Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[whybother]

Good points and from a source that is not in love with Yingluck.

Just related.

[TheKrayTriplet]

hmmmmm...

Is the People's Information Center run by VoiceTV?: http://www.peaceandj....org/?page_id=2

VoiceTV is owned by Pantongtae and Pintongta Shinawatra, the son and daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

PIC are a group of academics

Voice TV is refreshingly unbiased and has good debates with representatives from all sectors of the political spectrum

So why is "unbiased" Shinawatra's Voice TV all over their website?

Who provides the financing for PIC?

but anyway, that report is a topic that already has its own topic-specific thread with your referenced post being the OP and it already has 6 pages of posts...

Deaths From Stray Bullets 'shock' Group

http://www.thaivisa....ts-shock-group/

but by all means, rehash it some more and more in this thread....

.

Is it just me or does the link not work? Not the thai visa one the www.peaceandj etc one?

[tlansford]

When posters don't like the information delivered in a news posting, then they decide that shooting the messenger is easier (discrediting the source).

Which is a joke on a forum where 90% of the news clippings come from The Nation.

Maybe they should be M-a-n-e-n-o-u-g-h to just address the actual information provided. Would it not be more interesting to explain 30% of the deaths from head shots and 22% from chest shots and understand why this happened or how it could have happened?

I think both sides do this far too often. I try very hard not to, but I will admit that I am only human.

However, I believe the likes of PIC, Voice TV and NN have agenda outside the truth, even moreso than the mainstream media. NN and I have had quite fiery exchanges on this forum, as I frankly don't believe most of his suppositions and have let him know so. In fact, he also decided to "shoot the messenger" when my first-hand account of the BTS Saladaeng attack differed from his - it didn't work

I agree that sometimes we can dismiss the information in the first moment due to the source. I hate The Nation - it's poor quality and agenda driven. But I do read the content and pick out events/facts vs opinion vs statements. Sometimes such as in this thread, there is even the occasion to directly compare a quote (AFP) with a statement (The Nation) for the exact same event (the van encountering the military) and seeing how the reporting can completely change the meaning of the event.

Sadly, many of our sources for information today have an agenda. The good news is (1) that it is also obvious and (2) there are many more sources to compare.

On the other hand, on TVF, some posters will just ridicule the information source rather than address the content, because the information source may have an agenda they do not agree with. That is an easy but ineffective method to dismiss the information which is often quite relevant. Information can be checked and verified. If the source is Voice TV or The Nation doesn't matter if the information is correct and complete.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Who started the killing spree?

Do the math: 20 officals were killed and 70 protestors. It all started with the killing of the officials. Before the crackdown began on May 15, around 10 officials were killed and hundreds wounded.

And you are criticising the use of an SOE...amazing.

Be fair.

Where I come from we say:

If you play with fire you might get burned

first death - a protester. 30 minutes before the MiB were spotted. Killed by an unknown sniper. Not the military.

the ISA was invoked before the first protester arrived, and the SOE 3 days before Apr 10th and the disastrous dispersal attempt. The use of lethal force had also already been approved. Was that necessary? Was it smart to put the army in full control when they so clearly botched the dispersal April 10th? I don't.

Play with fire, you and kireb are both pretty callous regarding the deaths of people.

But looking over the history of this conflict, that analogy is relatively fitting WRT the opposition to the Abhisit government given the means he used to come to power, isn't it?

"But looking over the history of this conflict, that analogy is relatively fitting WRT the opposition to the Abhisit government given the means he used to come to power, isn't it?"

History? Are you serious? The protestors were there because of Thaksin's revenge for the coup. Thaksin was trying to copy Hun Sen and Thailand was not ready for that. If you promote democracy, you should condemn corruption. But you don’t. For you Thaksin is still THE MAN.

Problem with you, Thaksin and all the reds is that you support democracy AND corruption.

...and you are pretty callous regarding the deaths security forces.

ps. Still waiting on those reports showing that the Thai Police did a good job providing law and order during the Red occupation of downtown Bangkok.

"Problem with you, ... is that you support democracy AND corruption."

now you are just making stuff up...

"...and you are pretty callous regarding the deaths security forces."

and still more stuff ... and that one was really stupid, too - I condemn all the violence in 2010 even if I also understand how and why it happened.

"For you Thaksin is still THE MAN."

Now, I think you are in some kind of dream in fact...

"The protestors were there because of Thaksin's revenge for the coup. Thaksin was trying to copy Hun Sen and Thailand was not ready for that."

If this is actually how you view the situation, then I am certain that there is no common ground for a discussion.

PS: I haven't forgotten about you and the pre-10/4 articles.

Here is a report which is from Apr 9th, the day before the first crack down. It covers many of the events at that time, the protest site, Thaicom, etc. You'll notice that both the military and the police were in full force.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/unrest_in_thailand.html

The police were also doing their job when they saved the woman who tried to run over red shirt protesters with her car.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Woman-rescued-by-police-after-trying-to-slam-car-a-30126514.html

More in the next post...

[tlansford]

continued...

I saw a couple of interesting clips from this guy at thaifaq. Interesting because it recalls the beginning of the protests. You'll see both the police and military doing their job.

March 14 & 15

CCTV report 14/3 : summary why they came, background, etc. Police clearly visible as part of the crowd control : they were also part of the checkpoint program checking cars arriving in BKK before the protests.

http://youtu.be/tHfWkuGF-bI

more in the next post

[tlansford]

CNN report 14/3 : 50,000 security forces put in place

16/3 : blood protests (thaifaq)

more in next post

[tlansford]

and Apr 3 - the move to Ratchaprasong (Thaifaq)

more in next post

[tlansford]

10/4 : an interesting set of clips from the guy at thaifaq : this is the first of 3. Not about the police, but a long video of how things developed and played out.

Now the searching also reminded me that Abhisit had not only invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) before the start of the protests, he also had 50,000 security personnel - military & police - in BKK before the protests began and hid himself in a military protected bunker.

People can claim that the police did not do their job and this is the reason that Abhisit "had to" call in the army, but that is not what happened. The police did their job and the military were there from the start.

I don't expect this will stop posters from making that claim, but anyone who reads this will see how the situation unfolded for themselves.

[AleG]

10/4 : an interesting set of clips from the guy at thaifaq : this is the first of 3. Not about the police, but a long video of how things developed and played out.

Now the searching also reminded me that Abhisit had not only invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) before the start of the protests, he also had 50,000 security personnel - military & police - in BKK before the protests began and hid himself in a military protected bunker.

People can claim that the police did not do their job and this is the reason that Abhisit "had to" call in the army, but that is not what happened. The police did their job and the military were there from the start.

I don't expect this will stop posters from making that claim, but anyone who reads this will see how the situation unfolded for themselves.

How did protesters storm parliament if the police was doing a good job? Showing up and doing diddly-squat is not doing a good job.

Build up huge barricades in the middle of the city, set up checkpoints, break into hospitals to raid the morgues, disable CCTV cameras at Ratchaprasong, cut traffic in many streets, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc, etc, etc...

A state of anarchy is not the police doing their job of keeping law and order, it's an abject failure.

I remember, live on TV on March 19th, a single Red Shirt at the intersection of Sukhumvit and Ekamai, piling up junk in the intersection and setting it on fire, stopping traffic. Behind him in the police box two officers just watching and doing absolutely nothing.

[tlansford]

10/4 : an interesting set of clips from the guy at thaifaq : this is the first of 3. Not about the police, but a long video of how things developed and played out.

Now the searching also reminded me that Abhisit had not only invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) before the start of the protests, he also had 50,000 security personnel - military & police - in BKK before the protests began and hid himself in a military protected bunker.

People can claim that the police did not do their job and this is the reason that Abhisit "had to" call in the army, but that is not what happened. The police did their job and the military were there from the start.

I don't expect this will stop posters from making that claim, but anyone who reads this will see how the situation unfolded for themselves.

How did protesters storm parliament if the police was doing a good job? Showing up and doing diddly-squat is not doing a good job.

Build up huge barricades in the middle of the city, set up checkpoints, break into hospitals to raid the morgues, disable CCTV cameras at Ratchaprasong, cut traffic in many streets, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc, etc, etc...

A state of anarchy is not the police doing their job of keeping law and order, it's an abject failure.

I remember, live on TV on March 19th, a single Red Shirt at the intersection of Sukhumvit and Ekamai, piling up junk in the intersection and setting it on fire, stopping traffic. Behind him in the police box two officers just watching and doing absolutely nothing.

Did you miss the part about the ISA and the 50,000 security forces being placed in BKK even before the protests started?

How can you blame the police for not "keeping the peace" when Abhisit put a 50,000 strong force in charge of security in BKK?

[AleG]

10/4 : an interesting set of clips from the guy at thaifaq : this is the first of 3. Not about the police, but a long video of how things developed and played out.

Now the searching also reminded me that Abhisit had not only invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) before the start of the protests, he also had 50,000 security personnel - military & police - in BKK before the protests began and hid himself in a military protected bunker.

People can claim that the police did not do their job and this is the reason that Abhisit "had to" call in the army, but that is not what happened. The police did their job and the military were there from the start.

I don't expect this will stop posters from making that claim, but anyone who reads this will see how the situation unfolded for themselves.

How did protesters storm parliament if the police was doing a good job? Showing up and doing diddly-squat is not doing a good job.

Build up huge barricades in the middle of the city, set up checkpoints, break into hospitals to raid the morgues, disable CCTV cameras at Ratchaprasong, cut traffic in many streets, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc, etc, etc...

A state of anarchy is not the police doing their job of keeping law and order, it's an abject failure.

I remember, live on TV on March 19th, a single Red Shirt at the intersection of Sukhumvit and Ekamai, piling up junk in the intersection and setting it on fire, stopping traffic. Behind him in the police box two officers just watching and doing absolutely nothing.

Did you miss the part about the ISA and the 50,000 security forces being placed in BKK even before the protests started?

How can you blame the police for not "keeping the peace" when Abhisit put a 50,000 strong force in charge of security in BKK?

Because they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't, that's how.

Seeing how the police force is quite partial to Thaksin is not difficult to see why they were so apathetic.

[nurofiend]

10/4 : an interesting set of clips from the guy at thaifaq : this is the first of 3. Not about the police, but a long video of how things developed and played out.

Now the searching also reminded me that Abhisit had not only invoked the Internal Security Act (ISA) before the start of the protests, he also had 50,000 security personnel - military & police - in BKK before the protests began and hid himself in a military protected bunker.

People can claim that the police did not do their job and this is the reason that Abhisit "had to" call in the army, but that is not what happened. The police did their job and the military were there from the start.

I don't expect this will stop posters from making that claim, but anyone who reads this will see how the situation unfolded for themselves.

How did protesters storm parliament if the police was doing a good job? Showing up and doing diddly-squat is not doing a good job.

Build up huge barricades in the middle of the city, set up checkpoints, break into hospitals to raid the morgues, disable CCTV cameras at Ratchaprasong, cut traffic in many streets, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc, etc, etc...

A state of anarchy is not the police doing their job of keeping law and order, it's an abject failure.

I remember, live on TV on March 19th, a single Red Shirt at the intersection of Sukhumvit and Ekamai, piling up junk in the intersection and setting it on fire, stopping traffic. Behind him in the police box two officers just watching and doing absolutely nothing.

Did you miss the part about the ISA and the 50,000 security forces being placed in BKK even before the protests started?

How can you blame the police for not "keeping the peace" when Abhisit put a 50,000 strong force in charge of security in BKK?

Because they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't, that's how.

Seeing how the police force is quite partial to Thaksin is not difficult to see why they were so apathetic.

i think you misunderstood the question.

[AleG]

i think you misunderstood the question.

And I think you and tlansford have a problem understanding that the police is supposed to be in charge of keeping the peace and maintaining order. The RTP has proven over, and over again that they are incapable of doing so, in normal times and much less in times of upheaval. If they can't or wont perform their duty either someone else has to be called in or you let anarchy reign.

Do you think they did a good job when the Yellow Shirts occupied parliament or the airports? in the 2009 Red Shirt riots? Where is their good track record at doing anything but running the largest racketeering operation in Thailand?

Tlansford claims they did a good job in 2010, the onus is on him to prove so, because on the face of the breakdown on peace and order during the protests it's a ridiculous statement.

Seriously, the straw you are clutching at is the professionalism of the Royal Thai Police? How desperate are you?

[nurofiend]

i think you misunderstood the question.

And I think you and tlansford have a problem understanding that the police is supposed to be in charge of keeping the peace and maintaining order. The RTP has proven over, and over again that they are incapable of doing so, in normal times and much less in times of upheaval. If they can't or wont perform their duty either someone else has to be called in or you let anarchy reign.

Do you think they did a good job when the Yellow Shirts occupied parliament or the airports? in the 2009 Red Shirt riots? Where is their good track record at doing anything but running the largest racketeering operation in Thailand?

Tlansford claims they did a good job in 2010, the onus is on him to prove so, because on the face of the breakdown on peace and order during the protests it's a ridiculous statement.

Seriously, the straw you are clutching at is the professionalism of the Royal Thai Police? How desperate are you?

If they can't or wont perform their duty either someone else has to be called in or you let anarchy reign.

Do you think they did a good job when the Yellow Shirts occupied parliament or the airports? in the 2009 Red Shirt riots?

this would be a good argument, only for the disaster that was the military handling of 2010....

also, back at you, do you think the army did a good job when the yellow shirts occupied parliament or the airports?... oh wait

Seriously, the straw you are clutching at is the professionalism of the Royal Thai Police? How desperate are you?

stop with the trolling please. ie (how desperate are you?)

i'm not clutching at any straws nor am i desperate, i say as i see...and i'm saying you can't say the police f'd up in this instance because they didn't get the chance to f up, that 'honour' was given to the army.

as soon as the army were properly involved (SOE) (even though they were pretty much involved from the start, hence the possible misunderstanding of the question), that's when the bodies started hitting the ground, now what does that tell you???

was it better before the army started shooting and killing people amongst large crowds or after?

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

Edited September 21, 2012 by nurofiend

[AleG]

...

when was it more out of control? when the police had some involvement or when the army got free reign with the SOE?

When the Red Shirts and their friends the MiB decided it was time for a little urban guerrilla, that´s when.

[chotthee]

He might be killed from an Army bullet, but wait.

- Lots of arms and bullet were rob from the Army by the Red-Shirt, hence it is possible that Red shirt fire the deadly bullet, not the army

- Like Khun Suthep said, those dead guys should not have walk infront of the bullets.

[backtonormal]

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

Now if we can only account for the other 119,999 bullets that the army fired

[whybother]

Now if we can only account for the other 119,999 bullets that the army fired

Do you think they only fired one bullet as the van was speeding towards them?

[backtonormal]

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.

Please read the red. At anytime in the conflict only a handful of soldiers were killed and that was in one incident in April. Also the only expert appraisal of that incident concludes that the grenade could not have been thrown by the red shirts due to it weight and the distance between them. It was most likely toss in from a short distance to escalate the army response. Before you bitch about my response ask yourself why the army or Dem Gov (of the time) have never provided a report into those soldier deaths.

[whybother]

Please read the red. At anytime in the conflict only a handful of soldiers were killed and that was in one incident in April. Also the only expert appraisal of that incident concludes that the grenade could not have been thrown by the red shirts due to it weight and the distance between them. It was most likely toss in from a short distance to escalate the army response. Before you bitch about my response ask yourself why the army or Dem Gov (of the time) have never provided a report into those soldier deaths.

You've never heard of a grenade launcher? The red shirts had quite a few of those.

[tlansford]

Now if we can only account for the other 119,999 bullets that the army fired

Do you think they only fired one bullet as the van was speeding towards them?

The innocent bystander, not in the van, btw, was presumably killed by a single bullet, but perhaps it was more than one. I don't recall reading that information.

But to your question, where does it state the van was speeding towards the military? That is not the quote from the judge in the OP, is it?

"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, adding the troops were on duty and following orders at the time.

[whybother]

The innocent bystander, not in the van, btw, was presumably killed by a single bullet, but perhaps it was more than one. I don't recall reading that information.

But to your question, where does it state the van was speeding towards the military? That is not the quote from the judge in the OP, is it?

"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, adding the troops were on duty and following orders at the time.

In the OP:

Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb.

And the second post:

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.

Edited September 22, 2012 by whybother

[tlansford]

- deleted -

How did protesters storm parliament if the police was doing a good job? Showing up and doing diddly-squat is not doing a good job.

Build up huge barricades in the middle of the city, set up checkpoints, break into hospitals to raid the morgues, disable CCTV cameras at Ratchaprasong, cut traffic in many streets, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc, etc, etc...

A state of anarchy is not the police doing their job of keeping law and order, it's an abject failure.

I remember, live on TV on March 19th, a single Red Shirt at the intersection of Sukhumvit and Ekamai, piling up junk in the intersection and setting it on fire, stopping traffic. Behind him in the police box two officers just watching and doing absolutely nothing.

Did you miss the part about the ISA and the 50,000 security forces being placed in BKK even before the protests started?

How can you blame the police for not "keeping the peace" when Abhisit put a 50,000 strong force in charge of security in BKK?

Because they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't, that's how.

Seeing how the police force is quite partial to Thaksin is not difficult to see why they were so apathetic.

i think you misunderstood the question.

I think Aleg just misunderstands the events of 2010.

Your point is the pertinent one. If the police had been in charge of security, then maybe they too would not have maintained it. But since they were not in charge, they could not have messed it up.

The fact that the government put 50,000 security personnel on the streets to handle the protest, and AleG wants to blame the BIB for what happened kind of squashes any chance for discussion.

Well, I gave NM the answer about the police doing their job... Moving on...

[AleG]

Please read the red. At anytime in the conflict only a handful of soldiers were killed and that was in one incident in April. Also the only expert appraisal of that incident concludes that the grenade could not have been thrown by the red shirts due to it weight and the distance between them. It was most likely toss in from a short distance to escalate the army response. Before you bitch about my response ask yourself why the army or Dem Gov (of the time) have never provided a report into those soldier deaths.

For those readers not familiar with this particular nugget of BS, the "expert" in question was quoted by, and only by, Robert Amsterdam, Thaksin's propagandist and Red Shirt "lawyer"; refering to the use of hand grenades; as opposed to the grenades fired by a M79 grenade launchers, which the MiB are infamous for their use.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Do you think they only fired one bullet as the van was speeding towards them?

The innocent bystander, not in the van, btw, was presumably killed by a single bullet, but perhaps it was more than one. I don't recall reading that information.

But to your question, where does it state the van was speeding towards the military? That is not the quote from the judge in the OP, is it?

"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, adding the troops were on duty and following orders at the time.

The second post:

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.

ah, you prefer the paraphrased version from the nation rather than the direct quote from the judge?

none the less, I don't see that vivid image in the nation's writing either, the one about shooting at the van as it is speeding toward the military.

Mind you, it could have been the case. If the guy had just gotten lost in the wrong part of town after dropping off his fare at a hotel, he might have been driving as fast a possible to get out of there. It's just that no one actually wrote that.

[whybother]

ah, you prefer the paraphrased version from the nation rather than the direct quote from the judge?

none the less, I don't see that vivid image in the nation's writing either, the one about shooting at the van as it is speeding toward the military.

Mind you, it could have been the case. If the guy had just gotten lost in the wrong part of town after dropping off his fare at a hotel, he might have been driving as fast a possible to get out of there. It's just that no one actually wrote that.

He was driving in a restricted area, towards a military checkpoint, and he failed to stop when ordered to do so. What should the soldiers have done?

The bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you knew there was a military checkpoint down the street, would you rush outside when you heard gunfire?

[birdpooguava]

The bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was this a designated live fire zone?

[whybother]

The bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was this a designated live fire zone?

I don't believe so. How is that relevant?

[Moruya]

The bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Was this a designated live fire zone?

Did the red shirts designate them as such?

[TheKrayTriplet]

He was driving in a restricted area, towards a military checkpoint, and he failed to stop when ordered to do so. What should the soldiers have done?

The bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you knew there was a military checkpoint down the street, would you rush outside when you heard gunfire?

Therefore it is the innocent man who walked into bullets who was at fault for his own death, by your reasoning. Did you ever write speeches for Suthep in a previous life?