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

[aguy30]

It seems to have been forgotten that military weapons are frequently stolen in Thailand and end up in the hands of non military people. So far there isn't a single bit of evidence that any known (military or otherwise) person was the shooter. If such evidence does become known then those people are the ones that should be charged with a crime, and possibly their direct superiors, but not Abhasit. When you place poorly trained, inexperienced people with low IQ's in the field, then sh!t happens. Probably not much different than those volunteer police that perform street justice on perps.

The concept that that the prime minister or head of CRES is responsible for individual deaths in beyond absurd. Abhasit most likely did not order any of them to shoot anyone.The deaths, as yet unproven, MAY have been caused by a few individuals in uniform that went beyond their authority to use their weapons. They weren't highly trained riot suppression or swat teams. Most were likely recent draftees who were rice farmers just a short time before.

[backtonormal]

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

When you say trumped up are you refering to there being no dead 14 year old bleeding to death. I have said and will say again. Its all about who gave the orders. If the DSI feels it was illegal to use live rounds then there are charges to answer. Peronally I dont think 'Mark' gave the orders but he may have signed off on them

[bigbamboo]

Whilst it's clear that to many that Democrat leader Abhisit is a scurrilous bounder responsible for the deaths of many innocent Thais not to mention the premeditated attempted murder of hundreds of others one wonders at the morals of those self righteous accusers who are only too happy to forgive and forget his heinous crimes in order to get their own leader off the hook?

Edited December 20, 2012 by bigbamboo

[backtonormal]

It seems to have been forgotten that military weapons are frequently stolen in Thailand and end up in the hands of non military people. So far there isn't a single bit of evidence that any known (military or otherwise) person was the shooter. If such evidence does become known then those people are the ones that should be charged with a crime, and possibly their direct superiors, but not Abhasit. When you place poorly trained, inexperienced people with low IQ's in the field, then sh!t happens. Probably not much different than those volunteer police that perform street justice on perps.

The concept that that the prime minister or head of CRES is responsible for individual deaths in beyond absurd. Abhasit most likely did not order any of them to shoot anyone.The deaths, as yet unproven, MAY have been caused by a few individuals in uniform that went beyond their authority to use their weapons. They weren't highly trained riot suppression or swat teams. Most were likely recent draftees who were rice farmers just a short time before.

That is about the worst attempt at re directing the blame. Weapons were stolen and it was the paddy folk from up north, slightly condescending. You obviously no little, just antagonise or your one of a merry band who appeared to be thinning out since recent developments. Water melon soldiers (conscripts from up north) were confined to barracks. Purely guessing this was Thailands crack troop (tongue in cheek). Weapons stolen reminds me of the photo of two American looking at some seized weapons, their faces said "hey up these have never been fire. Stolen weapons a story spread by a certain side to justify (in their peanut sized brains) the shooting of innocent civillians. Time you went to another thread.

Edited December 20, 2012 by backtonormal

[muttley]

It seems to have been forgotten that military weapons are frequently stolen in Thailand and end up in the hands of non military people. So far there isn't a single bit of evidence that any known (military or otherwise) person was the shooter. If such evidence does become known then those people are the ones that should be charged with a crime, and possibly their direct superiors, but not Abhasit. When you place poorly trained, inexperienced people with low IQ's in the field, then sh!t happens. Probably not much different than those volunteer police that perform street justice on perps.

The concept that that the prime minister or head of CRES is responsible for individual deaths in beyond absurd. Abhasit most likely did not order any of them to shoot anyone.The deaths, as yet unproven, MAY have been caused by a few individuals in uniform that went beyond their authority to use their weapons. They weren't highly trained riot suppression or swat teams. Most were likely recent draftees who were rice farmers just a short time before.

I think you'll find that's what inquests are for - to establish the cause of death. When they say that the cause of death is death by military they mean it - they don't make it up. If cause of death is unknown that is what will be recorded.

I must admit I find your belief that some of the "deaths, as yet unproven, MAY have been caused by a few individuals in uniform that went beyond their authority to use their weapons" as charmingly naive in the circumstances. I think theres ample evidence around showing more than a few using their weapons.................

Likewise the idea of ex rice farmers draftees being tasked to crackdown on their fellow citizens. Specific Army units were used for obvious reasons.

[candid]

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.

Quite correct. They should have been in their barracks watching television news reports of the Royal Thai Police taking care of business and clearing up the Red Shirt led idiots and their terrorist methods of strangulating Bangkok while the whole world watched. Unfortunately, the Royal Thai Police team didn't turn up, so the troops were called upon to set things right. Now, everyone knows that when one plays with fire, there is a good chance one will get burnt. And that is how it turned out. Now, the cowardly Royal Thai Police and their masters, along with the DSI people have suddenly woke up to the idea that some capital may be made of this. 2 years after the event seems a pretty good time to make up stories, alibis and general muckspreading. Like some of the posters on here who have forgotten that the capital city was under severe threat (don't ask for evidence unless you have been recently lobotomised) they crawl out of the woodwork to cause their own version of mayhem. At least the protesters in 2010 were up front and not cowards

[candid]

Personally, I don't know if this little boy lived in the area or not. However, one has to ask why the army were in the area. Was it for ceremonial duties? Was it to help flooding as happened in 2011? Were they training for some future event? Such as crowd control? Surely that would be a police function. It sure is in my country.

Or were they there to move a rabble from the streets, a gang of armed idiots who had already cause deaths, destruction and fear? And who were intent on going much further in their efforts to achieve their aims. Aims which originally included a demand for new elections, to which Abhisit said OK. Flushed with success, they decided that this wasn't enough, and set about the dismantling of any vestige of normality in Bangkok.

Getting back to the little boy. If he lived in the area, then the red shirts brought their plague to his location and are thus responsible. If he came with the red shirts, they are equally responsible for his death. Let us look for the root causes of his untimely, sad demise, not only at the unhappy ending

[philw]

Personally, I don't know if this little boy lived in the area or not. However, one has to ask why the army were in the area. Was it for ceremonial duties? Was it to help flooding as happened in 2011? Were they training for some future event? Such as crowd control? Surely that would be a police function. It sure is in my country.

Or were they there to move a rabble from the streets, a gang of armed idiots who had already cause deaths, destruction and fear? And who were intent on going much further in their efforts to achieve their aims. Aims which originally included a demand for new elections, to which Abhisit said OK. Flushed with success, they decided that this wasn't enough, and set about the dismantling of any vestige of normality in Bangkok.

Getting back to the little boy. If he lived in the area, then the red shirts brought their plague to his location and are thus responsible. If he came with the red shirts, they are equally responsible for his death. Let us look for the root causes of his untimely, sad demise, not only at the unhappy ending

Absolute, shameless nonsense.

The people who shot him are entirely responsible for their actions and ALL ( all the way up through the chain of command ) should be brought to court and have their day.

It is nonsense to imply it's his fault for being there, in the same way that it is equally stupid for our dutch uncle to assert that the kid died because of lack of some sort parental control....

He was shot by soldiers who were, or were not,under the full control of their officers, and if they were under the full control of their officers, then the officers too are accountable.

A full enquiry is needed and it looks like it is going to happen.

A first for Thailand that should be celebrated.

Edited December 20, 2012 by philw

[candid]

Personally, I don't know if this little boy lived in the area or not. However, one has to ask why the army were in the area. Was it for ceremonial duties? Was it to help flooding as happened in 2011? Were they training for some future event? Such as crowd control? Surely that would be a police function. It sure is in my country.

Or were they there to move a rabble from the streets, a gang of armed idiots who had already cause deaths, destruction and fear? And who were intent on going much further in their efforts to achieve their aims. Aims which originally included a demand for new elections, to which Abhisit said OK. Flushed with success, they decided that this wasn't enough, and set about the dismantling of any vestige of normality in Bangkok.

Getting back to the little boy. If he lived in the area, then the red shirts brought their plague to his location and are thus responsible. If he came with the red shirts, they are equally responsible for his death. Let us look for the root causes of his untimely, sad demise, not only at the unhappy ending

Absolute, shameless nonsense.

The people who shot him are entirely responsible for their actions and ALL ( all the way up through the chain of command ) should be brought to court and have their day.

It is nonsense to imply it's his fault for being there, in the same way that it is equally stupid for our dutch uncle to assert that the kid died because of lack of some sort parental control....

He was shot by soldiers who were, or were not,under the full control of their officers, and if they were under the full control of their officers, then the officers too are accountable.

A full enquiry is needed and it looks like it is going to happen.

A first for Thailand that should be celebrated.

philw would you like to explain exactly why the soldiers were there? Read my 2 posts above and help me to understand why they were not in their nice warm beds

[rubl]

Since the i'in' crowd seems to be active and alert may I respectfully ask if the van driver had (has?) been apprehended. I mean, if he hadn't strayed in an area he shouldn't have been, the army wouldn't have needed to shoot and no innocent bystanders (not even those running out of the house to watch) would have been hurt.

Obviously the van driver caused two deaths in this instance. He needs to be charge with murder apart from driving in a prohibited area, speeding, broken right back light and fleeing the scene. Plus a ticket for parking at the wrong spot of course.

If only k. Thaksin had got his money back and not have it confiscated in the February, 2010 ruling

[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 ?

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.

Dear gK, I only used the info in the OP which is very limited. You seem to have a better source. Could you please provide a pointer for it?

Edited December 20, 2012 by rubl

[ggold]

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.

Actually I thing the courts and PT are doing a pretty good job of politicising the deaths. Its very easy for them to say the army killed him, but do they have 100% proof of this or just coming to the conclusion they want? After all this is all about politics, or the corruption there of. There were other victims that you could argue, it easier to prove the army killed them. But if they brought those cases up then they would have to charge the commanding office of the troops. You could guess what would happen if the army were put on trial!

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited December 20, 2012 by ggold

[webfact]

UPDATE

2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Army accused of killing boy during crackdown

Kesinee Taengkhio

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court concluded yesterday 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.

In Kunakorn's case, the court considered recordings, witness testimonies and autopsy results showing that the bullet fragments found in the boy's body came from an M16 assault rifle to decide he had been killed by soldiers.

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 Criminal Court said the 43-year-old was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of his apartment to see what was happening. This was when soldiers had opened fire at the van. Phan was found collapsed outside the IDO condominium near the Airport Rail Link's Rajprarop Station.

-- The Nation 2012-12-21

[Moruya]

The army is being very quiet.

I wonder if reporters are asking questions or are too busy watching Tarit's pantomime?

[Siripon]

The army is being very quiet.

I wonder if reporters are asking questions or are too busy watching Tarit's pantomime?

The government strategy is to go for Apisit and Suthep and leave the army alone.

[catmac]

It seems to have been forgotten that military weapons are frequently stolen in Thailand and end up in the hands of non military people. So far there isn't a single bit of evidence that any known (military or otherwise) person was the shooter. If such evidence does become known then those people are the ones that should be charged with a crime, and possibly their direct superiors, but not Abhasit. When you place poorly trained, inexperienced people with low IQ's in the field, then sh!t happens. Probably not much different than those volunteer police that perform street justice on perps.

The concept that that the prime minister or head of CRES is responsible for individual deaths in beyond absurd. Abhasit most likely did not order any of them to shoot anyone.The deaths, as yet unproven, MAY have been caused by a few individuals in uniform that went beyond their authority to use their weapons. They weren't highly trained riot suppression or swat teams. Most were likely recent draftees who were rice farmers just a short time before.

Which is why it was little short of criminal to order them to shoot at will on unarmed civilians.

As to your earlier points, I have rarely read so many AV lovers squirming and twisting the facts, plus adding their own imagined "facts", in my life.

[DiamondKing]

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.

This was always coming, 90 odd people killed supposedly by the Military, and now they are being confirmed.

You Thaksin haters just dont want to accept the ruling of the courts based on the EVIDENCE presented which we have NO IDEA what was presented in court so we know nothing.

But you are well happy to accept any court ruling that is against Thaksin - PATHETIC

Plenty of videos youtube showing military shooting when they should not of been and it does not mean shit that the demo was illegal or that they burnt central down you still don't order troops to open fire on unarmed civilians now if they were targeting the so called men in black and 90 of those were shot by the Militay OK not a leg to stand on since those were armed but when you kill 14 year old kids and taxi drivers then you have no excuse and the one who gave the order has to answer to that.

Its pretty Pathetic reading all your comments blaming Thaksin for everything, if they had not had a coup in the first place then none of this would of happened since it came full circle and the Thaksin family was VOTED IN again the moment the people were given the freedom to vote and if Thaksin was allowed to be in Thailand he would now be Prime Minister whether you like it or not BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF THAILAND WANT IT.

The Majority of the people choose who they want to represent them and its clear they want Thaksin no matter which Thaksin if you dont like it get used to it and leave the people of Thailand to vote.

They never wanted Abhisit he was forced upon them by the coup he was never voted in and the moment the people could actually vote he was out faster than F15 fighter jet.

He now has to answer for 90 odd civilian deaths at the hands of the Military whom he gave the order TO FIRE

Edited December 21, 2012 by DiamondKing

[Docno]

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

Logical problem seems to be yours. The article clearly states that the boy was hit when soldiers opened fire on a van. It does not present the death of the protester nearby as evidence that the boy was killed by the military... rather, it is presented as an incidental fact.

Why are some people here so eager to take pot shots at Thai people and culture?

[anon467367354]

where was the boy from and did he receive 500 baht to attend the rally?

who funded the rally? who fueled the rally? who spawned the terror and

threatened to burn down the city including Siriraj hospital?

which soldier fired the shot and how can they prove it?

how can someone that has no respect for Thai law or it's courts be using

them for his own personal gain at again the expense of the Kingdom?

disgusting what this government will allow in the name of personal gain and profit.

[DiamondKing]

where was the boy from and did he receive 500 baht to attend the rally?

who funded the rally? who fueled the rally? who spawned the terror and

threatened to burn down the city including Siriraj hospital?

which soldier fired the shot and how can they prove it?

how can someone that has no respect for Thai law or it's courts be using

them for his own personal gain at again the expense of the Kingdom?

disgusting what this government will allow in the name of personal gain and profit.

Some people just cannot read the thread can they and if they could they would know the story of the boy who was an orphan with learning disabilites and had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROTESTS just an inncent bystander GUNNED down by the Militarys barrage of fire at a Van and stray bullets killed the poor kid

Edited December 21, 2012 by DiamondKing

[catmac]

Since the i'in' crowd seems to be active and alert may I respectfully ask if the van driver had (has?) been apprehended. I mean, if he hadn't strayed in an area he shouldn't have been, the army wouldn't have needed to shoot and no innocent bystanders (not even those running out of the house to watch) would have been hurt.

Obviously the van driver caused two deaths in this instance. He needs to be charge with murder apart from driving in a prohibited area, speeding, broken right back light and fleeing the scene. Plus a ticket for parking at the wrong spot of course.

If only k. Thaksin had got his money back and not have it confiscated in the February, 2010 ruling

Glad to see the yellow-underpants brigade stooping to a new low. Making fun of the boy's death just about sums up the morality of your lot. Excuses, excuses and yet more excuses.....and if that doesn't work, blame the victims and denigrate the individual soldiers who were only obeying their orders! Wasn't your beloved AV overheard to say he wanted some red-shirts dead?

[cup-O-coffee]

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...

So, it is regrettable, but am I surprised?

The army had it under control, but where does a 14 years old boy fit into this picture? Does having an area under control include letting 14 year old boys meander in and out and around the zone?

I think the conclusion has merit, but I also wonder about the boy. I think about most Thai boys I have seen, and most of them are usually not where they are supposed to be, and their guardians or parents usually do not care.

I am not saying it is the boys fault to be shot in the back, because that is criminal, but I am not surprised at this.

So the question is, "What in Hell was this boy doing in this zone, and was he even aware at any time that he was in a situation where there were soldiers on alert and shouting warnings to clear the area?"

14 year old boys get killed a lot in Thailand it seems, yet the reasons (usually being idiotic) are ignored because they are "children" and that seems good enough to dismiss any further thought being bent towards logic and reason.

[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.

Dear gK, I only used the info in the OP which is very limited. You seem to have a better source. Could you please provide a pointer for it?

An enquiring mind and the internet? Probably the first try would be another online english language newspaper and onwards from there - why not try the dead kids name, but thats just me thinking.

[AleG]

A tragedy, no doubt, unfortunate end result of the Red Shirts leaders (visible and thinly veiled ones) strategy of causing as much mayhem as possible in order to destabilize the country and remove the Abhisit government.

Nobody should have died then, but the ghouls behind this have been feeding on those bodies ever since then.

Which is why it was little short of criminal to order them to shoot at will on unarmed civilians.

As to your earlier points, I have rarely read so many AV lovers squirming and twisting the facts, plus adding their own imagined "facts", in my life.

Imagined facts, as in your imagined fact that Abhisit ordered the army to shoot at will on unarmed civilians?

Glad to see the yellow-underpants brigade stooping to a new low. Making fun of the boy's death just about sums up the morality of your lot. Excuses, excuses and yet more excuses.....and if that doesn't work, blame the victims and denigrate the individual soldiers who were only obeying their orders! Wasn't your beloved AV overheard to say he wanted some red-shirts dead?

Or the doctored tape of Abhisit saying that?

You should get acquainted with what "fact" means.

[Artisi]

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.

Just love your use of lawful business, though I suppose red definition is a long way from what is considered the norm.

[Artisi]

Personally, I don't know if this little boy lived in the area or not. However, one has to ask why the army were in the area. Was it for ceremonial duties? Was it to help flooding as happened in 2011? Were they training for some future event? Such as crowd control? Surely that would be a police function. It sure is in my country.

Or were they there to move a rabble from the streets, a gang of armed idiots who had already cause deaths, destruction and fear? And who were intent on going much further in their efforts to achieve their aims. Aims which originally included a demand for new elections, to which Abhisit said OK. Flushed with success, they decided that this wasn't enough, and set about the dismantling of any vestige of normality in Bangkok.

Getting back to the little boy. If he lived in the area, then the red shirts brought their plague to his location and are thus responsible. If he came with the red shirts, they are equally responsible for his death. Let us look for the root causes of his untimely, sad demise, not only at the unhappy ending

Absolute, shameless nonsense.

The people who shot him are entirely responsible for their actions and ALL ( all the way up through the chain of command ) should be brought to court and have their day.

It is nonsense to imply it's his fault for being there, in the same way that it is equally stupid for our dutch uncle to assert that the kid died because of lack of some sort parental control....

He was shot by soldiers who were, or were not,under the full control of their officers, and if they were under the full control of their officers, then the officers too are accountable.

A full enquiry is needed and it looks like it is going to happen.

A first for Thailand that should be celebrated.

philw would you like to explain exactly why the soldiers were there? Read my 2 posts above and help me to understand why they were not in their nice warm beds

Explaining doesn't fit in with the red shirt lovers games being played out here.

[gerry1011]

Most people on this forum cannot reason anymore when it comes to this matter or the Thaksin subject in general.

Most of the comments, blindly supporting the yellows, Abhisit or the army, seem irrational...

Some people might say that these comments are just written by people who do not have the intellectual capabilities to analyze and comment on complex subjects... Could it be?

Even when a boy was shot in the back by the army, members on this forum will still find countless ways to put the blame on the reds, on the boy himself or his (inexistent) family, on Thaksin, on fate, on the stupidity of the demontrators ("This boy obviously run into the army's bullets while he knew very well he should have been at school"), ... T

They will always find an excuse to convince us that the army and the Abhisit government did a great job in dispersing these demonstrators, and that 90 deaths was totally reasonable taking into account the situation, ... and that, ... , euh, ... well if you don't agree, just shut up, ok?

If they could, they would even try to link the death of that boy (and all the others) to Chalerm or Yingluck.

They fully agree with the court decisions when it suits their version of the drama . They quickly praise the court when the reds are in trouble. They applaud the judges when the verdict is in favor of the yellows. But then, they come up with all sorts of speculation when the court favors the Thaksin camp and the reds. They, of course, close their eyes when the court is lenient in the yellow cases that started it all...

In this case, there were people injured and killed on both sides...

The funny thing is that as soon as the court will say that one soldier lost his nail while performing his duty to protect the citizens and restore order, most people here will say that Thaksin should be held responsible and thrown in jail for the rest of his life (together with his sister if possible).

[AleG]

Most people on this forum cannot reason anymore when it comes to this matter or the Thaksin subject in general.

Most of the comments, blindly supporting the yellows, Abhisit or the army, seem irrational...

Some people might say that these comments are just written by people who do not have the intellectual capabilities to analyze and comment on complex subjects... Could it be?

Even when a boy was shot in the back by the army, members on this forum will still find countless ways to put the blame on the reds, on the boy himself or his (inexistent) family, on Thaksin, on fate, on the stupidity of the demontrators ("This boy obviously run into the army's bullets while he knew very well he should have been at school"), ... T

They will always find an excuse to convince us that the army and the Abhisit government did a great job in dispersing these demonstrators, and that 90 deaths was totally reasonable taking into account the situation, ... and that, ... , euh, ... well if you don't agree, just shut up, ok?

If they could, they would even try to link the death of that boy (and all the others) to Chalerm or Yingluck.

They fully agree with the court decisions when it suits their version of the drama . They quickly praise the court when the reds are in trouble. They applaud the judges when the verdict is in favor of the yellows. But then, they come up with all sorts of speculation when the court favors the Thaksin camp and the reds. They, of course, close their eyes when the court is lenient in the yellow cases that started it all...

In this case, there were people injured and killed on both sides...

The funny thing is that as soon as the court will say that one soldier lost his nail while performing his duty to protect the citizens and restore order, most people here will say that Thaksin should be held responsible and thrown in jail for the rest of his life (together with his sister if possible).

Since the Red Shirts were the instigators of the violence the burden of guilt lies with them. No violent protest no deaths on the streets.

How many people were killed by the Army on the 2009 "protests" were there was no armed group within the Red Shirts shooting at security forces and civilians alike?

[mogy]

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 .

Proving the bullets came from an army weapon doesn't mean too much since most of those style weapons have been stolen from the army in the first place. The army are in the enviable position of either denying or confirming that the weapon was or was not previously stolen - as they wish probably without question. It is strange that a 14 year old boy was wandering around a war zone though. And how are they able to determine that the boy was or was not red or yellow ? what reporting !

[EarthAlien]

Surely it is a sad event when a 14 year old boy loses his life in a senseless civil uprising.

The question would arise as to whether the army were rightful in firing upon the vehicle in which he was traveling.

I can't imagine any off course vehicle happening to drive through a no-go live fire zone. It would seem that the driver knew that he was running the gauntlet and risking being fired upon.

That being the case,... what role did the boy's parents play in allowing him to be in that truck with such a driver traveling through a live fire zone?

At the end of the day the army riflemen could not have known that a 14 year old boy was inside the vehicle. I would imagine also that Mr Abhisit could not have had any prior knowledge of those facts either!

All of that said,...none of it matters to the witch hunters that are running this Kangaroo Court!