Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[birdpooguava]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

If you knew any thing about government with the parliamentarian system you would know that he was elected by the same system as his predecessor yet you seem to think it was OK for him to get elected that way but not a Demarcate.

Is there any particular reason you choose to say it is OK for one party not another. Makes no sense to me. Of course I had no money to be made or lost who ever got in. All I know is how they do it and I really don't agree with the system but no one asked me. Is that it your ego is hurt because they didn't ask you what system to use in electing a Prime Minister?

If you knew anything about the history of the Democrat coalition formation you would know that he was NOT elected by the same system as his predecessor. Neither Samak nor Somchai used the army chief to coerce other politicians into joining their coalitions.

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government."

"Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government"

(Newin VS the army)

[nurofiend]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

If you knew any thing about government with the parliamentarian system you would know that he was elected by the same system as his predecessor yet you seem to think it was OK for him to get elected that way but not a Demarcate.

Is there any particular reason you choose to say it is OK for one party not another. Makes no sense to me. Of course I had no money to be made or lost who ever got in. All I know is how they do it and I really don't agree with the system but no one asked me. Is that it your ego is hurt because they didn't ask you what system to use in electing a Prime Minister?

If you knew anything about the history of the Democrat coalition formation you would know that he was NOT elected by the same system as his predecessor. Neither Samak nor Somchai used the army chief to coerce other politicians into joining their coalitions.

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government."

"Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government"

(Newin VS the army)

you're wasting your time, they know the wrongs but they'll never admit them.

[creck]

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.

Yr comment is only valid if the Taxi driver appeared from behind the van (in the army’s view) or immediately. I doubt if he was on the street in the right place at the wrong time. He had to get to the door and to the street after the volley of shots were fired. He may have been close, as he may have been in the security hut when he started. However, his positioning and timing seems to be over looked by the report and maybe at the inquest. I consider where he was, to be of crucial importance. If the Army could see where he came from and separate to the van (the van must have looked suspicious) they were just too trigger happy IMHO.

[Nickymaster]

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

If you knew any thing about government with the parliamentarian system you would know that he was elected by the same system as his predecessor yet you seem to think it was OK for him to get elected that way but not a Demarcate.

Is there any particular reason you choose to say it is OK for one party not another. Makes no sense to me. Of course I had no money to be made or lost who ever got in. All I know is how they do it and I really don't agree with the system but no one asked me. Is that it your ego is hurt because they didn't ask you what system to use in electing a Prime Minister?

If you knew anything about the history of the Democrat coalition formation you would know that he was NOT elected by the same system as his predecessor. Neither Samak nor Somchai used the army chief to coerce other politicians into joining their coalitions.

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government."

"Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government"

(Newin VS the army)

Some use the police, some us the army. TIT.

I still don't see any justification in your post for the terror, mayhem and destruction the reds have caused (and they knew that there would be an election in 6 months).

And how about the Red's action after YS took office? Behavior hasn’t changed much, has it? Still don't follow any law, just less violent.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Nickymaster

[fasteddie]

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 ???

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.

Maybe YOU should read the report, the taxi driver wasn't in the van, he stepped out of a hotel to see what all the noise was and was shot by some idiot from an army with a long history of happily murdering it's own people. Ironic the van driver wasn't killed but innocent bystanders were. Some army. TIT!

[fasteddie]

So it needed an inquest to figure this out?

Guy tries to drive through a security checkpoint, gets shot at, people in van die.

Of course the army killed him. That doesn't make it murder.

Read the report! He wasn't in the van!! Jeez!!!!!

[fasteddie]

So it needed an inquest to figure this out?

Guy tries to drive through a security checkpoint, gets shot at, people in van die.

Of course the army killed him. That doesn't make it murder.

When a Red shirts points a gun at a security force, and the security force kills him (because he feels threatened/scared) it is cold blooded murder according to the Reds.

That is the Thailand they are trying to create.

What redshirt? What gun? What threatened soldier? He was a Bangkok taxi driver stood outside a hotel!

[Pi Sek]

Abhisit is a politican and therefore an opportunist, but I don't think he perverted democracy at all. Some posters are claiming that Abhisit installed himself and in the same breath saying that the army installed him. Which is it?

Anyway, aren't all coalitions born out of shady back room horse trading? In fact wasn't Thai Rak Thai under Thaksin formed the same way (without the army chief however)? Newin switched from backing TRT/PPP to backing the Democrats... does anyone actually believe he did this because the army chief told him to? Or was something, like the Interior Ministry, offered? I think he made the switch for money/power myself (and given their sharpy decline in the 2011 election, so did the electorate it seems) and Newin knew that PTP wouldn't be willing to match the army's offer.

Nonetheless, they had won 30-odd seats (through "popular mandate") and, if either of the two main parties wanted these seats, they had to pay for them. Both the two main parties wanted them, but the army put up the cash for the Dems and PTP didn't. That is democracy and that is why I am no fan of it, but it's still better than asking Somchai the security guard to decide on the country's macroeconomic direction.

[fasteddie]

According to his wife - He never attended the rally and worked as a taxi driver.

So why was he in a restricted area at ratchaprasong, driving a white van? Surely he wasn't collecting a fare?

He wasn't even in the van, can't you read?

[fasteddie]

Even though per nickymaster, i need to learn how to read, your final sentence makes little sense to me and I doubt anyone else.

Can you please point to any post or statement of mine supporting or condoning any violence from any side ?

If you cannot, please apologise for trying to put words into my mouth.

Finally, with regard to your statement, "...Nobody has or is denying the Army used real bullets and killed people during the 2010 "protest....", sadly there are very many people who have tried to deny this starting with, AV, his deputy PM, army generals, army spokesmen and assorted folks on this forum.

It is perhaps encouraging that you now admit the army killed people..................

You certainly would use some reading comprehension, I didn't say condoning, or supporting violence, I said denying deaths on the hands of "protesters".

Did the Red Shirts kill people, yes or no?

You may also provide a citation proving the people you mention deny that people died as a result of Army operations, ,as you said, for the past two years.

I have never denied the Army killed anyone, far from it, so there's nothing to admit there.

You are kidding right ??

AV and co have denied from the beginning that "people died as a result of army operations".

That denial is the crux of the problem.

Still,at least you admit the army's responsibility for murder.

The red shirts killed 20 security forces and the security forces killed 70 (mainly) red shirts.

Very sad situation.

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

I already have 1 answer from a 6th grader but I am looking for more.

You shouldn't be rude about 6th graders, work hard and you may be one in 5yrs.

[fasteddie]

2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Criminal Court rules taxi driver killed by troops

The Nation

2

Nittaya, daughter of Kam weeps during an interview before the court delivers the verdict.//Photo : Watcharachai Klaipong

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court Monday ruled that a taxi driver was shot dead by troops deployed to tighten security around Rajprasong Intesection in May 2010.

Phan Khamkong was shot dead between 12.05am and 1am on May 16. He was shot in the left chest and the bullet also pierced his right arm.

The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong.

Phan was shot by .223 bullet, which was a type of ammunition used by Army troops.

The court ruled that he was killed as a result of the security keeping operations ordered by the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation.

The case of Phan's death was the first of 19 deaths arising from the 2010 political violence sent to the court by public prosecutors.

Public prosecutors told the court that Phan went to rent his taxi to drive in Wat Saket area on May 14.

At 8pm on May 15, Phan called his daughter to day that he was hiding at a condominium construction site in Rajprarop. This was the last time his daughter heard from him.

The Department of Special Investigation have yet to prove whether troops in the area shot at Phan on their own or were simply carrying out an unlawful order. If carrying out an order, they would not be held responsible. Legal action would be taken against those who gave the order.

-- The Nation 2012-09-17

Well it is indeed a perplexing article. The only thing we know for sure is he sas killed and the weapon used was a milatary one. The article goes on to say

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now if he was innocent why would he be trying to break through the check point? Why not do as ordered? So all this time and money spent and that is all they can find out. For all any one knows it could have been a red shirt who bought the gun on the Black Market.

I wonder if they are ever going to investigate who gave the order to illegally seize public property that started all the trouble. A peaceful protest and then go home nothing wrong with that but some one made the decision to turn it into a illegal protest. WHO. We will never officially know as that is not what the PT wants to become public.

Did you even read the report? he wasn't driving the van, he wasn't even in the van, that's why he was innocent!

[Moruya]

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 ???

Crossfire:

a situation wherein the forces of opposing factions meet, cross, or clash <caught in a political cross fire>

[Moruya]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

Abhisit was upholding democracy under the laws of Thailand.

The reds were attempting a violent coup.

[Moruya]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

If you knew any thing about government with the parliamentarian system you would know that he was elected by the same system as his predecessor yet you seem to think it was OK for him to get elected that way but not a Demarcate.

Is there any particular reason you choose to say it is OK for one party not another. Makes no sense to me. Of course I had no money to be made or lost who ever got in. All I know is how they do it and I really don't agree with the system but no one asked me. Is that it your ego is hurt because they didn't ask you what system to use in electing a Prime Minister?

If you knew anything about the history of the Democrat coalition formation you would know that he was NOT elected by the same system as his predecessor. Neither Samak nor Somchai used the army chief to coerce other politicians into joining their coalitions.

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government."

"Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government"

(Newin VS the army)

You have no idea what was discussed behind those closed doors. All you know is that the army provided a safe location. The rest is idle speculation.

Even if the army had persuaded some coalition parties to defect it would not have been illegal.

[birdpooguava]

You have no idea what was discussed behind those closed doors. All you know is that the army provided a safe location. The rest is idle speculation.

Even if the army had persuaded some coalition parties to defect it would not have been illegal.

Blatant denial of the established facts makes you look stupid.

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government." (Newin VS the army)

[Siripon]

I love the quote from Banharn's brother about the 'irresistible power', he really means the irresistible lure of Cabinet seats.

I can't think of one government Chart Thai and its offshoots haven't been in.

The way the Democrats came to power was illegitimate, but not illegal.

Pheua Thai should have waited till the next election, but once half of Thaksin's money was seized the red shirts were set loose, resulting in the riots and seizure of central Bangkok.

Responsiblity for the deaths rest with the red shirt leaders, Thaksin and the police for their utter failure to enforce the law.

[Orac]

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 ???

Crossfire:

a situation wherein the forces of opposing factions meet, cross, or clash <caught in a political cross fire>

The original post quotes:

""There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn said."

[Nickymaster]

You certainly would use some reading comprehension, I didn't say condoning, or supporting violence, I said denying deaths on the hands of "protesters".

Did the Red Shirts kill people, yes or no?

You may also provide a citation proving the people you mention deny that people died as a result of Army operations, ,as you said, for the past two years.

I have never denied the Army killed anyone, far from it, so there's nothing to admit there.

You are kidding right ??

AV and co have denied from the beginning that "people died as a result of army operations".

That denial is the crux of the problem.

Still,at least you admit the army's responsibility for murder.

The red shirts killed 20 security forces and the security forces killed 70 (mainly) red shirts.

Very sad situation.

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

I already have 1 answer from a 6th grader but I am looking for more.

You shouldn't be rude about 6th graders, work hard and you may be one in 5yrs.

Fasteddie you are the MAN. A bit impulsive (problems with the Isan lady perhaps?) and most of your comments have already been dealt with if you would have cared to read the whole post before jumping in like a mad man.

Since you took the time to comment, you could instead have answered THE question:

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

[nurofiend]

Fasteddie you are the MAN. A bit impulsive (problems with the Isan lady perhaps?) and most of your comments have already been dealt with if you would have cared to read the whole post before jumping in like a mad man.

Since you took the time to comment, you could instead have answered THE question:

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

If a person doesn't carry weapons around and attack security forces, what could happen to this person?

rhetorical, but you get my meaning. (i hope)

[Nickymaster]

Fasteddie you are the MAN. A bit impulsive (problems with the Isan lady perhaps?) and most of your comments have already been dealt with if you would have cared to read the whole post before jumping in like a mad man.

Since you took the time to comment, you could instead have answered THE question:

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

If a person doesn't carry weapons around and attack security forces, what could happen to this person?

rhetorical, but you get my meaning. (i hope)

Wrong answer.

[pogal]

I was there when a soldier, 5 meters away, shot through the front windscreen of an ambulance and hit my best friend, seriously injuring him.

The official Thai Red Cross ambulance, was clearly marked and parked inside the grounds of the Pinnacle hotel.

It would be almost impossible to make such a mistake.

We took my friend to the Chulalongkorn hospital but after a few hours a high ranking officer came and had him moved to the army hospital and assured that all costs would be paid by the army. Its good that they accepted responsibility but we still find it hard to understand the soldiers reasoning for shooting.

So as you can see the army has actually already taken some responsibility for some shootings, although I doubt they had any choice since it was right in front of the hotel and witnessed by many people.

[candid]

I wonder how I would have reacted to the situation if I was a young conscript soldier. The escalating rhetoric of the Red Leaders would have played a big part in my reactions. After a few weks of all this, I would have been pretty tired and certainly nervous. I would have known about the "men in black", known they were probably all ex soldiers and used to weapons. I wouldn't have even thought of what discussions were going on behind closed doors. I could just about guarantee that any training I had in crowd control was pretty basic. My primary thoughts would have been of self preservation. The phrase "trigger happy" might just about sum up how I was feeling. Nervous, scared, tired. I would have been an accident waiting to happen.

And I sure wouldn't have though that 2 years later, a bunch of keyboard warriors, mostly foreigners with their own idea about Thailand's political awareness, would be discussing me in such a derogatory manner.

[tlansford]

- deleted due to quote limits -

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.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

It's already been stated that he heard the noise and came to investigate.

Quite possibly ran into the crossfire.

Err.......what crossfire ???

Crossfire:

a situation wherein the forces of opposing factions meet, cross, or clash <caught in a political cross fire>

The original post quotes:

""There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn said."

thanks for bringing that point back. There was a minor diversion earlier about "cross-fire" as well.

There was a vehicle, the army-controlled area, and a dead civilian who had nothing to do with any of it.

Edited September 18, 2012 by tlansford

[AleG]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

[Nickymaster]

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.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[tlansford]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

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.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

[Siripon]

The police didn't do anything at all. They let the red shirts seize Ratchaprasong and that whole area.

Were you in Bangkok then? If the police had done their job the red shirts would have been arrested from the start.

[tlansford]

The 15th of May, when this event occurred, was after the shooting of the general and the beginning of the military crackdown on the protesters which was to go on for another 4 days.

You'll notice that there is a difference in descriptions of the events between the reports - The AFP quotes the judge as saying :

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri"

And The Nation paraphrases the court for us saying :

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now for me, driving into a restricted area and trying to break through a security checkpoint create vastly different images in my mind. But as the AFP points out,

"The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event."

so I am not surprised that the reporting of the pro-Abhisit media outlet, The Nation, might create one image for it's readers whereas a normal news source without a Thai agenda might create another. I am not drawing conclusions regarding the actual events from either, but I don't blinding accept a rather vivid image of a van bursting through an orderly army checkpoint and the military then opening fire.

As it happens, there is another eyewitness report, extremely vivid, documented, and easily available which is from the very same day and it does provide a full context of the situation for the reader. It shows the chaos that day and describes in detail a series of events, how they began, progressed, and ended specific details.

This is from the same day and the same area as the OP. There are no men in black, no police in this. Just some protesters, some reporter, other civilians, and the army.

I think people who read this account will understand just how dangerous it was on that day - not only for the "regular" protesters, but certainly for anyone who happened to find themselves close to the military operations on that day - like the van, like the gentleman who was shot and killed in the OP.

BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone.

Here is the article from Nick Nostitz, who was in the middle of it all on the 15th -

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/