Bangkok Criminal Court Concludes Army Killed 14-Year-Old Boy During 2010 Violence

[webfact]

Army accused of killing boy during 2010 crackdown

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court concluded Thursday that a 14-year-old boy, who did not belong to either red or yellow-shirt camp, was indeed killed by troops on May 15, 2010.

The inquest concluded that Kunakorn Srisuwan had been shot dead by troops who were carrying out an operation under the order of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

The court believes that Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets when soldiers opened fire at a van that had strayed into an area under Army control near the Airport Rail Link's Rajprarop station. The boy was shot in the back and the bullet pierced through his abdomen. He succumbed to his injuries on his way to hospital.

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong, who the court said on September 17 had also been killed by a military bullet.

-- The Nation 2012-12-20

[slapout]

Close to another casulity, whose death was already ruled, as military caused. Sounds like Thai logic to me.

[rubl]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

[Chrisswe]

And again , how given the order !!??

[gerry1011]

14 years old... shot in the back...

[righteous]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

[ratcatcher]

And again , how given the order !!??

Who do you think?

[rubl]

The court believes that Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets when soldiers opened fire at a van that had strayed into an area under Army control near the Airport Rail Link's Rajprarop station.

Is this the same van which had the taxi driver running out of a house to see who was shooting ?

[righteous]

And again , how given the order !!??

The most important question of the entire tragedy.

A question that will never be answered.

Some question the characterization of this event as a "crackdown". To them it was an "attack".

Edited December 20, 2012 by righteous

[keith101]

rip Kunakorn Srisuwan

do they have the bullets that caused his death and if so can they prove 100% that they where fired from an army weapon and can say who fired the weapon using forensics if not they dont have a case . just having bullets from a similar weapon proves nothing and could have been discharched by anyone from anywhere in the vacinity .

Edited December 20, 2012 by keith101

[Skywalker69]

And again , how given the order !!??

Whom gave the order for the Red Shirt to occupy central Bangkok and set fire on the town?

Whom payed for it.

[dru2]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Dream on, Sunshine. Just how long have you been in Thailand, I wonder?

[Thai at Heart]

was the protest every judged illegal bya court?

[ratcatcher]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Dream on, Sunshine. Just how long have you been in Thailand, I wonder?

Meanwhile, the fox is guarding the hen house.

[righteous]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Dream on, Sunshine. Just how long have you been in Thailand, I wonder?

Yeah, I know. I've been here long enough to know you are correct!

[dru2]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Dream on, Sunshine. Just how long have you been in Thailand, I wonder?

Yeah, I know. I've been here long enough to know you are correct!

Fair enough - sad, though, isn't it...

[djjamie]

Thats 20 years for AV then...Plain and simple. I am also sarcastic. I pity PT. There day will come.

[ballpoint]

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Yet again a red sympathiser politicises the death of an innocent caught in the wrong place at the wrong place at the wrong time. Disgusting.

[philw]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Blame the parents ???

Spin away..........

The army should have been in the barracks, not roaming the streets shooting Thai citizens going about their lawful business.

[ballpoint]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Blame the parents ???

Spin away..........

The army should have been in the barracks, not roaming the streets shooting Thai citizens going about their lawful business.

And another one crawls out.

[F430murci]

rip Kunakorn Srisuwan

do they have the bullets that caused his death and if so can they prove 100% that they where fired from an army weapon and can say who fired the weapon using forensics if not they dont have a case . just having bullets from a similar weapon proves nothing and could have been discharched by anyone from anywhere in the vacinity .

Perhaps angle if trajectory and damage from high velocity military grade weapon and type of bullet are basic forensic issues. Not saying report is correct, but I am implying that science and forensic technology available makes this a much easier determination than one may surmise.

[philw]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Blame the parents ???

Spin away..........

The army should have been in the barracks, not roaming the streets shooting Thai citizens going about their lawful business.

And another one crawls out.

How sweet..........

Do you have anything thoughtful, constructive or intelligent to say ??

Thought not.

[moe666]

One more trumped up charge aganist Mark. Becoming a real display of out to get you

[jonclark]

How sweet..........

Do you have anything thoughtful, constructive or intelligent to say ??

Whereas you do??

[geriatrickid]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Don't you think you should read the inquest conclusions before passing judgement, particularly when you blame the child?

He was in the care of a children's aid group, He had no parents. The chlld was described as having learning disabilities, and was given to wandering off, as is common with kids like that. No evidence was presented that the child was a participant in the troubles. The facts that were given, and not disputed were that he was a bystander and was killed as the soldiers lay down multiple volleys of lethal gunfire at the van. In plain language, the soldiers opened fire in a public area, where there were non implicated parties, unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the participants.

In case you do not get the point, the soldiers had a legal duty of care not to use lethal force under the circumstances. I won't mention the ethical and moral aspect, as I doubt it would register with you since you intimate that the homicide was justified. Unfortunately, when an unarmed child that is not involved in the targeted illegal activity is killed, it is a case of homicide.

Edited December 20, 2012 by geriatrickid

[philw]

How sweet..........

Do you have anything thoughtful, constructive or intelligent to say ??

Whereas you do??

Yes, sure, why not ???

Ask away JC.

[philw]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Don't you think you should read the inquest conclusions before passing judgement, particularly when you blame the child?

He was in the care of a children's aid group, He had no parents. The chlld was described as having learning disabilities, and was given to wandering off, as is common with kids like that. No evidence was presented that the child was a participant in the troubles. The facts that were given, and not disputed were that he was a bystander and was killed as the soldiers lay down multiple volleys of lethal gunfire at the van. In plain language, the soldiers opened fire in a public area, where there were non implicated parties, unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the participants.

In case you do not get the point, the soldiers had a legal duty of care not to use lethal force under the circumstances. I won't mention the ethical and moral aspect, as I doubt it would register with you since you intimate that the homicide was justified. Unfortunately, when an unarmed child that is not involved in the targeted illegal activity is killed, it is a case of homicide.

Exactly the point, and the reason why other posters here are intent on trivialising what happened and who should be accountable.

Edited December 20, 2012 by philw

[Jimi007]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Don't you think you should read the inquest conclusions before passing judgement, particularly when you blame the child?

He was in the care of a children's aid group, He had no parents. The chlld was described as having learning disabilities, and was given to wandering off, as is common with kids like that. No evidence was presented that the child was a participant in the troubles. The facts that were given, and not disputed were that he was a bystander and was killed as the soldiers lay down multiple volleys of lethal gunfire at the van. In plain language, the soldiers opened fire in a public area, where there were non implicated parties, unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the participants.

In case you do not get the point, the soldiers had a legal duty of care not to use lethal force under the circumstances. I won't mention the ethical and moral aspect, as I doubt it would register with you since you intimate that the homicide was justified. Unfortunately, when an unarmed child that is not involved in the targeted illegal activity is killed, it is a case of homicide.

So why was this child and other innocent people in the area of "live fire?" Were they brought there? Did they live there? I really don't know why. Do you? The whole thing was tragic and could have been avoided in my opinion...

[otherstuff1957]

And again , how given the order !!??

How? Well that could be an interesting question. If orders were given verbally, then evidence as to what those orders were will come down to hearsay. If they were written orders. Then the appropriateness and legality of the orders will determine the verdict.

[muttley]

Kunakorn was said to be in the vicinity of taxi driver Phan Kamkong

Sad, parental guidance failed. The boy should have been at home, not wandering about in a danger zone.

BTW May, 15th.? Was this in the 'live fire' zone on Ratchaprarop ?

Don't you think you should read the inquest conclusions before passing judgement, particularly when you blame the child?

He was in the care of a children's aid group, He had no parents. The chlld was described as having learning disabilities, and was given to wandering off, as is common with kids like that. No evidence was presented that the child was a participant in the troubles. The facts that were given, and not disputed were that he was a bystander and was killed as the soldiers lay down multiple volleys of lethal gunfire at the van. In plain language, the soldiers opened fire in a public area, where there were non implicated parties, unarmed civilians who had nothing to do with the participants.

In case you do not get the point, the soldiers had a legal duty of care not to use lethal force under the circumstances. I won't mention the ethical and moral aspect, as I doubt it would register with you since you intimate that the homicide was justified. Unfortunately, when an unarmed child that is not involved in the targeted illegal activity is killed, it is a case of homicide.

So why was this child and other innocent people in the area of "live fire?" Were they brought there? Did they live there? I really don't know why. Do you? The whole thing was tragic and could have been avoided in my opinion...

Who says it was an area of live fire? The soldiers sprayed bullets at a van that had strayed into their area according to the first inquest.The Inquest Judge has stated (there were independant witnesses) that there was no battle going on between soldiers and red shirts, so no cross fire.

No this is plain old barn door pee poor shooting at a van. They managed to injure the van driver but in the process kill two bystanders, the taxi driver who had come out of the door of the building he was staying at while his taxi was being repaired and a 14 year old kid in the vicinity of the taxi driver.

Neither of whom had anything to do with the protest.

Oh and parental contol isn't readily available when you're an Orphan for those of you "concerned" enough to mention it.

The truth is out there, you just got to work a bit to find it