Bangkok Court Rules Authorities Killed Taxi Driver In 2010 Violence

[Skywalker69]

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.

Sigh....again.

[smedly]

so the first court rules that the "army" shot the taxi driver, now this ruling says "authorities" ?

Still don't understand why they won't rule on the death - so they were shot by the army no big surprise there but they still refuse to categorise the death

These court rulings are actually meaningless in the grand scale of things, it will however be interesting when the first case involving a soldiers death presents itself to court

[righteous]

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.

Sigh....again.

Who is this?.....Al Gore

[Robby nz]

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.

[drdoom6996]

Any court rulings coming up on the soldiers killed or is this going to be all one sided?

Or course not. This government is not interested in that type of sound bite.

[drdoom6996]

so the first court rules that the "army" shot the taxi driver, now this ruling says "authorities" ?

Still don't understand why they won't rule on the death - so they were shot by the army no big surprise there but they still refuse to categorise the death

These court rulings are actually meaningless in the grand scale of things, it will however be interesting when the first case involving a soldiers death presents itself to court

Just another sound bite!

[Jawnie]

Drip, drip, drip of bad news for those who think the government is soooo innocent. Only taken two years to get this far. Reconciliation, my arse.

[Jawnie]

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.

[whybother]

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.

Indiscriminate? If it was indiscriminate, there were have been hundreds or thousands dead.

[AleG]

I don't think we need the courts to confirm that the army killed protesters that day. I think everyone agrees on that. We need the courts to decide if doing so was legal or illegal.

I wonder what would happen if:

A group of people robbed a bank. Half the group had guns, the other half didn't.

The police (or army) now surrounds the bank and a prolonged standoff takes place. Unfortunately things escalate and the group in the bank manage to kill a few bank employees.

The mayor, through the commanding police officer orders the police to end things by attacking the bank using only shields and batons. The policemen start laughing, and ask if the commanding officers seriously thinks any of them are going to attack men with guns using a baton?

The commanding officers gets the point, calls the mayor, who then orders first another warning to the bank robbers, and if they don't come out, then an attack using live fire.

The attack takes place, everyone is shooting left and right, policemen die, armed robbers die and unarmed robbers die (a taxi driver who thought it would be a good idea to join the action by running into the bank as well as a nosy cameraman who got too close die too). Most of the bank employees are saved though.

Afterwards the family of the robbers complain that the police have killed some of the unarmed robbers.

The above scenario, or something very similar, has happened plenty of times in many countries. Can anyone recall that it ever ended with the mayor being charged with murder?

In the above scenario I don't believe security forces would be ordered to indiscriminately shoot at bank robbers if lives of civilians were at risk so the comparison really is mute.

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.

Do you believe Abhisit gave orders to shoot indiscriminately?

Of course the comparison is mute if you make a strawman argument like that.

[NoshowJones]

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!!!

The red shirts caused innocent peoples lifes, caused hundreds of ordinary Thai people their livelyhoods. Don't expect any sympathy from me for the red shirts who were shot by the Authorities, and their leaders who are still in prison, keep them there for years to come.

[Vinny1967]

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.

Indiscriminate? If it was indiscriminate, there were have been hundreds or thousands dead.

Indiscriminate or not,there are a lot of questionable deaths.Take for example the nurse who was killed at the gates of the temple while attending to an injured man.Why kill a nurse in a temple ?.Was it panic fire or were the army picking off targets at will ?.If it moves shoot it.Foreign journalists killed while wearing flack jackets that state clearly "Press" on them ?.I know the army were under orders but they went a little overboard.

[unanimosity]

Any court rulings coming up on the soldiers killed or is this going to be all one sided?

How many soldiers were killed by red shirts? Cannot find this on Google. Seem to recall a handfull were killed at the first confrontation near the bridge, but did they ever establish evidence that red shirts killed them? Just curious. Of 91 killed, was there more than a handful of soldiers killed? Killed by whom?

[outre99]

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.

It's really funny how the calls for respecting the "law" and living by the "rules" only surface when one is in power and can bend the said "laws" and "rules" to their advantage. The fact that UDD felt it acceptable to take over a center of a busy city and hold it hostage for a prolonged period of time despite the sitting government negotiating and offering to meet most of their demands would be unacceptable in any other liberal democracy in the world. Look at what happened to the Occupy Wallstreet protests. The Reds, just like the Yellows before them, were allowed to hold the whole country hostage for many weeks, causing the untold damage in destruction of property and livelyhoods of the many poor people they claim to try to help. Drunk with power their leaders kept changing their demands upping up the ante and showing very little good will.

You see, in a civil society there will always be opposing forces and the only way to survive is to coexist. If one party in the argument refuses to negotiate and insists on resorting to the mob rule until they get everything they want the response will not be pretty. Frankly i'm amazed it took the government that long to respond with force. Do you really think that if a crowd of people took over 5th avenue in New York or Downing street in London they would be allowed to stay there for weeks? No, they might be allowed a peaceful public gathering for a day to make their voices heard but that's it. So please, forgive us for not subscribing to your one sided whitewash of UDD. The Reds decided to play the anarchist game and they got the government response that frankly was too long coming. Just like the Yellows should have gotten earlier.

Now let's cover the motivatios of the movement as you seem to wax poetically about them. There was a survey conducted in the traditional red strongholds by either Chula or Thamasat (i don't recall which). They asked people to compare the policies of Democrats and TRT derivatives but without telling them which is which. It turned out that the vast majority of the rural poor actually preferred the Democrats' policies for helping them. So it's really a coup of marketing, PR, and a successful cult of personality of mr T that inspires such fanatical loyalty at the grass roots of the red movement. That and the cash giveaways, of course. Just like the poor uneducated white men in America keep voting for the Republican party and against their own economic self interest influenced by the red herring issues of religion and guns, the poor Thais keep voting for the guys who keep ripping them off. TRT policies were nothing but a populist veneer to cover up the corrupt and self-serving governments. The proverbial crumbs for the plebes to keep the masses happy. Those policies did not have any measurable long term effects on the people's lives, just a one time handout, while the leaders skimmed billions off the top. So please stop with the "they're doing it for the people nonsense", they are most clearly not.

Like most things in Thailand the policies, decisions, and public discourse are at the level of 5 graders: inability to see a few steps ahead, immidiate gratification, and utter unacceptance of an opposing point of view. I have long argued that countries like Thailand with the vast majority of the populace who are uninformed and short sighted are not ready for direct democracy. American founding fathers had the same reservations about the masses and solved them by including Electoral College into the American system as a safety switch in case the masses go crazy and elect someone like mr T. I do think that the best model for Thailand is Singapore and not the West. A benign dictatorship concerned with the country's economic success and progress. But even that would require men of vision and education and that pretty much rules out the whole red movement.

[unanimosity]

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.

[pedro01]

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.

The army did not shoot indiscriminately into a large crowd of protestors.

Had they done that, the death toll would have been massive.

[whybother]

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.

Does that mean the person in charge locally is liable for deaths caused by the police?

[unanimosity]

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.

It's really funny how the calls for respecting the "law" and living by the "rules" only surface when one is in power and can bend the said "laws" and "rules" to their advantage. The fact that UDD felt it acceptable to take over a center of a busy city and hold it hostage for a prolonged period of time despite the sitting government negotiating and offering to meet most of their demands would be unacceptable in any other liberal democracy in the world. Look at what happened to the Occupy Wallstreet protests. The Reds, just like the Yellows before them, were allowed to hold the whole country hostage for many weeks, causing the untold damage in destruction of property and livelyhoods of the many poor people they claim to try to help. Drunk with power their leaders kept changing their demands upping up the ante and showing very little good will.

You see, in a civil society there will always be opposing forces and the only way to survive is to coexist. If one party in the argument refuses to negotiate and insists on resorting to the mob rule until they get everything they want the response will not be pretty. Frankly i'm amazed it took the government that long to respond with force. Do you really think that if a crowd of people took over 5th avenue in New York or Downing street in London they would be allowed to stay there for weeks? No, they might be allowed a peaceful public gathering for a day to make their voices heard but that's it. So please, forgive us for not subscribing to your one sided whitewash of UDD. The Reds decided to play the anarchist game and they got the government response that frankly was too long coming. Just like the Yellows should have gotten earlier.

Now let's cover the motivatios of the movement as you seem to wax poetically about them. There was a survey conducted in the traditional red strongholds by either Chula or Thamasat (i don't recall which). They asked people to compare the policies of Democrats and TRT derivatives but without telling them which is which. It turned out that the vast majority of the rural poor actually preferred the Democrats' policies for helping them. So it's really a coup of marketing, PR, and a successful cult of personality of mr T that inspires such fanatical loyalty at the grass roots of the red movement. That and the cash giveaways, of course. Just like the poor uneducated white men in America keep voting for the Republican party and against their own economic self interest influenced by the red herring issues of religion and guns, the poor Thais keep voting for the guys who keep ripping them off. TRT policies were nothing but a populist veneer to cover up the corrupt and self-serving governments. The proverbial crumbs for the plebes to keep the masses happy. Those policies did not have any measurable long term effects on the people's lives, just a one time handout, while the leaders skimmed billions off the top. So please stop with the "they're doing it for the people nonsense", they are most clearly not.

Like most things in Thailand the policies, decisions, and public discourse are at the level of 5 graders: inability to see a few steps ahead, immidiate gratification, and utter unacceptance of an opposing point of view. I have long argued that countries like Thailand with the vast majority of the populace who are uninformed and short sighted are not ready for direct democracy. American founding fathers had the same reservations about the masses and solved them by including Electoral College into the American system as a safety switch in case the masses go crazy and elect someone like mr T. I do think that the best model for Thailand is Singapore and not the West. A benign dictatorship concerned with the country's economic success and progress. But even that would require men of vision and education and that pretty much rules out the whole red movement.

Time to wake up lad, the state already have elected someone like Mr. T, only worse. So much for your founding fathers' electoral system. And while you are correct that the reds protest should have been dealt with the first day, you are off base in suggesting that because the gov let them expand their cause they, the reds, are somehow to blame for gov inaction.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

If you can't identify the shooter, it is impossible to put the blame on any organization. Legally, it's just not possible, because you would have to rule out every other possible source of the deadly instrument. Another example of how the Thai justice system remains anchored to archaic reasoning.

[unanimosity]

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.

Does that mean the person in charge locally is liable for deaths caused by the police?

In a normal society, a cop is always put on suspension pending investigation in any officer involved shooting. That investigation either clears or punishes the individual cop. A defense attorney for the cop may contend that the officer was merely following orders. If that can be established, his immediate superiors may be brought to trial, and so on up the ladder to the Chief of the precinct or municipality.

[unanimosity]

If you can't identify the shooter, it is impossible to put the blame on any organization. Legally, it's just not possible, because you would have to rule out every other possible source of the deadly instrument. Another example of how the Thai justice system remains anchored to archaic reasoning.

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

[whybother]

If you can't identify the shooter, it is impossible to put the blame on any organization. Legally, it's just not possible, because you would have to rule out every other possible source of the deadly instrument. Another example of how the Thai justice system remains anchored to archaic reasoning.

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

The key word here being "proper". They have identified that the bullet came from a weapon that is used by the army. What they forgot to mention was that it is also used by others.

[unanimosity]

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.

The army did not shoot indiscriminately into a large crowd of protestors.

Had they done that, the death toll would have been massive.

Faulty reasoning. If you answered true to this on your SAT you had better opt for vocational school.

[whybother]

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.

Does that mean the person in charge locally is liable for deaths caused by the police?

In a normal society, a cop is always put on suspension pending investigation in any officer involved shooting. That investigation either clears or punishes the individual cop. A defense attorney for the cop may contend that the officer was merely following orders. If that can be established, his immediate superiors may be brought to trial, and so on up the ladder to the Chief of the precinct or municipality.

Except in this case, they haven't identified the person involved.

[unanimosity]

If you can't identify the shooter, it is impossible to put the blame on any organization. Legally, it's just not possible, because you would have to rule out every other possible source of the deadly instrument. Another example of how the Thai justice system remains anchored to archaic reasoning.

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

The key word here being "proper". They have identified that the bullet came from a weapon that is used by the army. What they forgot to mention was that it is also used by others.

No, the key word is forensics, which includes the location from wihere the round(s) were fired.

[whybother]

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

The key word here being "proper". They have identified that the bullet came from a weapon that is used by the army. What they forgot to mention was that it is also used by others.

No, the key word is forensics, which includes the location from wihere the round(s) were fired.

That doesn't identify the shooter.

[ballpoint]

If you can't identify the shooter, it is impossible to put the blame on any organization. Legally, it's just not possible, because you would have to rule out every other possible source of the deadly instrument. Another example of how the Thai justice system remains anchored to archaic reasoning.

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

The key word here being "proper". They have identified that the bullet came from a weapon that is used by the army. What they forgot to mention was that it is also used by others.

And, let's not forget, not only were there currently serving military officers on both sides of the conflict. some of those responsible for the military's darkest days and shadiest characters(Panlop, Chavalit, et al) were firmly entrenched on the red's dirty ops team.

[unanimosity]

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.

Does that mean the person in charge locally is liable for deaths caused by the police?

In a normal society, a cop is always put on suspension pending investigation in any officer involved shooting. That investigation either clears or punishes the individual cop. A defense attorney for the cop may contend that the officer was merely following orders. If that can be established, his immediate superiors may be brought to trial, and so on up the ladder to the Chief of the precinct or municipality.

Except in this case, they haven't identified the person involved.

In a law abiding society, all firearms would be tagged and collected for forensics and the shooting officer would be identified almost immediately. One would expect that in the absence of which specific officer may have pulled the trigger, the commanding officer(s) of the unit(s) involved would be held accountable. If they were able to substantiate that any officer pulling the trigger was acting outside of official orders, they might be exonerated criminally but could then face civil charges. The municipality then might be liable for a huge financial settlement. Of course, if it could be established that the dead person's death was the result of his criminal acts posing a threat to either police or society at large, it could all be a moot point.

[muttley]

In the above scenario I don't believe security forces would be ordered to indiscriminately shoot at bank robbers if lives of civilians were at risk so the comparison really is mute.

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.

"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)

For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility, either by negligence or intention.

What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is vilifying the people.

I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the crimes. This is unacceptable.

I have heard those in the government always asking people whether they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is not the question of being Thai or not, but whether you are human at all.

There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from the people does not take responsibility.

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, "I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this."

Skip to Abhisit being interviewed by the BBC in Dec 2012 about the events of 2010

Unfortunately some people died

Edited December 18, 2012 by muttley

[unanimosity]

Proper ballistics forensics can elminiate all but an extremely narrow, or perhaps a single, set of firearm and point of origin data that typically point to at least one group or another.

The key word here being "proper". They have identified that the bullet came from a weapon that is used by the army. What they forgot to mention was that it is also used by others.

No, the key word is forensics, which includes the location from wihere the round(s) were fired.

That doesn't identify the shooter.

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.