Bangkok Court Rules Authorities Killed Taxi Driver In 2010 Violence

[whybother]

"This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't."

How many is too many? 80 odd enough?

I would have thought a good time to question ones approach to things military would have been upon waking up on the morning of the 11th April 2010 and found 5 military and 20 civilian dead bodies to answer for.

I would have thought any normal human beings approach from then on would not to have been to employ snipers and establish killing zones but, hey, that's just me, and funningly enough, the PM authorising this had this to say (but about different folks and a different time)

<snip>

So, what do you do when armed protesters kill soldiers? Let them continue what they're doing? That's a good recipe for mob rule.

Maybe on the 11th April the "peaceful protesters" should have had a look around them and called off their protest since it had been taken over by an armed militia.

[whybother]

It most certainly can identify the army, per the premise above, or not as the facts pan out, especially when combined with imagery and other data identifying who was where when. It isn't necessary to identify an individual if facts determine that the point of origin was army or red shirts or whatever. If there were no group at the point of origin it becomes inconclusive unless it can be established that only one group is ruled out from having access to the point of origin.

You're talking hypotheticals. There are lots of things they "could" do. Do they have "imagery and other identifying data" of who was where when?

If they can't identify an individual, they can't determine the reasons for him shooting and whether he was justified in shooting or not.

[unanimosity]

"This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't."

How many is too many? 80 odd enough?

I would have thought a good time to question ones approach to things military would have been upon waking up on the morning of the 11th April 2010 and found 5 military and 20 civilian dead bodies to answer for.

I would have thought any normal human beings approach from then on would not to have been to employ snipers and establish killing zones but, hey, that's just me, and funningly enough, the PM authorising this had this to say (but about different folks and a different time)

<snip>

So, what do you do when armed protesters kill soldiers? Let them continue what they're doing? That's a good recipe for mob rule.

Maybe on the 11th April the "peaceful protesters" should have had a look around them and called off their protest since it had been taken over by an armed militia.

To share in your hypothesis, if you have substantiation that the protests were taken over by an armed militia and the protesters were aware of this as fact, it would have been the proper thing to do to call it off and reorganize. As to your hypthetical question about the killing of soldiers by armed protesters, it would seem self evident that if they fired in self defense it would be one scenario, whereas, if they fired indiscriminately or as uprovoked and unthreatened snipers it would be a completely different scenario.

[unanimosity]

It most certainly can identify the army, per the premise above, or not as the facts pan out, especially when combined with imagery and other data identifying who was where when. It isn't necessary to identify an individual if facts determine that the point of origin was army or red shirts or whatever. If there were no group at the point of origin it becomes inconclusive unless it can be established that only one group is ruled out from having access to the point of origin.

You're talking hypotheticals. There are lots of things they "could" do. Do they have "imagery and other identifying data" of who was where when?

If they can't identify an individual, they can't determine the reasons for him shooting and whether he was justified in shooting or not.

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

[skorchio]

In my opinion, what is most sad and despicable in this whole mess is that this event and outcome was planned and executed quite knowingly. Thaksin knew that a street protest of this scale would warrant military intervention to stamp it out. He knew he had the BiB in his pocket and that the Abhisit Govt would have no choice but to send in the armed forces (cos the cops refused). All those people who died, from both sides, are just pawns in his game. He doesn't give a << Snip! >> who died, in fact the more the merrier in his mind. The whole episode was planned, orchestrated and paid for by Thaksin. And the sooner the Thai population see this for what it is the better. To him this is all a game of chess and the checkmate is when he gets his money back.

Edited December 18, 2012 by metisdead
: Profanity

[whybother]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

[khunken]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

Actually the faulty reasoning is with Unanimosity. Satellite? rubbish. CCTV? No, the red shirts either destroyed or turned them off. ATM Cameras? Range of about 1m. News media & bystanders? Possibly but not objective enough on their own.

That soldiers shot at some innocent people is very likely as there were both armed & unarmed individuals on the red-shirt side. Using forensics to determine the bullet(s) & weapons that they came from is stupid when both sides had similar weapons. (The reds from armoury raids & individual purchases)

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[whybother]

The DSI is also thinking about charging Abhisit and Suthep with "attempted murder and bodily assault" charges for injuries caused during the protests.

[khunken]

The DSI is also thinking about charging Abhisit and Suthep with "attempted murder and bodily assault" charges for injuries caused during the protests.

If I might correct you. The DSI doesn't think - it is told what to do by the usual heavies.

[unanimosity]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

Actually the faulty reasoning is with Unanimosity. Satellite? rubbish. CCTV? No, the red shirts either destroyed or turned them off. ATM Cameras? Range of about 1m. News media & bystanders? Possibly but not objective enough on their own.

That soldiers shot at some innocent people is very likely as there were both armed & unarmed individuals on the red-shirt side. Using forensics to determine the bullet(s) & weapons that they came from is stupid when both sides had similar weapons. (The reds from armoury raids & individual purchases)

You will find attached a satellite image of downtown on 22 May 2010, and this is just grabbed on the run in response to your rubbish comment. You can zoom this down to street level and see what people are wearing but it is left at overview to show that this is indeed Bangkok. There is this new technology from what, about a decade or more ago, called Google Earth. It is only one of multiple satellites scanning earth, many of which are used to assess crop and drought conditions for ministries of agriculture. Also to your rubbish fetish, if you will go to http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspected-atm-robber-caught-on-camera you can witness the ridiculous nature of your ATM camera comment. When you work your way up to zero credibility come back and try again at intelligent discourse. Till then, you are no doubt more comfortable trying to wrench reality to your opinions but you'll do it on your own time, not interested in educating you for free.

[unanimosity]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

Read the FBI rules of engagement and see how uninformed this comment is. Shoot somebody under the scenario you have described and a first world law enforecemnet regime would have you in internal affairs before you could say, "Who me?'

[unanimosity]

Switching off. It was a pleasure, Why Bother.

[smedly]

The DSI is also thinking about charging Abhisit and Suthep with "attempted murder and bodily assault" charges for injuries caused during the protests.

If this blatent missuse of law prosecutors and courts continues (farse best descibes it) something or someone is going to snap and close this current political landscape down as it really is a joke, the fact that the DSI can be allowed to dream this stuff up says it all, this nonesense needs to stop now

[whybother]

You will find attached a satellite image of downtown on 22 May 2010, and this is just grabbed on the run in response to your rubbish comment. You can zoom this down to street level and see what people are wearing but it is left at overview to show that this is indeed Bangkok. There is this new technology from what, about a decade or more ago, called Google Earth. It is only one of multiple satellites scanning earth, many of which are used to assess crop and drought conditions for ministries of agriculture. Also to your rubbish fetish, if you will go to http://www.krqe.com/...aught-on-camera you can witness the ridiculous nature of your ATM camera comment. When you work your way up to zero credibility come back and try again at intelligent discourse. Till then, you are no doubt more comfortable trying to wrench reality to your opinions but you'll do it on your own time, not interested in educating you for free.

According to the image, it was taken on 31 Jan 2010.

It was also taken in broad daylight.

General satellite images taken for things like google maps or google earth are not real time images, and at best are taken every few weeks or months.

[whybother]

Read the FBI rules of engagement and see how uninformed this comment is. Shoot somebody under the scenario you have described and a first world law enforecemnet regime would have you in internal affairs before you could say, "Who me?'

That doesn't mean that the reason is irrelevant.

Even if someone was carrying a gun, IA would get involved. With or without a gun, they would investigate to determine whether there was justification for shooting.

[khunken]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

Actually the faulty reasoning is with Unanimosity. Satellite? rubbish. CCTV? No, the red shirts either destroyed or turned them off. ATM Cameras? Range of about 1m. News media & bystanders? Possibly but not objective enough on their own.

That soldiers shot at some innocent people is very likely as there were both armed & unarmed individuals on the red-shirt side. Using forensics to determine the bullet(s) & weapons that they came from is stupid when both sides had similar weapons. (The reds from armoury raids & individual purchases)

You will find attached a satellite image of downtown on 22 May 2010, and this is just grabbed on the run in response to your rubbish comment. You can zoom this down to street level and see what people are wearing but it is left at overview to show that this is indeed Bangkok. There is this new technology from what, about a decade or more ago, called Google Earth. It is only one of multiple satellites scanning earth, many of which are used to assess crop and drought conditions for ministries of agriculture. Also to your rubbish fetish, if you will go to http://www.krqe.com/...aught-on-camera you can witness the ridiculous nature of your ATM camera comment. When you work your way up to zero credibility come back and try again at intelligent discourse. Till then, you are no doubt more comfortable trying to wrench reality to your opinions but you'll do it on your own time, not interested in educating you for free.

I do not accept your arrogant opinion which is no more educational than red-shirt propaganda. Satellite images do not show who shot who so just stick with the crop images. No response to the CCTVs that were off air - that was just hot air.

The link supposedly about ATM cameras doesn't work so your technical 'ability' is rather deficient.

If you concentrated on proving what you say instead of facetious personal comments, you're post might be worthwhile.

What is a 'rubbish fetish' anyway?

[Jimi007]

If a policeman shoots someone in the course of doing their job, is the PM liable?

As coppers here have guns, surely Yingluk is therefore liable for murder for anyone killed by police since she came to power.

Chalerm, with his law Phd, can answer this? Or can he?

Police are dispatched at the municipal or provincial level. An army is dispatched by a commander in chief, as in PM.

Yes. But the police refused to follow orders, so the Army was called in. How can anyone who lives in Thailand say anything good about the totally corrupt farce? They aren't here to enforce the law, they are here to get paid off...

Edited December 18, 2012 by Jimi007

[Tatsujin]

What is a 'rubbish fetish' anyway?

OK, I'll sidetrack it now and go off topic . . . it's someone who gets turned on by garbage.

[Baerboxer]

Live amo?

What do the red shirt apologists think the army should have used against those who were firing live amo and grenades at them, sticks and stones?

It has been said that no black shirts were ever shot but what do you think would have happened if a black shirt was shot, do you think the reds would have held up his body complete with weapons and said one of their brave protectors had veen killed by the ruthless army under the orders of a bloodthirsty PM?

Or would it have been more likely that his weapons would have been passed on and the black outer garments removed so he then became an inocent bystander, or possibly a taxi driver.

I noted on the videos that the black shirts we never far from cover. They would jump out fire a few random shots in the general direction of the army then dive back into cover.

So it would have been no problem to drag their bodies out of sight had one been shot.

It is the duty of the government, any government, to act reasonably even when others are not. Shooting indiscriminately into a large crowd of protesters is a completely unreasonable action by the government. What the Army should have done was to find the people shooting at them, not shoot whoever happens to be there. It is the governments duty to act reasonably, period.

And don't you think its every citizens duty to act reasonably, respect the law and not engage in acts of terrorism or anti-social violence to further political views or personal gain?

[muttley]

"This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't."

How many is too many? 80 odd enough?

I would have thought a good time to question ones approach to things military would have been upon waking up on the morning of the 11th April 2010 and found 5 military and 20 civilian dead bodies to answer for.

I would have thought any normal human beings approach from then on would not to have been to employ snipers and establish killing zones but, hey, that's just me, and funningly enough, the PM authorising this had this to say (but about different folks and a different time)

<snip>

So, what do you do when armed protesters kill soldiers? Let them continue what they're doing? That's a good recipe for mob rule.

Maybe on the 11th April the "peaceful protesters" should have had a look around them and called off their protest since it had been taken over by an armed militia.

You must always remember the first person killed in this whole sorry affair was at about 4pm on the 10th and was a red shirt protester. The soldiers had been firing directly at protesters (no warning shots in the air) way before any standoff at the Democracy monument and the unfortunate deaths of the soldiers and protesters. I wouls imagine that emotions tend to run high when you are on the receiving end of live ammunition when you are genuinely unarmed and on your way to a rallying point especially seeing who the perpretators are. If you have ever watched the long unabridged videos you will have seen peaceful protesters with army soldiers (armed) playing them music supposedly to calm the atmosphere which it did and then shooting from the army breaks out. From accounts it was a military disaster as tactics went which probably accounts for the high civilian death and injury toll.

But it's not for me to decide what should have been done - that was down to CRES and now they're finding where the buck stops. Unless they play the usual Army and Government ignore mode and thats what is so important about these charges. At last something in Thailand is beginning to give and people will not allow this to go away.

[whybother]

"This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't."

How many is too many? 80 odd enough?

I would have thought a good time to question ones approach to things military would have been upon waking up on the morning of the 11th April 2010 and found 5 military and 20 civilian dead bodies to answer for.

I would have thought any normal human beings approach from then on would not to have been to employ snipers and establish killing zones but, hey, that's just me, and funningly enough, the PM authorising this had this to say (but about different folks and a different time)

<snip>

So, what do you do when armed protesters kill soldiers? Let them continue what they're doing? That's a good recipe for mob rule.

Maybe on the 11th April the "peaceful protesters" should have had a look around them and called off their protest since it had been taken over by an armed militia.

You must always remember the first person killed in this whole sorry affair was at about 4pm on the 10th and was a red shirt protester. The soldiers had been firing directly at protesters (no warning shots in the air) way before any standoff at the Democracy monument and the unfortunate deaths of the soldiers and protesters. I wouls imagine that emotions tend to run high when you are on the receiving end of live ammunition when you are genuinely unarmed and on your way to a rallying point especially seeing who the perpretators are. If you have ever watched the long unabridged videos you will have seen peaceful protesters with army soldiers (armed) playing them music supposedly to calm the atmosphere which it did and then shooting from the army breaks out. From accounts it was a military disaster as tactics went which probably accounts for the high civilian death and injury toll.

But it's not for me to decide what should have been done - that was down to CRES and now they're finding where the buck stops. Unless they play the usual Army and Government ignore mode and thats what is so important about these charges. At last something in Thailand is beginning to give and people will not allow this to go away.

It is not known who killed the first protestor. The army were shooting rubber bullets in the afternoon. It is also unknown where/when/who/how the shooting started. One of the first videos I watched of the evening of the 10th was taken when the first shots started, and the guy that took it had no idea where it started, and he was right in front of the soldiers.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[hellodolly]

There is always imagery and other data, whether from satellites, BTS tracks, traffic monitoring, army reconnaisance, army troop depoyment stat sheets, or just private sector security cameras such as are on ATMs, commercial rooftops, news media, eyewitnesses, et. al. You can be sure that those holding such data would have been forthcoming early on unless the data incriminated them or those they are in bed with.

More faulty reasoning regarding why one shot another. The reason is irrelevant. You don't need a reason to run over somebody with your car to be held accountable.

The reasoning can be quite relevant. Someone running around with what looks like a gun when soldiers are being shot at, is a lot different than someone running around with their hands in the air.

Actually the faulty reasoning is with Unanimosity. Satellite? rubbish. CCTV? No, the red shirts either destroyed or turned them off. ATM Cameras? Range of about 1m. News media & bystanders? Possibly but not objective enough on their own.

That soldiers shot at some innocent people is very likely as there were both armed & unarmed individuals on the red-shirt side. Using forensics to determine the bullet(s) & weapons that they came from is stupid when both sides had similar weapons. (The reds from armoury raids & individual purchases)

You will find attached a satellite image of downtown on 22 May 2010, and this is just grabbed on the run in response to your rubbish comment. You can zoom this down to street level and see what people are wearing but it is left at overview to show that this is indeed Bangkok. There is this new technology from what, about a decade or more ago, called Google Earth. It is only one of multiple satellites scanning earth, many of which are used to assess crop and drought conditions for ministries of agriculture. Also to your rubbish fetish, if you will go to http://www.krqe.com/...aught-on-camera you can witness the ridiculous nature of your ATM camera comment. When you work your way up to zero credibility come back and try again at intelligent discourse. Till then, you are no doubt more comfortable trying to wrench reality to your opinions but you'll do it on your own time, not interested in educating you for free.

Yes it is a load of rubbish you are trying to dump on us. There is no way you can identify any one red or black shirted or the army shooting and killing any one on your picture.

[KRS1]

Don't know who 'digital media" is, but they were fuzzy on some historical details.... To speak of political upheavals in generalized terms and then to erroneously suggest they were anti-Govt., does not characterize them correctly. They were not anti-government, but anti-coup..... Their principle demand affirms that.... Their demands were for an election, not the elimination of a Govt. or Prime Minister...... This is not by accident...... Some political elements wish to characterize the demonstrators as being anarchic, with no Democratic redeeming values. References to coups and such, gives these demonstrators too much validity from an Electoral democracy Point-of-view, for their liking........ One only needs to 'walk in the moccasins' of those affected by the deaths of 91 family members to fully appreciate the judicial initiatives described in this article....... A non-involved, calculated political perspective ignoring this reality, and seeking to characterize a trained and well-armed military in a favorable light with respect to the obvious vast preponderance of these deaths resulting from it, must be very troubling for these people.

Actually they demanded an election because they didn't like the result of the one that occurred after the coup.

do you realize why the coup occurred? if you do please elaborate.

[jrincon17]

Whatever sides the courts are on is how its going to play out. Run away while you can

[Docno]

DId they found the bullet who killed him or how could they come to the conclusion that he was killed by state authorities? Kangaroo courts!!!

Not sure about this case, but in the case of the other taxi driver who was killed--the one being used to bring Abhisit to court--it was determined he was killed by a high-velocity bullet of a type used in military weapons. Could be the case here also. (In addition, witnesses identified where the bullets were coming from, which was an army position)