Ex-Thai Prime Minister Abhisit ' To Face Murder Charge ': Officials

[freedom4life]

unless he pulled the trigger he didn't murder anyone - rediculous

If a Thai soldier on the ground was trigger happy and there's evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that he killed an inocent taxi driver then he should be brought to court to answer the allegations

only in Thailand

Whose orders were they following? How do you know what happened?

[freedom4life]

Thaksin is running out of ideas and getting more and more desperate.

I think one thing we can rest assured of is that the accused, Mr Abhisit, an honorable man, will not do a 'runner' like some other well known characters in these parts.

Agreed.

Honourable man? Wake-up call is in order...

[freedom4life]

He should definitely face something for the horrible excuse of a leader if I ever saw one...right-up there with Obamanation, Clintons and Bushes..

[MAJIC]

Quite a few posters have used the term "appropriate response" as the taxi driver was "only" armed with a slingshot, which despite protests is still a weapon capable of causing severe injuries and possibly death. Admittedly it is a pretty poor weapon compared to a military rifle, but do you expect soldiers to ignore you because you are under-armed?

Soldiers are not issued with slingshots, and their policy is to use overwhelming force to prevent loss of their own, avoiding as much as possible a "fair fight."

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is silly, popping out of concealment holding a slingshot while troops are firing is terminally stupid.

Only dictators use the army to turn against their compatriots, civilized countries use riotpolice. Soldiers are not trained to handle riots.

In this case the Police refused to do their job,and sided with the Redshirts,Remember?

[rixalex]

a good move by the government

open up this one and then open up the 1500 killed by the drug crackdown a few years back

means more charges on Thaksin

The War on Drugs had 'official' sanction though. Not to mention it was universally popular at the time.

Yes that is always worth a mention isn't it - it was popular so that somehow makes it ok.

Complete nonsense. Popularity has no bearing whatsoever on culpability of what a government does. If you think it does then you should consider that there was also wide support for the government forcibly clearing the streets in 2010, after things had been dragging on for weeks. People wanted action and i believe people were fully aware that whatever the action was, it would result in injury if not death, both to protesters and to soldiers. Not that as i say, public support has any bearing on culpability. Please all of the war on drugs excusers like yourself, stop implying that it does.

Not excusing it... I was one of the most vocal opponents of it at the time. I was merely explaining why there will be no investigation. Key word is 'sanctioned'.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect App

Neither of the reasons you give, popularity and the fact that it was sanctioned, are why investigating the matter is difficult. The actual reason is to do with how many people would be implicated.

Somehow the fact that investigating the matter is difficult, gets twisted into a proclamation along the lines of "well there you go, the investigations got nowhere, Thaksin therefore is clearly innocent".

[MAJIC]

He may be considering using his British passport soon

If Abhisit panics and heads for Britain, and Theresa May gets wind of it before he lands, would she deprive him of British citizenship to avoid embarrassment over the extradition proceedings? Should she?

Well if they let Thaksin in,they will let anyone in!

"Panic! "wishful thinking on your part, Abhisit is going nowhere,only the crooks and cowards "panic" and go on the run, and Abhisit is too much of a gentleman,who cares about his Country, to do that.

P.S If ? Abhisit has a British Passport,there shouldn't be problem. He would get a job as a very welcome News Reader/Journalist,no problem. Perhaps even a Politician.

Going to war over a tiny piece of land for political gain, Cambodian and Thai blood on the hands.

Are you sure you're in the right Topic?

[FarangTalk]

Neither of the reasons you give, popularity and the fact that it was sanctioned, are why investigating the matter is difficult. The actual reason is to do with how many people would be implicated.

Somehow the fact that investigating the matter is difficult, gets twisted into a proclamation along the lines of "well there you go, the investigations got nowhere, Thaksin therefore is clearly innocent".

An investigation won't happen for the reasons I outlined. Investigating it may well be difficult, however that is not a reason not to pursue justice.

Innocent until proven guilty, and until Thaksin stands trial for Tak Bai, the War on Drugs and his numerous other alleged offences and is subsequently found guilty, he remains innocent, whether you or I believe he is guilty or not.

Imagine the can of worms opened if those allegations ever came to light. Far too complicated to risk.

[FarangTalk]

Going to war over a tiny piece of land for political gain, Cambodian and Thai blood on the hands.

Don't forget human rights abuses against the Rohigyna on his watch also.

And abuses by the Army in the South; using the fake bomb scanners and routine and systematic tortures of suspects.

The promotion of the alleged murderer of the Saudi diplomat to National Police Chief was also a mistake.

In truth, his short tenure was an absolute disaster and now he's going to pay the price.

[rixalex]

An investigation won't happen for the reasons I outlined. Investigating it may well be difficult, however that is not a reason not to pursue justice.

Disagree on the reasons but agree justice should be pursued. That it hasn't, is not however for me proof of anyone's innocence, least of all Thaksin's. That is how it is commonly construed. The Dems couldn't make a case against him ergo he must be innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty, and until Thaksin stands trial for Tak Bai, the War on Drugs and his numerous other alleged offences and is subsequently found guilty, he remains innocent, whether you or I believe he is guilty or not.

Agreed: innocent until proven guilty. A right that was denied to all those killed, but a right i defend even of those who deny it to others.

[AleG]

Neither of the reasons you give, popularity and the fact that it was sanctioned, are why investigating the matter is difficult. The actual reason is to do with how many people would be implicated.

Somehow the fact that investigating the matter is difficult, gets twisted into a proclamation along the lines of "well there you go, the investigations got nowhere, Thaksin therefore is clearly innocent".

An investigation won't happen for the reasons I outlined. Investigating it may well be difficult, however that is not a reason not to pursue justice.

Innocent until proven guilty, and until Thaksin stands trial for Tak Bai, the War on Drugs and his numerous other alleged offences and is subsequently found guilty, he remains innocent, whether you or I believe he is guilty or not.

Imagine the can of worms opened if those allegations ever came to light. Far too complicated to risk.

Apparently

Going to war over a tiny piece of land for political gain, Cambodian and Thai blood on the hands.

Don't forget human rights abuses against the Rohigyna on his watch also.

And abuses by the Army in the South; using the fake bomb scanners and routine and systematic tortures of suspects.

The promotion of the alleged murderer of the Saudi diplomat to National Police Chief was also a mistake.

In truth, his short tenure was an absolute disaster and now he's going to pay the price.

So much for innocent until proven guilty, or you only extend such rigorous standards to Thaksin?

Abhisit is exempted from such strict ethical considerations.

[Jim walker]

The military is paid and trained to defend the people of Thailand not shoot them, if any citizen is found breaking the law it’s up to the police force to go and arrest any criminals and arrest them with any reasonable force deemed necessary, and right at the very start of any unlawful protests not call in the army and just shoot them after many days of protests, the cowardly police should take some liability for the needless deaths by not doing their jobs appropriately.

Or if this is normal protocol in Thailand to shoot protesters why was the army not called in at the airport protest to take out a few protesters there.

Edited December 7, 2012 by metisdead
: Once again: Arial size 14.

[whybother]

The military is paid and trained to defend the people of Thailand not shoot them, if any citizen is found breaking the law it’s up to the police force to go and arrest any criminals and arrest them with any reasonable force deemed necessary, and right at the very start of any unlawful protests not call in the army and just shoot them after many days of protests, the cowardly police should take some liability for the needless deaths by not doing their jobs appropriately.

Or if this is normal protocol in Thailand to shoot protesters why was the army not called in at the airport protest to take out a few protesters there.

The Thai police are not equipped to handle the sort of violence produced by the red shirts in 2010. Many countries have police squads that are armed better than the Thai army that are trained for dealing with armed gunmen. Since Thailand doesn't have police to do that work, it falls to the army, not that they are trained for it, but at least they have a matching armoury.

[FarangTalk]

So much for innocent until proven guilty, or you only extend such rigorous standards to Thaksin?

Abhisit is exempted from such strict ethical considerations.

All those events I outlined happened on Abhisit's watch.

Tak Bai massacre, War on Drugs and numerous others happened on Thaksin's.

Whether someone is innocent or guilty is up to a court to decide.

[FarangTalk]

The Thai police are not equipped to handle the sort of violence produced by the red shirts in 2010. Many countries have police squads that are armed better than the Thai army that are trained for dealing with armed gunmen. Since Thailand doesn't have police to do that work, it falls to the army, not that they are trained for it, but at least they have a matching armoury.

I disagree. There are paramilitary units in the Thai Police more than capable of handling those kinds of activities, many of them are currently operating as part of border patrol units and in the South.

The fact that the Army was used is a political issue IMO.

[bhb]

I quite like your implication that it was some how his fault for having the gall to go outside.

Like the army have no responsibility for discharging their weapons................

Nice try.

It's not so much that he had the gall to go outside. It's just unfortunate that he chose a time when the soldiers were dealing with a van that was speeding towards them.

Er.

Not true.

Nice try again.

What isn't true about it?

The "speeding van" vs the facts

"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 that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

And the fact that

"Taxi driver, Pan Kamkorng was shot in the upper left arm while watching Thai soldiers shoot at a van heading towards an Army barricade on Rajprarop Road on May 15. Witnesses said Pan was shot after several rounds had been fired. The high-velocity bullet that hit him cut a main blood vessel, causing fatal blood loss. Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The report also concluded that the death was likely caused by a soldier’s bullet and recommended the case be taken up further by police and judicial system."

http://thailand.asiahumanrights.com/?events=taxi-driver-shot-and-killed-during-protest-crackdown

[rixalex]

Or if this is normal protocol in Thailand to shoot protesters why was the army not called in at the airport protest to take out a few protesters there.

The airport protest lasted a matter of days. You don't engage protesters in a battle the moment a protest begins. If it drags on for weeks and weeks, and if protesters demands are all but met, but then refused, well then you most likely have reasonable grounds to forcibly evict.

[rubl]

It's not so much that he had the gall to go outside. It's just unfortunate that he chose a time when the soldiers were dealing with a van that was speeding towards them.

Er.

Not true.

Nice try again.

What isn't true about it?

The "speeding van" vs the facts

"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 that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

And the fact that

"Taxi driver, Pan Kamkorng was shot in the upper left arm while watching Thai soldiers shoot at a van heading towards an Army barricade on Rajprarop Road on May 15. Witnesses said Pan was shot after several rounds had been fired. The high-velocity bullet that hit him cut a main blood vessel, causing fatal blood loss. Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The report also concluded that the death was likely caused by a soldier’s bullet and recommended the case be taken up further by police and judicial system."

http://thailand.asiahumanrights.com/?events=taxi-driver-shot-and-killed-during-protest-crackdown

My dear chap, may I suggest you read the forum rules before posting more?

The sentence which you reject as not true is a statement from the criminal court.

Furthermore it is against forum rule #15 to "post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law"

[Lormaak]

I'm being facetious, but look at it this way: You pretty much need a serious conviction to be an MP these days. So Abhisit gets convicted, gets out on immediate bail pending an appeal, which lasts an indefinite amount of time.

His credibility will rise immensely. He may even be able to change sides! Then he may get elected.

Or if that doesn't work, he may get given a nice little company to take care of. True Corporation comes to mind.

[visionchaser45]

unless he pulled the trigger he didn't murder anyone - rediculous

If a Thai soldier on the ground was trigger happy and there's evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that he killed an inocent taxi driver then he should be brought to court to answer the allegations

only in Thailand

In the U.S. the charge would probably be conspiracy to commit murder. They organized the military crackdown and gave authorization for the military to use "live" rounds on civilians. They both deserve whatever they get.

That might be the case if Abhisit's aim was to commit murder.

Not so. In the U.S., if you go with some friends to rob a market at gunpoint and one of your cohorts shoots and kills the clerk, you can be charged with murder; even though you did not do the actual shooting and your intent was not to murder but only to rob.

[Hugo6]

It's not so much that he had the gall to go outside. It's just unfortunate that he chose a time when the soldiers were dealing with a van that was speeding towards them.

Er.

Not true.

Nice try again.

What isn't true about it?

The "speeding van" vs the facts

"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 that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

And the fact that

"Taxi driver, Pan Kamkorng was shot in the upper left arm while watching Thai soldiers shoot at a van heading towards an Army barricade on Rajprarop Road on May 15. Witnesses said Pan was shot after several rounds had been fired. The high-velocity bullet that hit him cut a main blood vessel, causing fatal blood loss. Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The report also concluded that the death was likely caused by a soldier’s bullet and recommended the case be taken up further by police and judicial system."

http://thailand.asiahumanrights.com/?events=taxi-driver-shot-and-killed-during-protest-crackdown

not the facts on this forum

van charging the solders with guns blazing and full of explosives and/or wmd

taxi driver was a suicide bomber with grenades strapped to his body

abhisit with photoshopped halo had nothing to do with it

or something like that

[whybother]

The "speeding van" vs the facts

"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 that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

And the fact that

"Taxi driver, Pan Kamkorng was shot in the upper left arm while watching Thai soldiers shoot at a van heading towards an Army barricade on Rajprarop Road on May 15. Witnesses said Pan was shot after several rounds had been fired. The high-velocity bullet that hit him cut a main blood vessel, causing fatal blood loss. Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The report also concluded that the death was likely caused by a soldier’s bullet and recommended the case be taken up further by police and judicial system."

http://thailand.asiahumanrights.com/?events=taxi-driver-shot-and-killed-during-protest-crackdown

As I said, he went outside when the army were dealing with a van speeding towards them. Bad timing.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Puwa]

Arguing in this thread is like getting caught up in the battle between Coke and Pepsi, and completely missing the point that we're all being poisoned and slowly killed off by sugar water. Thailand's real travesty over the last 15 years is the death (or the aborted birth) of constitutionalism. There has been no credible political voice in favor of the basics of constitutional democracy since Chuan Leekpai and Surin Pitsuwan. Casualties include the hope of an independent judiciary, the separation of powers, and any kind of independent agency empowered to monitor the behavior of officials. So while the nation chooses sides and goes to war over Coke vs Pepsi, all I can say is we "coulda had a V8."