Red Shirt Protestor Killed By Soldiers' Bullets, Inquest Concludes

[FOODLOVER]

Sorry but before all the reds were in Bangkok a few Garrison Armory's reported thefts of weapons and ammunition, so please tell me how anyone could suggest it could have only come from the Army.

And they were recovered having never been in the hands of the red shirts. One could say it was very convenient and was used to justify the ISA and the use of armed soldiers on the streets.

Too many are focussing on the wrong thing here and ignoring witness testimony about where the shot was fired from.

So with the acoustic environment in this area one can conclude in which direction a bullet is fired? No way! Red shirt witness accounts, raised by liars always liars.

the witness is an independent journalist, not a red shirt, and the shooting was being done by the army and coming from the direction of the soldiers, unless you are suggesting the bullet did a u turn in mid air and managed to shoot him in the stomach from a shot fired from behind,

As for liars, I raised this issue, are you calling me a red shirt liar?

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

[beano2274]

also a cache of these 5.56 rifles has recently been found outside of Bangkok, by the Police who are government led.

Did the reporter see the smoke, did he look and see the shooter, if so then he could point him out in court, he heard a shot saw the person fall and believed the shot to have come from the Army, how about proving where the projectile entered the body, this is never done in Thailand, also the other witnesses have already received a nice sum of money, everyone knows that.

[carra]

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

Where did I make such a claim?

the witnesses make this claim as to the direction the shot was fired from, i believe video footage also shows this.

now unless you were actually there then I would rather believe the evidence if independent witness that were actually there.

Are you one of these posters that think the army killed nobody or only killed people posing a direct threat?

[FOODLOVER]

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

Where did I make such a claim?

the witnesses make this claim as to the direction the shot was fired from, i believe video footage also shows this.

now unless you were actually there then I would rather believe the evidence if independent witness that were actually there.

Are you one of these posters that think the army killed nobody or only killed people posing a direct threat?

I believe in proof not red propaganda. Proven, Thaksin a criminal by the courts. Proven, he ran away like a coward. Where a bullet was fired, not proven but declared by the reds. See the difference?

[asiawatcher]

Incompotence abounds in every aspect of this nation. The signature rifling on the Travo, M16 and HK are different and provided the bullet recovered was in good shape their so called ballistics experts should have had no problem of matching the round to a specific type of weapon .To base on caliber only then this whole protracted investigation was simply wasting time and spinning its wheels. As an earlier post indicated there are a myriad of weapons that fire this caliber. There can be no conclusion drawn that it came from any of the assualt rilles mention. It could in fact have come from any weapon chambered for this size of round.

I love the conclusion he was killed by the army. No evidence, no rifle, just a ballistics summary therefore it was army. What a huge waste of time, energy and taxpayers money to these pencil neck clueless public servants. And BTW in other articles, this 'hapless' taxi driver was helping barricade a Shell service station/fuel outlet. He got what he deserved - I would not have paid his relatives anything. Just another thug in the Red rabble ready to burn Bangkok at the request of Thaksin, Jutaporn and so many others.

Edited November 27, 2012 by asiawatcher

[carra]

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

Where did I make such a claim?

the witnesses make this claim as to the direction the shot was fired from, i believe video footage also shows this.

now unless you were actually there then I would rather believe the evidence if independent witness that were actually there.

Are you one of these posters that think the army killed nobody or only killed people posing a direct threat?

I believe in proof not red propaganda. Proven, Thaksin a criminal by the courts. Proven, he ran away like a coward. Where a bullet was fired, not proven but declared by the reds. See the difference?

So if the court says unarmed red protestors were shot by the army will you accept it?

[carra]

also a cache of these 5.56 rifles has recently been found outside of Bangkok, by the Police who are government led.

Did the reporter see the smoke, did he look and see the shooter, if so then he could point him out in court, he heard a shot saw the person fall and believed the shot to have come from the Army, how about proving where the projectile entered the body, this is never done in Thailand, also the other witnesses have already received a nice sum of money, everyone knows that.

Are you referring to the cache found in kanchanaburi?

they were found by the police where they? I thought they were found by a passer by and reported to the police.

[carra]

Incompotence abounds in every aspect of this nation. The signature rifling on the Travo, M16 and HK are different and provided the bullet recovered was in good shape their so called ballistics experts should have had no problem of matching the round to a specific type of weapon .To base on caliber only then this whole protracted investigation was simply wasting time and spinning its wheels. As an earlier post indicated there are a myriad of weapons that fire this caliber. There can be no conclusion drawn that it came from any of the assualt rilles mention. It could in fact have come from any weapon chambered for this size of round.

I love the conclusion he was killed by the army. No evidence, no rifle, just a ballistics summary therefore it was army. What a huge waste of time, energy and taxpayers money to these pencil neck clueless public servants. And BTW in other articles, this 'hapless' taxi driver was helping barricade a Shell service station/fuel outlet. He got what he deserved - I would not have paid his relatives anything. Just another thug in the Red rabble ready to burn Bangkok at the request of Thaksin, Jutaporn and so many others.

so the reports that soldiers were killed by red shirts should be treated in the same way??

[beano2274]

How much pressure can people put on a judge to make a ruling?

[rubl]

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

Where did I make such a claim?

the witnesses make this claim as to the direction the shot was fired from, i believe video footage also shows this.

now unless you were actually there then I would rather believe the evidence if independent witness that were actually there.

Are you one of these posters that think the army killed nobody or only killed people posing a direct threat?

I believe in proof not red propaganda. Proven, Thaksin a criminal by the courts. Proven, he ran away like a coward. Where a bullet was fired, not proven but declared by the reds. See the difference?

So if the court says unarmed red protestors were shot by the army will you accept it?

So if the court says 'armed red-shirt supporters were shot by the army' will you accept it?

[FOODLOVER]

I am referring to any who would claim to know where a bullet was fired in this environment. Are you a liar? If you claim to know who fired this bullet, yes you are a liar.

Where did I make such a claim?

the witnesses make this claim as to the direction the shot was fired from, i believe video footage also shows this.

now unless you were actually there then I would rather believe the evidence if independent witness that were actually there.

Are you one of these posters that think the army killed nobody or only killed people posing a direct threat?

I believe in proof not red propaganda. Proven, Thaksin a criminal by the courts. Proven, he ran away like a coward. Where a bullet was fired, not proven but declared by the reds. See the difference?

So if the court says unarmed red protestors were shot by the army will you accept it?

If the court has evidence, yes of course. But what you are inferring is not. It is hearsay from a person who obviously is a supporter of the red cause and is certainly not an expert on ballistics. You do know what happens when you fire live rounds in a city? You can not tell where they are fired, the acoustics and the possibility of a ricochet preclude this. So stating that the army did this is presumptive to say the least. Don't you agree?

[carra]

If the court has evidence, yes of course. But what you are inferring is not. It is hearsay from a person who obviously is a supporter of the red cause and is certainly not an expert on ballistics. You do know what happens when you fire live rounds in a city? You can not tell where they are fired, the acoustics and the possibility of a ricochet preclude this. So stating that the army did this is presumptive to say the least. Don't you agree?

do you think that everyone that gives an honest witness report is biased just because it does not fit in with your ideals? Some things are true no matter how much you do not want them to be.

Also what about my question, if the shooting was coming from both sides why did the army deem it safe to cross the barricades and enter the garage? Could it be that the shooting was only coming from the army?

We know the army shot people with just cause during these troubles, just look at the soldier that shot his colleague on viphawadi road that was coming on a moped to give help along with others, he was shot in the head by the army despite being no immediate threat, so it did happen however much you want to deny it,

[FOODLOVER]

If the court has evidence, yes of course. But what you are inferring is not. It is hearsay from a person who obviously is a supporter of the red cause and is certainly not an expert on ballistics. You do know what happens when you fire live rounds in a city? You can not tell where they are fired, the acoustics and the possibility of a ricochet preclude this. So stating that the army did this is presumptive to say the least. Don't you agree?

do you think that everyone that gives an honest witness report is biased just because it does not fit in with your ideals? Some things are true no matter how much you do not want them to be.

Also what about my question, if the shooting was coming from both sides why did the army deem it safe to cross the barricades and enter the garage? Could it be that the shooting was only coming from the army?

We know the army shot people with just cause during these troubles, just look at the soldier that shot his colleague on viphawadi road that was coming on a moped to give help along with others, he was shot in the head by the army despite being no immediate threat, so it did happen however much you want to deny it,

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

[SeaVisionBurma]

A couple of posts containing potentially libelous comments have been removed.

Please note forum rule #15 Thai Visa Forum Rules

[Tanaka]

"The inquest concluded that Charnnarong Polsriwala, a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)"

Can we assume not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time but one of many members of an armed group of rioters who were not only violating laws but had proven themselves to be an armed and dangerous militia.

Only in Thailand and only from a government who seized power aided and abetted by these violent thugs could there ever be such a ridiculous inquiry!

of course you can assume that, i'm sure that's the natural reaction of a lot of people.

you know nothing about the person shot, just as i don't but you have the gall to label him as a violent thug and assume he was armed.

btw, do witnesses mean nothing to you? we haven't even seen the inquest, just a report on it from a biased news source and you have your mind made up already.

and calling the red shirts a militia is just laughable and ignorant.

If you cared to look up the definition of terrorist you would find that that is just what the redshirts were in Bangkok 2010. And some of them still are. A sad point is that some of them did not even realize that they were just that.

[Nickymaster]

Sorry but before all the reds were in Bangkok a few Garrison Armory's reported thefts of weapons and ammunition, so please tell me how anyone could suggest it could have only come from the Army.

And they were recovered having never been in the hands of the red shirts. One could say it was very convenient and was used to justify the ISA and the use of armed soldiers on the streets.

Too many are focussing on the wrong thing here and ignoring witness testimony about where the shot was fired from.

"And they were recovered having never been in the hands of the red shirts"

Seriously? So the 20 or so officials etc that had have been killed "at the other side" where killed with sling-shots?

[Tatsujin]

"The inquest concluded that Charnnarong Polsriwala, a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)"

Can we assume not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time but one of many members of an armed group of rioters who were not only violating laws but had proven themselves to be an armed and dangerous militia.

Only in Thailand and only from a government who seized power aided and abetted by these violent thugs could there ever be such a ridiculous inquiry!

of course you can assume that, i'm sure that's the natural reaction of a lot of people.

you know nothing about the person shot, just as i don't but you have the gall to label him as a violent thug and assume he was armed.

btw, do witnesses mean nothing to you? we haven't even seen the inquest, just a report on it from a biased news source and you have your mind made up already.

and calling the red shirts a militia is just laughable and ignorant.

If you cared to look up the definition of terrorist you would find that that is just what the redshirts were in Bangkok 2010. And some of them still are. A sad point is that some of them did not even realize that they were just that.

. . . one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter . . .

[Emptyset]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

[rubl]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

True, true, why don't you read some of NN's posts

[nurofiend]

"The inquest concluded that Charnnarong Polsriwala, a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)"

Can we assume not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time but one of many members of an armed group of rioters who were not only violating laws but had proven themselves to be an armed and dangerous militia.

Only in Thailand and only from a government who seized power aided and abetted by these violent thugs could there ever be such a ridiculous inquiry!

of course you can assume that, i'm sure that's the natural reaction of a lot of people.

you know nothing about the person shot, just as i don't but you have the gall to label him as a violent thug and assume he was armed.

btw, do witnesses mean nothing to you? we haven't even seen the inquest, just a report on it from a biased news source and you have your mind made up already.

and calling the red shirts a militia is just laughable and ignorant.

If you cared to look up the definition of terrorist you would find that that is just what the redshirts were in Bangkok 2010. And some of them still are. A sad point is that some of them did not even realize that they were just that.

if you cared to actually read my post you'll see there is no mention of the word terrorist whatsoever.

however i don't describe 'the red shirts as terrorists' because i don't see them all as a bacteria like some people here seem to.

[hellodolly]

She said she was consulting lawyers on filing a lawsuit against the previous government for compensation over the death.

I'm pretty sure she would have to sue the current government as it's the same entity, just operated by different people.

Has the current government any money I see in the censure where they are accused of using up the money for emergencies.

I am a little confused about the bullet is .223 a bullet or was he hit that many times? I don't own a red shirt and was never in the army or one of those macho hemen type.

[Emptyset]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

True, true, why don't you read some of NN's posts

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

No one's denying that there were heavily armed militants involved in the protests as a whole. It doesn't follow that they were present at every incident, however. In fact they generally only appeared at night - until the final day or so. It only adds to Nick's credibility that he's confirmed that they were present. After all, if he were really a one-eyed red sympathiser as accused, he'd deny that he saw them, wouldn't he? I actually haven't claimed (at least I hope I haven't claimed, although I do sometimes contradict myself, as we all do) that the military were unjustified in using live rounds, as it's clear that the prescence of armed men required an armed response - my problem is it's clear they behaved recklessly on more than a few occassions and shot unarmed people. Now that was inevitable given that the army were asked to deal with the protesters. So the fault isn't entirely with the army. Abhisit, Thaksin and all of those involved in the strategy/leadership of the red shirt protests are also to blame. Abhisit could've stepped down to avoid bloodshed. The red shirt leadership could've accepted his offer instead of continuing the protest in order to save lives. I'm not singling out a particular party as at fault.

[FOODLOVER]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

True, true, why don't you read some of NN's posts

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

Thank you, very informative, as always Edited November 27, 2012 by FOODLOVER

[FOODLOVER]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

True, true, why don't you read some of NN's posts

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

No one's denying that there were heavily armed militants involved in the protests as a whole. It doesn't follow that they were present at every incident, however. In fact they generally only appeared at night - until the final day or so. It only adds to Nick's credibility that he's confirmed that they were present. After all, if he were really a one-eyed red sympathiser as accused, he'd deny that he saw them, wouldn't he? I actually haven't claimed (at least I hope I haven't claimed, although I do sometimes contradict myself, as we all do) that the military were unjustified in using live rounds, as it's clear that the prescence of armed men required an armed response - my problem is it's clear they behaved recklessly on more than a few occassions and shot unarmed people. Now that was inevitable given that the army were asked to deal with the protesters. So the fault isn't entirely with the army. Abhisit, Thaksin and all of those involved in the strategy/leadership of the red shirt protests are also to blame. Abhisit could've stepped down to avoid bloodshed. The red shirt leadership could've accepted his offer instead of continuing the protest in order to save lives. I'm not singling out a particular party as at fault.

" When we were with the military lines, we knew that we exposed ourselves to fire from the Red Shirt militants firing at the soldiers, such as when Chandler Vandergrift became collateral damage when he stayed with a group of soldiers under fire instead of getting out of the way like most of us there". Quoted From Nick

Hmm, Sounds like terrorism, taking over a city and trying to murder people. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, shoot it.

[carra]

Sorry but before all the reds were in Bangkok a few Garrison Armory's reported thefts of weapons and ammunition, so please tell me how anyone could suggest it could have only come from the Army.

And they were recovered having never been in the hands of the red shirts. One could say it was very convenient and was used to justify the ISA and the use of armed soldiers on the streets.

Too many are focussing on the wrong thing here and ignoring witness testimony about where the shot was fired from.

"And they were recovered having never been in the hands of the red shirts"

Seriously? So the 20 or so officials etc that had have been killed "at the other side" where killed with sling-shots?

Where have I ever said some of the red shirts did not have firearms, find me a post.

However the firearms alluded to in this post were not in the hands of the red shirts, FACT

[rubl]

I believe a man was shot for fortifying a gas station in order to use it as a base for his terrorism. Can it be proven. Absolutely not. Yingluck lies, Chalerm lies but your witnesses are telling the truth? Maybe in a red court of law but not a one that believes in the rules of evidence. They found a bullet but thats it. The reds stole many things and looted many building but you know for sure the army guns fired this bullet? Absolutely not. You give supposition and that's it.

Why don't you read Nostitz's report and look at the pictures and videos before you say 'but thats it'? What do Chalerm and Yingluck have to do with this? Suthep lies, the Democrats lie, but I don't see that as particularly relevant to this specific case. What I find relevant is that you had objective foreign witnesses present who have no reason to lie about what happened and they believe that the army fired recklessly at the protesters, killing one. Nowhere have they mentioned anyone being armed with anything but sling shots. If you think a sling shot makes you a 'terrorist', then it follows the Pitak Siam protesters at the weekend were also terrorists, and the police would've rightly been justified had they shot them, not just used tear gas.

True, true, why don't you read some of NN's posts

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

No one's denying that there were heavily armed militants involved in the protests as a whole. It doesn't follow that they were present at every incident, however. In fact they generally only appeared at night - until the final day or so. It only adds to Nick's credibility that he's confirmed that they were present. After all, if he were really a one-eyed red sympathiser as accused, he'd deny that he saw them, wouldn't he? I actually haven't claimed (at least I hope I haven't claimed, although I do sometimes contradict myself, as we all do) that the military were unjustified in using live rounds, as it's clear that the prescence of armed men required an armed response - my problem is it's clear they behaved recklessly on more than a few occassions and shot unarmed people. Now that was inevitable given that the army were asked to deal with the protesters. So the fault isn't entirely with the army. Abhisit, Thaksin and all of those involved in the strategy/leadership of the red shirt protests are also to blame. Abhisit could've stepped down to avoid bloodshed. The red shirt leadership could've accepted his offer instead of continuing the protest in order to save lives. I'm not singling out a particular party as at fault.

It's Loy Khratong, I've had a tough day, I'm still trying to catch up with the nonsense posted, I'm rescheduling activities for tomorrow with three projects fighting for priority. To sum up, I'll be kind about the "No one's denying that there were heavily armed militants involved in the protests as a whole"

Let's just say 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' and who dares to disagree will get the grenade