarmed taxi driver ??? I'm not convinced the vast majority of sane people would condone that. White van actually. Driving towards an army checkpoint and failed to stop despite being told to do so. The man who was killed was not the driver. He heard the shots and came running to see. Very unfortunate. With hindsight the US earned forces would react a lot differently today if presented with the 9/11 planes or the attack on the USS Cole. A Brazilian was shot dead in the UK because the police believed, albeit wrongly, that the man was a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonclark Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! BP for once you make a good point. It is clear that this man was not the intended target of the soldiers gun fire - the van was - so the intention to kill him surely isn't there as the soldiers weren't aiming at him - so not murder as that was not the intention, responsible for his death yes, but not their fault, partly their fault at best The van driver has to hold some of the blame as his actions, led to the reactions which caused the death. Sad but true as life is cheap here, wrong place wrong time - bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pi Sek Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I think it is disgusting that some of my fellow Abhisit/army sympathisers are trying to apportion blame to the deceased, despite a thorough investigation showing that he was neither armed nor showing any threat. Shame on you. It was maybe a bit silly of Khun Phan to come out of the apartment block whilst bullets were flying around, but that's all he did "wrong". Yes, it looks like Kanit's panel - which is as unbiased an inquest as we could have hoped for - have found that the Red Shirts were harbouring an armed wing and, yes, it looks like the same panel has basically said the army shot some people unlawfully out of panic, but we mostly all guessed that anyway. Were they heavy handed? Yes, probably, as the inquest has suggested (through nervousness through lack of sleep/lack of guerrilla warfare training). Were they wrong to shoot at the van? No way - which is why this isn't "murder". I also think it is disgusting that red sympathisers are trying to say that live ammunition was not called for under the circumstances... but there you go. And as for anyone that believes the authorities denied using live ammo on 15 May - no, you're wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! BP for once you make a good point. It is clear that this man was not the intended target of the soldiers gun fire - the van was - so the intention to kill him surely isn't there as the soldiers weren't aiming at him - so not murder as that was not the intention, responsible for his death yes, but not their fault, partly their fault at best The van driver has to hold some of the blame as his actions, led to the reactions which caused the death. Sad but true as life is cheap here, wrong place wrong time - bad luck. So easy......... How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 - deleted for quote limits - Er..........self defence at an unarmed taxi driver ??? Maybe you should learn how to read. The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event. Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb. In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home. When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed. Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! Thanks - I was about to point out the same thing but decided to continue to page 2 first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I'm surprised it took two years to work this one out. I thought it had been stated all along that he was shot by the army when the van was speeding towards a check point. Not surprising really, many on this thread cannot seem to comprehend the man who was the subject of the inquest was not driving the van...... How does that change anything? It doesn't mean that he should have been killed, but surely it was clear who killed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 - deleted for quote limits - Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ?? Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor. How about you? Meaning what ?? Are you banned? just hasn't drawn the lucky number yet... But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, did you pick up on your reading error already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. Interesting that you posit that the Royal Thai Army is not a well disciplined force........ Edited September 17, 2012 by philw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military? Because they, quite deliberately, created the situation in which the Army ended up on the streets with an itchy finger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiawatcher Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I feel sorry for the young lass' loss but taxi's were all over the protest in support. Being near the protest as a taxi driver hardly allows a soldier to differentiate, especially by association with the 'cause'. The circumstances surrounding his death are simply yet another result of civil unrest laying siege to the city. It is not as if this was the first day of the protest and he may well have thought he was immune to imminent danger by being in the area, but frankly? So damned what... Another casualty started by the Red Shirts who are doing every thing they can to lay blame on everyone bar themselves. Everything else in Thailand gets blamed on Karma so let this one go the same way - wrong place wrong time, wrong side. Move on and stop wasting everyones time as it will resolve nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artisi Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's called collateral damage, which in this case is extremely bad luck. However, with the situation that way it was at the time, would you run outside on hearing gun-shots. I know I wouldn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) It's all a bit defensive now, isn't it ?? Karma. life is cheap. Stuff happens.. Collateral damage. ( tell that to families of British troops killed by their allies mistakes ) Wrong place, wrong time. His fault for going outside ( perhaps with an intention to help the wounded, we don't know ) Maybe he was going for a pee. Let's see a few army commanders fess up, as it were. And get taken to court. Edited September 17, 2012 by philw 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's all a bit defensive now, isn't it ??Karma. life is cheap. Stuff happens.. Collateral damage. ( tell that to families of British troops killed by their allies mistakes ) Wrong place, wrong time. His fault for going outside ( perhaps with an intention to help the wounded, we don't know ) Maybe he was going for a pee. Let's see a few army commanders fess up, as it were. And get taken to court. It's already been stated that he heard the noise and came to investigate. Quite possibly ran into the crossfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's all a bit defensive now, isn't it ??Karma. life is cheap. Stuff happens.. Collateral damage. ( tell that to families of British troops killed by their allies mistakes ) Wrong place, wrong time. His fault for going outside ( perhaps with an intention to help the wounded, we don't know ) Maybe he was going for a pee. Let's see a few army commanders fess up, as it were. And get taken to court. It's already been stated that he heard the noise and came to investigate. Quite possibly ran into the crossfire. Err.......what crossfire ??? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Maybe you should learn how to read. The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event. Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb. In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home. When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed. Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! Yes you are right I was wrong. Philw read the correct thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonclark Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 It's all a bit defensive now, isn't it ?? Karma. life is cheap. Stuff happens.. Collateral damage. ( tell that to families of British troops killed by their allies mistakes ) Wrong place, wrong time. His fault for going outside ( perhaps with an intention to help the wounded, we don't know ) Maybe he was going for a pee. Let's see a few army commanders fess up, as it were. And get taken to court. Phil you'd have army commanders fess up to what, this bloke was innocent, but he was not murdered, he was caught in the cross fire in a volatile situation, these accidents happen. Even with the most disciplined forces (as your reference to British friendly fire deaths suggest) kill the innocent. It makes those deaths no less palatable and very much a waste but there is no intention to take life of the individuals. Unless you have evidence that the army deliberatlly targeted this man with the intention you can shout and scream blue murder until the cows home. It will not change the facts surrounding this death. He was caught in a 'crossfire'. That is where the accountability starts and stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) How about you? Meaning what ?? Are you banned? just hasn't drawn the lucky number yet... But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, did you pick up on your reading error already? "But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong" I don't know. Just don't have much in common with people that support terrorism and criminals. Therefore you might get the impression that I only prefer to talk to people with some common sense. Who are you to make a comment on an issue concerning my post? I have challenged you numerous times in other topics but you always disappeared. Edited September 17, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Phil you'd have army commanders fess up to what, this bloke was innocent, but he was not murdered, he was caught in the cross fire in a volatile situation, these accidents happen. Even with the most disciplined forces (as your reference to British friendly fire deaths suggest) kill the innocent. It makes those deaths no less palatable and very much a waste but there is no intention to take life of the individuals. Unless you have evidence that the army deliberatlly targeted this man with the intention you can shout and scream blue murder until the cows home. It will not change the facts surrounding this death. He was caught in a 'crossfire'. That is where the accountability starts and stops. cross·fire/ˈkrôsˌfī(ə)r/ Noun: Gunfire from two or more directions crossing the same area: . Seems pretty obvious that in this case there was no 'crossfire', but instead "a volley of gunfire" from the army's position towards the van and apartment block Edited September 17, 2012 by birdpooguava 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military? Another good point. Let me try to answer: Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so. Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country? Edited September 17, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military? Another good point. Let me try to answer: Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so. Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country? Not sure, but not the army. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! BP for once you make a good point. It is clear that this man was not the intended target of the soldiers gun fire - the van was - so the intention to kill him surely isn't there as the soldiers weren't aiming at him - so not murder as that was not the intention, responsible for his death yes, but not their fault, partly their fault at best The van driver has to hold some of the blame as his actions, led to the reactions which caused the death. Sad but true as life is cheap here, wrong place wrong time - bad luck. So easy......... How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... Accountability. YES. Has any red shirt (leader) ever shown accountabilty for all the mayhem and destruction they have caused during their occupation of Bangkok? As you stated correctly: the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. I believe that the army tried their best trying to end the anarchy. Do you beleive that the red-shirt leaders also tried there best to follow the law? Edited September 17, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Maybe you should learn how to read. The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event. Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb. In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home. When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed. Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'! "Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter! Yes you are right I was wrong. Philw read the correct thing. Refreshing, sir. An appreciated gesture that statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 so basically we have the usual 'tough ****' response from the great guys of this forum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 How about some accountability ?? These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand. Responsibility and all that.......... You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"???? But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts. How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military? Another good point. Let me try to answer: Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so. Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country? Under an SOE, the military is in charge. Trying to make the red shirts responsible for the military's mistakes is like making your wife responsible for your infidelity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 "Abhisit, Suthep may face murder charge" is a headline for a story in another English languge newspaper... Not wishing to drive traffic their way but suggest a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Is PPD banned again? He must have been waiting for this news for years. Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ?? Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor. probably like the Thaksin Red Shirts they support, they think rules are only for others to follow . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Is PPD banned again? He must have been waiting for this news for years. Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ?? Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor. (off topic drivel snipped) . not getting a wee bit off topic are we lads.........funny I predicted this little diversion but they must be asleep up stairs...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Is PPD banned again? He must have been waiting for this news for years. Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ?? Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor. probably like the Thaksin Red Shirts they support, they think rules are only for others to follow . welcome back, bucholze and we missed you. Care to substantiate that remark ?? Edit for typo. Edited September 17, 2012 by philw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now