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

[Hugo6]

Slowly but surely the feeling of reconciliation and amnesty for all gets promoted. Except for k. Abhisit and Suthep of course

Here's what Red Shirts think of reconciliation with Abhisit, Suthep and the Democrats.

Peaceful non violent folks, I've been told.

live fire zones, snipers, a 6 day war on the people to "clear a protest".

if abhisit gets what he deseves then it might look like the top cover.

but you know it ll never come to that

a real shame, tho

[whybother]

I just "love" the way that you react to this boys death. Actually I don't, I abhor it.

You : Murder, no its just killing.

Killed by the army.

You : Doesn't mean that they meant it. Courts haven't even said it was unlawful.

Someone gave order to use live ammo.

You : Its OK for the Police to use live ammo, Who gets charged when they kill someone.

120,000 rounds used like a killing spree

You : 120,000 rounds over 10 weeks and only 80 odd dead, Thats not a killing spree

<deleted>!

I swear it's constant exposure to denial posts on here that turns you and others into desensitised individuals.

Read through your replies again and take a long hard look at yourself, there really is something not quite right there.

Just because someone died doesn't mean that you should throw common sense and logic out the window.

That just leads to lynch mobs.

or snipers used for crowd control

Or snipers used to deal with mobs attacking the army, away from any of the actual peaceful protesters.

[rubl]

I swear it's constant exposure to denial posts on here that turns you and others into desensitised individuals.

Read through your replies again and take a long hard look at yourself, there really is something not quite right there.

K. Jatuporn in his Ghandi T-shirt shouting "We'll fight to the last drop of our blood". There really is something not quite right here

[Scott]

Baiting and inflammatory post deleted as well as reply.

Confine your remarks to the topic and not to other posters.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

The issue is not abhisit, but whether the troops broke the rules of engagement. But the army will never be put on trial for their conduct

[rubl]

The courts have to establish who gave the orders and on paper that must be Abhisit. In reality it goes higher up the food chain. The question may be that when it is established that the PM gave the orders will he carry the can or implicate others. By following the chain of command from the officer in charge at the scene it is going to quite easy to establish where the original orders came from.

The orders don't necessarily lead to the unlawful death. The courts haven't even said it was an unlawful death.

In a country without a rule of law, courts are just political tools.

Is that a general observation, or do you want to apply this to the conclusion of the court mentioned in the topic here ?

[AleG]

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?

The issue is not abhisit, but whether the troops broke the rules of engagement. But the army will never be put on trial for their conduct

The sadly ironic thing is that it's Thaksin's PTP that, instead of pressing on finding who, when and how broke the ROE they rather slam each and every "attempted murder" on Abhisit and Suthep.

My!, it's as if they'd be more interested in political gain rather than truth and justice.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

The issue is not abhisit, but whether the troops broke the rules of engagement. But the army will never be put on trial for their conduct

The sadly ironic thing is that it's Thaksin's PTP that, instead of pressing on finding who, when and how broke the ROE they rather slam each and every "attempted murder" on Abhisit and Suthep.

My!, it's as if they'd be more interested in political gain rather than truth and justice.

This is about hanging a politician from ever involving the army in a domestic political dispute.

Abhisit will end up consigning the thai army from ever being legally capable of shooting its own people at the whim of a politician. He is the victim of a very clever honey trap that others got away with but no more.

[philw]

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?

The issue is not abhisit, but whether the troops broke the rules of engagement. But the army will never be put on trial for their conduct

The sadly ironic thing is that it's Thaksin's PTP that, instead of pressing on finding who, when and how broke the ROE they rather slam each and every "attempted murder" on Abhisit and Suthep.

My!, it's as if they'd be more interested in political gain rather than truth and justice.

This is about hanging a politician from ever involving the army in a domestic political dispute.

Abhisit will end up consigning the thai army from ever being legally capable of shooting its own people at the whim of a politician. He is the victim of a very clever honey trap that others got away with but no more.

Hope so.

[Hugo6]

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.

I have long regarded you as a troll, an internet warrior with nothing to do except promote hatred of the Democratic party and their leaders. However, I will be fair to you as you and your sort would change sides in a heartbeat if the Dems came to power.

A little clique, a coterie if you will, has sprung up, all baying for Abhisit's blood. As a group, you have managed to deny the existence of any aggressive behaviour in the Red Shirt camp, have chosen to ignore the fact that weapons were first used by the red shirt side, have been unable to explain the inability of the Royal Thai Police to do their job in the situation which existed in 2010 in Bangkok. Compared to how they handled the recent Pitak Siam Rally, it is obvious they were under orders to stay out of the rebellion. Whose orders they were are also very apparent, but you lot chose to ignore that also.

A troll can be regarded by some as a thorn in the flesh, or maybe just a little prick. I know where I think you belong

That bit in red is pure fiction. It just goes to show the intelligence of the opposition. Dems need military aid to get back in power

its also pure fiction that the protestors attacked the army first and that the police didnt do their job.

propaganda from the right which denies all the documented evidence available

[whybother]

The sadly ironic thing is that it's Thaksin's PTP that, instead of pressing on finding who, when and how broke the ROE they rather slam each and every "attempted murder" on Abhisit and Suthep.

My!, it's as if they'd be more interested in political gain rather than truth and justice.

This is about hanging a politician from ever involving the army in a domestic political dispute.

Abhisit will end up consigning the thai army from ever being legally capable of shooting its own people at the whim of a politician. He is the victim of a very clever honey trap that others got away with but no more.

In other countries they wouldn't involve the army. They have police armed better than the Thai army that would deal with armed protesters.

[whybother]

its also pure fiction that the protestors attacked the army first and that the police didnt do their job.

propaganda from the right which denies all the documented evidence available

Maybe you can point out when the army first attacked the protesters.

[Tatsujin]

I think I am right that Khun Abhisit is being charged under Article 288 of the Thai Criminal Code:

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

If that is the case, doesn't that then only apply to the actual person that committed the murder, i.e. the person that actually/physically did it, not the person who may or may not have ordered it?

I realize that the things may get lost in translation and that the interpretation of "laws" is very liberal here, but I would have thought he would have been charged with something else.

[whybother]

I think I am right that Khun Abhisit is being charged under Article 288 of the Thai Criminal Code:

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

If that is the case, doesn't that then only apply to the actual person that committed the murder, i.e. the person that actually/physically did it, not the person who may or may not have ordered it?

I realize that the things may get lost in translation and that the interpretation of "laws" is very liberal here, but I would have thought he would have been charged with something else.

They were charged under Articles 59, 83, 84 and 288 of the Criminal Code.

Article 59 prescribes criminal liability for intentional offences to achieve foreseen effects.

Article 83 relates to principal figures in regard to an offence, while Article 84 gives a definition of an instigator.

Article 288 outlines the penalty for murder, which ranges up to capital punishment from 15-20 years in prison.

Another article (170) is mentioned elsewhere which gives immunity to soldiers acting under orders.

I would question the "intention" to kill bystanders, and whether their were orders to kill bystanders.

[Tatsujin]

I think I am right that Khun Abhisit is being charged under Article 288 of the Thai Criminal Code:

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

If that is the case, doesn't that then only apply to the actual person that committed the murder, i.e. the person that actually/physically did it, not the person who may or may not have ordered it?

I realize that the things may get lost in translation and that the interpretation of "laws" is very liberal here, but I would have thought he would have been charged with something else.

They were charged under Articles 59, 83, 84 and 288 of the Criminal Code.

Article 59 prescribes criminal liability for intentional offences to achieve foreseen effects.

Article 83 relates to principal figures in regard to an offence, while Article 84 gives a definition of an instigator.

Article 288 outlines the penalty for murder, which ranges up to capital punishment from 15-20 years in prison.

http://www.thaivisa....al-mumbo-jumbo/

Another article (170) is mentioned elsewhere which gives immunity to soldiers acting under orders.

I would question the "intention" to kill bystanders, and whether their were orders to kill bystanders.

OK, thanks for the clarification of all the offences he is charged with.

So, he would need to be found guilty of #83/#84 first, before #188 would then apply. All of which (I believe) is moot because at the time these events occurred there was a legal SoE in effect which I believe absolves those involved of criminal prosecution.

[gatorsoft]

I think I am right that Khun Abhisit is being charged under Article 288 of the Thai Criminal Code:

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

If that is the case, doesn't that then only apply to the actual person that committed the murder, i.e. the person that actually/physically did it, not the person who may or may not have ordered it?

I realize that the things may get lost in translation and that the interpretation of "laws" is very liberal here, but I would have thought he would have been charged with something else.

It does seem that conspiracy to commit murder would be a more thoughful charge, but not being an expert in Thai law, I don't know how that shakes out in Thailand.

It seems, at this point, to be an undisputed fact that Abhisit and Suthep gave the order to allow live fire if deemed necessary. It also seems reasonable to expect the PM and his deputy would be familiar enough with the history and discipline of the RTA to recognize the order could result in innocent deaths. Based on those admittedly personal assumptions, I would think Abhisit and Suthep have some culpability. Unless the posters here think the courts are susceptible to political influence (a whole different argument for both sides), I would think they would welcome the chance to clarify the situation in court.

[gatorsoft]

I think I am right that Khun Abhisit is being charged under Article 288 of the Thai Criminal Code:

Section 288 Whoever, murdering the other person, shall be imprisoned by death or imprisoned as from fifteen years to twenty years.

If that is the case, doesn't that then only apply to the actual person that committed the murder, i.e. the person that actually/physically did it, not the person who may or may not have ordered it?

I realize that the things may get lost in translation and that the interpretation of "laws" is very liberal here, but I would have thought he would have been charged with something else.

They were charged under Articles 59, 83, 84 and 288 of the Criminal Code.

Article 59 prescribes criminal liability for intentional offences to achieve foreseen effects.

Article 83 relates to principal figures in regard to an offence, while Article 84 gives a definition of an instigator.

Article 288 outlines the penalty for murder, which ranges up to capital punishment from 15-20 years in prison.

http://www.thaivisa....al-mumbo-jumbo/

Another article (170) is mentioned elsewhere which gives immunity to soldiers acting under orders.

I would question the "intention" to kill bystanders, and whether their were orders to kill bystanders.

OK, thanks for the clarification of all the offences he is charged with.

So, he would need to be found guilty of #83/#84 first, before #188 would then apply. All of which (I believe) is moot because at the time these events occurred there was a legal SoE in effect which I believe absolves those involved of criminal prosecution.

Hmmm, kind of like article 309 for the coup-makers huh? I guess a declared state of emergency when the airport was under siege would have allowed the slaughter of PAD members without any consequences. That seems like giving a sitting government a little too much life and death power to me. Edited December 30, 2012 by gatorsoft

[whybother]

Hmmm, kind of like article 309 for the coup-makers huh? I guess a declared state of emergency when the airport was under siege would have allowed the slaughter of PAD members without any consequences. That seems like giving a sitting government a little too much life and death power to me.

That would be if the yellow shirts had guns and grenades being fired back at the authorities.

[gatorsoft]

Hmmm, kind of like article 309 for the coup-makers huh? I guess a declared state of emergency when the airport was under siege would have allowed the slaughter of PAD members without any consequences. That seems like giving a sitting government a little too much life and death power to me.

That would be if the yellow shirts had guns and grenades being fired back at the authorities.

Not really. The poster indicates that with a declared state of emergency (which the takeover of the airports should justify), the government pretty much gets a free pass in the legal sense. The moral issue is of course a whole different one.

[gatorsoft]

How many firing back at the authorities does it take to justify a free fire zone? If one PAD member (or an unknown party in the crowd) had taken a shot at the authorities, would opening fire be reasonable? There is compelling video evidence that unarmed persons were fired upon when it was "blatanly obvious" that they were not fighting back, simply scrambling for cover. I support the right of anyone to defend themsleves, but it sure seems like the shootings went well beyond that.

[Tatsujin]

Hmmm, kind of like article 309 for the coup-makers huh? I guess a declared state of emergency when the airport was under siege would have allowed the slaughter of PAD members without any consequences. That seems like giving a sitting government a little too much life and death power to me.

That would be if the yellow shirts had guns and grenades being fired back at the authorities.

Not really. The poster indicates that with a declared state of emergency (which the takeover of the airports should justify), the government pretty much gets a free pass in the legal sense. The moral issue is of course a whole different one.

There was an SoE in effect:

On the evening of 27 November, the government declared a state of emergency around the two occupied airports and ordered police to clear out PAD forces. The state of emergency allowed the military to ban public gatherings of more than five people. The Navy was assigned to aid police at Suvarnabhumi, while the Air Force was assigned to aid police at Don Muang. The Army's spokesman noted, "The army disagrees with using troops to resolve the problem. The army does not want to do that, and it is not appropriate to do that."

Shortly after the Constitutional Court dissolved the three parties of the government coalition on 2 December 2008, the PAD held a press conference where they announced that they were ending all of their protests as of 10 AM on 3 December 2008. "We have won a victory and achieved our aims," said Sondhi Limthongkul.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Tatsujin

[Tatsujin]

Not really. The poster indicates that with a declared state of emergency (which the takeover of the airports should justify), the government pretty much gets a free pass in the legal sense. The moral issue is of course a whole different one.

That's kind of what I was getting at . . . that under any SoE, the sitting Govt can do whatever they deem necessary to resolve a particular situation. That applies to both the red shirts and the yellow shirts equally (or any other colored shirts).

[Hugo6]

*Deleted quotes edited out*

credibility in the eyes of the posters around here ?

i m not terribly worried my "good man"

integrity and acknowledgement of the events as they actually happened is important and it is rarely displayed here - unfortunately. when the death of a 14 year old is finally determined to be the result of the army and a bunch of posters deride the boy, his non-existent parents, or in some other way express how he shouldnt have been in the line of fire in the first place, that is not acknowledging the reality of the war which the government waged for 6 days in may 2010 and if the government (of the day) is going to finally answer for that assault on the people of thailand - that unbelievable overblown use of military force by an unelected government deperate to cling to its undeserved power - then i say 'good, its about time'.

the boy was killed by the army. that has now been determined by the courts in thailand. its a tragedy that should never have happened

Edited December 30, 2012 by Scott

[whybother]

integrity and acknowledgement of the events as they actually happened is important and it is rarely displayed here - unfortunately. when the death of a 14 year old is finally determined to be the result of the army and a bunch of posters deride the boy, his non-existent parents, or in some other way express how he shouldnt have been in the line of fire in the first place, that is not acknowledging the reality of the war which the government waged for 6 days in may 2010 and if the government (of the day) is going to finally answer for that assault on the people of thailand - that unbelievable overblown use of military force by an unelected government deperate to cling to its undeserved power - then i say 'good, its about time'.

the boy was killed by the army. that has now been determined by the courts in thailand. its a tragedy that should never have happened

The tragedy should never have happened, but to lay the blame on the army and the elected government of the day ignores the fact that the protesters were armed with guns and grenades.

[gatorsoft]

integrity and acknowledgement of the events as they actually happened is important and it is rarely displayed here - unfortunately. when the death of a 14 year old is finally determined to be the result of the army and a bunch of posters deride the boy, his non-existent parents, or in some other way express how he shouldnt have been in the line of fire in the first place, that is not acknowledging the reality of the war which the government waged for 6 days in may 2010 and if the government (of the day) is going to finally answer for that assault on the people of thailand - that unbelievable overblown use of military force by an unelected government deperate to cling to its undeserved power - then i say 'good, its about time'.

the boy was killed by the army. that has now been determined by the courts in thailand. its a tragedy that should never have happened

The tragedy should never have happened, but to lay the blame on the army and the elected government of the day ignores the fact that the protesters were armed with guns and grenades.

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

[whybother]

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

What force should be used to deal with protesters with guns and grenades?

[ratcatcher]

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

What force should be used to deal with protesters with guns and grenades?

Apparently none according to these guys. The Red Shirts should have been allowed to occupy Bangkok for as long as they wanted and do whatever damage they chose. No matter what reaction the Democrat government under Abhisit chose, it would still be criticized as unreasonable force.

IMHO the whole episode was an unreasonable farce.

[Pimay1]

integrity and acknowledgement of the events as they actually happened is important and it is rarely displayed here - unfortunately. when the death of a 14 year old is finally determined to be the result of the army and a bunch of posters deride the boy, his non-existent parents, or in some other way express how he shouldnt have been in the line of fire in the first place, that is not acknowledging the reality of the war which the government waged for 6 days in may 2010 and if the government (of the day) is going to finally answer for that assault on the people of thailand - that unbelievable overblown use of military force by an unelected government deperate to cling to its undeserved power - then i say 'good, its about time'.

the boy was killed by the army. that has now been determined by the courts in thailand. its a tragedy that should never have happened

The tragedy should never have happened, but to lay the blame on the army and the elected government of the day ignores the fact that the protesters were armed with guns and grenades.

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

Evidently you have never been in the military and for sure 100% you have never been in combat.

[smutcakes]

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

What force should be used to deal with protesters with guns and grenades?

How many people did these armed protesters injure or kill? By the sounds of the rhetoric on here, there must have been literally hundreds of the gun and grenade wielding mercenaries. And that's not even counting the Ronin warriors who were military trained, I mean they must have killed literally hundreds of soldiers with their training, actually oh wait.......

[Pimay1]

It doesn't really ignore that fact at all. It suggests that unreasonable force was used and those who called for it should be held accountable.

What force should be used to deal with protesters with guns and grenades?

According to the peacenics on this board I suppose love and compassion should be used. "please stop shooting grenades at me I love you, give peace a chance brother. Lets sit down together and make some origami birds".