Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[MrSlatersParrot]

tlansford says:

"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.

link deleted

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

link deleted.

More in the next post..."

You are arguing against a brick wall. you do know that?

Thank you for the link to the Boston Globe's article and pictures from the 9th April 2010.

We see seized weapons returned to the army and then there was the next day...

I wonder if you have read through the comments pages for April 9th 2010 there?

Someone from this forum posted comparing Thaksin to Madoff and got a complete roasting.

Commentators are very surprised at the venom, hatred of this thaivisa member.

Good to know that americans cannot all just be typecast as reactionary and have a good handle on what is really happening in Thailand.

I would suggest some of those regular posters on here take a look.

[whybother]

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?

No. I didn't say that and I didn't mean that.

He contributed to his death by going outside when he heard gun shots. The van driver contributed to his death by driving towards a military checkpoint and not obeying instructions.

He was shot by the military, but I don't believe it was intentional. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[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?

No. I didn't say that and I didn't mean that.

He contributed to his death by going outside when he heard gun shots. The van driver contributed to his death by driving towards a military checkpoint and not obeying instructions.

He was shot by the military, but I don't believe it was intentional. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There has been 10 pages of posts on which both you and I and several other people have commentated. But you still haven't really understood what happened.

The van driver didn't contribute to his death "by driving towards a military checkpoint and not obeying instructions". He wasn't the one who was killed.

There was a difference between the two testimonies given in the court. I note you have take the Army version as gospel so this conversation is not going to go anywhere.

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.

Edited September 22, 2012 by TheKrayTriplet

[Buchholz]

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.

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"

Thanks for that.

It's quite normal for that poster to post in just such a manner.

It's that type of definitive statement of his that necessitate sorting.

[473geo]

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.

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"

Thanks for that.

It's quite normal for that poster to post in just such a manner.

It's that type of definitive statement of his that necessitate sorting.

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

[Buchholz]

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?

No. I didn't say that and I didn't mean that.

He contributed to his death by going outside when he heard gun shots. The van driver contributed to his death by driving towards a military checkpoint and not obeying instructions.

He was shot by the military, but I don't believe it was intentional. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A fair assessment of the 10 pages of posts on which both you and I and several other people have commentated.

.

[Buchholz]

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.

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"

Thanks for that.

It's quite

normal

for that poster to post in just such a manner.

It's that type of definitive statement of his that necessitate sorting.

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

Your shot, as usual, completely misses as I don't post unattributed and unlinked definitive statements such as his. Particularly one that claims exclusivity such as "the only expert".

p.s. it's i-m-i-t-a-t-i-o-n

.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Buchholz

[animatic]

What it doesn't say is that the army intentionally killed him,

or did it even knowing he was there in the line of fire.

A crying shame for the poor man and no doubt also

for the soldiers who never intended to kill and innocent bystander.

Happened in NYC a few weeks back too, with the police that time.

RIP Kuhn Phan and condolences to the family.

At least they know why. Wrong place wrong time.

[rixalex]

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

p.s. it's i-m-i-t-a-t-i-o-n

.

Not so hasty with that repost. It could be another case of New English.

[473geo]

Thanks for that.

It's quite

normal

for that poster to post in just such a manner.

It's that type of definitive statement of his that necessitate sorting.

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

Your shot, as usual, completely misses as I don't post unattributed and unlinked definitive statements such as his. Particularly one that claims exclusivity such as "the only expert".

p.s. it's i-m-i-t-a-t-i-o-n

.

Thanks, I guess one of the rare speling mistakes in 4000+ posts is worth highlighting, carry on the good work.......

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

Still a little collateral damage has never been an issue for the hard core democrat supporters on the forum, no surprise as it has taken an extraordinary length of time for them to differentiate between the dead man and the van driver!

Edited September 22, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

p.s. it's i-m-i-t-a-t-i-o-n

.

Not so hasty with that repost. It could be another case of New English.

I'm sure the forum fossils struggle every day with my spelling, a cross I just have to bear....

[rixalex]

Immitation is surely a sincere form of flattery Buchholz......you should be pleased

p.s. it's i-m-i-t-a-t-i-o-n

.

Not so hasty with that repost. It could be another case of New English.

I'm sure the forum fossils struggle every day with my spelling, a cross I just have to bear....

I'll promise to try and keep up with this newfangled New English thing you practice, if you promise to spare us any baring.

Edited September 22, 2012 by rixalex

[tlansford]

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?

see, now you get to the point - we weren't there, how should we know what was the proper response of the soldiers?

You assume they acted correctly because you assume the van was speeding toward the soldiers trying to break-through a check point. Given that this was day 2 of what amounts to a military operation in downtown Bangkok, the soldiers may have actually felt threatened.

But the accounts of the events don't match. Whether the military account is true or not, I wouldn't expect them to say different, TBH.

It might have been a military operation, but it was still the middle of a major city. "Drivers getting lost" doesn't sound like anything out of the ordinary, either.

I personally think the gov't and military went far beyond the limits of normal behavior in 2010, so to specifically answer your question, I don't think that they should have been shooting at the van.

[AleG]

...

Still a little collateral damage has never been an issue for the hard core democrat supporters on the forum, no surprise as it has taken an extraordinary length of time for them to differentiate between the dead man and the van driver!

The collateral damage came to be because of the situation the Red Shirts created, they wanted chaos.

he favors instigating small acts of violence in hopes of

triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn

would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

[Moruya]

...

Still a little collateral damage has never been an issue for the hard core democrat supporters on the forum, no surprise as it has taken an extraordinary length of time for them to differentiate between the dead man and the van driver!

The collateral damage came to be because of the situation the Red Shirts created, they wanted chaos.

he favors instigating small acts of violence in hopes of

triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn

would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

Blocked by Red Shirt Government

[Pi Sek]

<snip>

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

<snip>

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

[473geo]

<snip>

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

<snip>

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

It doesn't put anything to bed, if they were so accurate that they did not intend to shoot the driver, and did not.........how did they manage to hit the pedestrian?......suddenly become inaccurate for one shot?

[tlansford]

tlansford says:

"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.

link deleted

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

link deleted.

More in the next post..."

You are arguing against a brick wall. you do know that?

Thank you for the link to the Boston Globe's article and pictures from the 9th April 2010.

We see seized weapons returned to the army and then there was the next day...

I wonder if you have read through the comments pages for April 9th 2010 there?

Someone from this forum posted comparing Thaksin to Madoff and got a complete roasting.

Commentators are very surprised at the venom, hatred of this thaivisa member.

Good to know that americans cannot all just be typecast as reactionary and have a good handle on what is really happening in Thailand.

I would suggest some of those regular posters on here take a look.

TVF seems to have always been the same.

[473geo]

...

Still a little collateral damage has never been an issue for the hard core democrat supporters on the forum, no surprise as it has taken an extraordinary length of time for them to differentiate between the dead man and the van driver!

The collateral damage came to be because of the situation the Red Shirts created, they wanted chaos.

he favors instigating small acts of violence in hopes of

triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn

would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

Blocked by Red Shirt Government

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

[Moruya]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

Don't you have any gainful employment other than trolling around the labyrinths of TV abusing posters with your cockeyed sermons?

The deceased ran from an adjacent building to investigate the noise. It turned out to be a bad choice as it was unfortunately the last thing he did. You try to turn this scenario into one of premeditated murder when you have almost zero facts at your disposal.

[AleG]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

Do you have a problem with Abhisit's statement or you just quote random paragraphs?

"And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up"* at which point the MiB within the Red Shirts opened fire, to the purpose, I suppose of instigating small... well, big acts of violence in hopes of triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

It's a good strategy, unless you are one of the people that end up dead or maimed of course.

* Which they weren't, no matter how many times you and your mates repeat it.

[473geo]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

Do you have a problem with Abhisit's statement or you just quote random paragraphs?

"And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up"* at which point the MiB within the Red Shirts opened fire, to the purpose, I suppose of instigating small... well, big acts of violence in hopes of triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

It's a good strategy, unless you are one of the people that end up dead or maimed of course.

* Which they weren't, no matter how many times you and your mates repeat it.

The Thai military shot and killed a taxi driver during 2010 "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found Monday, in the first ever ruling on deaths during the country's worst political violence in decades.

[AleG]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

I'd like to re-quote this because it's one of the most absurd "But Abhisit...!" retorts I've seen here.

On one hand a Red Shirt leader is quoted as wanting to use violence to engender even more violence for political games (some times described as terrorism)

But, but, but!

Abhisit says that he recognizes the right to protest, wishes the protest to remain peaceful and to maintain law and order if it doesn't, the bastard!

[473geo]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

Don't you have any gainful employment other than trolling around the labyrinths of TV abusing posters with your cockeyed sermons?

The deceased ran from an adjacent building to investigate the noise. It turned out to be a bad choice as it was unfortunately the last thing he did. You try to turn this scenario into one of premeditated murder when you have almost zero facts at your disposal.

The Thai military shot and killed a taxi driver during 2010 "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found Monday, in the first ever ruling on deaths during the country's worst political violence in decades.

[473geo]

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

I'd like to re-quote this because it's one of the most absurd "But Abhisit...!" retorts I've seen here.

On one hand a Red Shirt leader is quoted as wanting to use violence to engender even more violence for political games (some times described as terrorism)

But, but, but!

Abhisit says that he recognizes the right to protest, wishes the protest to remain peaceful and to maintain law and order if it doesn't, the bastard!

And then having no reason to disperse the peaceful protest he has affirmed is not outside the law, Abhisit sends in the General most hated by the red shirts.......accidental, sent in the wrong man, a man that would clearly agitate the protestors....

Edited September 22, 2012 by 473geo

[AleG]

And then having no reason to disperse the peaceful protest he has affirmed is not outside the law...

Any similarity with real events on that quote is merely coincidental.

[whybother]

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

They weren't peaceful elsewhere though.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[473geo]

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

They weren't peaceful elsewhere though.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Sporadic violence I agree, but not at the Phan Fah protest site, until the Military moved in. I guess they thought this would have no influence on the peaceful protestors, and they would just sit side by side...... peaceful protestors..... and the Tooled up with live ammunition Thai Army....... for eternity..... the government attempting to encorage the peaceful protest to continue by sending in Romklao........(the army man most hated by the red shirts)......to sit alongside them

[whybother]

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

They weren't peaceful elsewhere though.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Sporadic violence I agree, but not at the Phan Fah protest site, until the Military moved in. I guess they thought this would have no influence on the peaceful protestors, and they would just sit side by side...... peaceful protestors..... and the Tooled up with live ammunition Thai Army....... for eternity..... the government attempting to encorage the peaceful protest to continue by sending in Romklao........(the army man most hated by the red shirts)......to sit alongside them

Right. As long as they're peaceful in one location, it doesn't matter how violent they get elsewhere.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Pi Sek]

<snip>

What surprises me in this situation is how the volley of shots at the van failed to hit the driver, yet one shot appeared to be enough to kill the dead man....this would suggest either he was very very unlucky, or his death by an army bullet was not an accident.

<snip>

Or else it could mean that the army were trying to stop the van and not actually kill the driver...? Which kind of puts this whole "blood-thirsty army on a killing spree" argument to bed.

It doesn't put anything to bed, if they were so accurate that they did not intend to shoot the driver, and did not.........how did they manage to hit the pedestrian?......suddenly become inaccurate for one shot?

No, not really. This is how my thought process went...

1. Van drives towards military checkpoint.

2. The van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers open fire because of fears over a potential car bomb (as per OP).

3. Khun Phan 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 (as per OP).

I don't think that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. So it seems they weren't aiming at the driver (or they would probably have hit him), nor at Khun Phan (who tragically ran out in the stream of a volley of legitimately-fired bullets).

But each of us can make our own assertions, it's clear you've made yours