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.......

Is one death enough?

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.

And the Red Shirts were only dancing old lady´s?

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.

What a surprise, you have military experience. I look forward to the next economic thread where you claim you were a world acclaimed economist:)

I made no claims at all about myself my friend. I just simply made a statement.

A lot of off-topic and nonsensical, argumentative posts have been deleted.

Please stay on-topic.

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.

you will never stop apologizing for the government, the army and the results of their decisions.

the government and the army ARE responsible for what THEY do.

and in this case, it caused the deaths of many many people and among them, this 14 year old boy

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.

you will never stop apologizing for the government, the army and the results of their decisions.

the government and the army ARE responsible for what THEY do.

and in this case, it caused the deaths of many many people and among them, this 14 year old boy

And the others are totally innocent, peaceful protesters who only have the government to blame for their losses. I mean who else should one blame for ones own actions?

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.

you will never stop apologizing for the government, the army and the results of their decisions.

the government and the army ARE responsible for what THEY do.

and in this case, it caused the deaths of many many people and among them, this 14 year old boy

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Now as a (Rich) teacher you should be able to read and digest, interpret and understand. Nowhere does it say the boy was a protester or even armed. It just says if there had not been armed protesters there would have been no reason for Army personel to be armed while cleaning up a protest. I 'm still amazed when reading about 'gunfire exchange' when describing army personel urging 'peaceful protesters' to move along.

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Now as a (Rich) teacher you should be able to read and digest, interpret and understand. Nowhere does it say the boy was a protester or even armed. It just says if there had not been armed protesters there would have been no reason for Army personel to be armed while cleaning up a protest. I 'm still amazed when reading about 'gunfire exchange' when describing army personel urging 'peaceful protesters' to move along.

Yes, but no matter what Mr. Rubi, the army and consequently the government are responsible for shooting an unarmed child in the back.

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Now as a (Rich) teacher you should be able to read and digest, interpret and understand. Nowhere does it say the boy was a protester or even armed. It just says if there had not been armed protesters there would have been no reason for Army personel to be armed while cleaning up a protest. I 'm still amazed when reading about 'gunfire exchange' when describing army personel urging 'peaceful protesters' to move along.

Yes, but no matter what Mr. Rubi, the army and consequently the government are responsible for shooting an unarmed child in the back.

You make it sound like some soldier saw the boy, aimed and shot him in the back on purpose. Now that's the openmindedness I expect from a Rich teacher

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Did I say the boy was armed or a protester? That doesn't mean that the armed protesters don't have some responsiblity for his death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Did I say the boy was armed or a protester? That doesn't mean that the armed protesters don't have some responsiblity for his death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Not in a court of law it doesn't.

Just a reminder

2012-07-21:

""Department of Special Investigation officials told an inquest into the death of 44-year-old taxi driver Phan Khamkong in the same incident that Phan and Kunakorn were probably and unintentionally killed as they walked in the area by soldiers shooting at the van.""

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Where is it stated that the boy was armed or a protester?

"...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 boy was shot in the back"

Did I say the boy was armed or a protester? That doesn't mean that the armed protesters don't have some responsiblity for his death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Not in a court of law it doesn't.

Why not?

Sent from my HTC phone.

There were no reports of 'armed protesters' but instead a van "that had strayed into the area" "There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn (the judge in the taxi driver case) said. The van in question also had no sign of weapons.

"..Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets"

Sounds like an excessive and incompetent response by troops who weren't following the rules of engagement.

There were no reports of 'armed protesters' but instead a van "that had strayed into the area" "There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn (the judge in the taxi driver case) said. The van in question also had no sign of weapons.

"..Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets"

Sounds like an excessive and incompetent response by troops who weren't following the rules of engagement.

A van speeding towards an army checkpoint during protests where the protesters were armed with guns and grenades leads to the death of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily sound like excessive force. How do you stop a van speeding towards an army checkpoint?

It's interesting that you say they didn't follow the rules of engagement, since that would mean that would clearly mean that Abhisit and Suthep would not be charged for this death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

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.

you will never stop apologizing for the government, the army and the results of their decisions.

the government and the army ARE responsible for what THEY do.

and in this case, it caused the deaths of many many people and among them, this 14 year old boy

And you will never stop apologizing for armed protesters. If the protesters weren't armed, there would have been no reason for the army to be armed.

Sent from my HTC phone.

And you will never stop apologizing for a horrible and fatal lapse in judgement. As I have stated before, self defense was entirely justified, but the actions of the army went well beyond that. Soldiers being properly armed to defend themselves was absolutely justified. Soldiers shooting at unarmed victims scrambling for cover was not. The decision makers on both sides of the conflict should be held accountable, It can be proved that AV and Suthep were decision makers, Thaksin's role cannot be proved no matter how much you may think he was responsible. Facts and opinions are different things.

There were no reports of 'armed protesters' but instead a van "that had strayed into the area" "There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn (the judge in the taxi driver case) said. The van in question also had no sign of weapons.

"..Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets"

Sounds like an excessive and incompetent response by troops who weren't following the rules of engagement.

A van speeding towards an army checkpoint during protests where the protesters were armed with guns and grenades leads to the death of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily sound like excessive force. How do you stop a van speeding towards an army checkpoint?

It's interesting that you say they didn't follow the rules of engagement, since that would mean that would clearly mean that Abhisit and Suthep would not be charged for this death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

"the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home."

If it was such a crucial checkpoint why did they simply not erect barriers?

There were no reports of 'armed protesters' but instead a van "that had strayed into the area" "There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn (the judge in the taxi driver case) said. The van in question also had no sign of weapons.

"..Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets"

Sounds like an excessive and incompetent response by troops who weren't following the rules of engagement.

A van speeding towards an army checkpoint during protests where the protesters were armed with guns and grenades leads to the death of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily sound like excessive force. How do you stop a van speeding towards an army checkpoint?

It's interesting that you say they didn't follow the rules of engagement, since that would mean that would clearly mean that Abhisit and Suthep would not be charged for this death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

"the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home."

If it was such a crucial checkpoint why did they simply not erect barriers?

Where does it say it was a crucial checkpoint? It was a checkpoint. Even if the van was lost, why was it speeding towards a checkpoint? Do you speed towards police checkpoints?

Where does it say it was a crucial checkpoint? It was a checkpoint. Even if the van was lost, why was it speeding towards a checkpoint? Do you speed towards police checkpoints?

Is there any evidence of speeding or was this the army trying to cover up a complete cock-up? If it was not a 'crucial checkpoint' why did they have heavily armed troops there & why did those troops consider it necessary to defend it with a "hail of bullets"?

Why on earth did they not have the area cordoned off? On other occasions they have been pretty quick to use tanks to block intersections.

Where does it say it was a crucial checkpoint? It was a checkpoint. Even if the van was lost, why was it speeding towards a checkpoint? Do you speed towards police checkpoints?

Is there any evidence of speeding or was this the army trying to cover up a complete cock-up? If it was not a 'crucial checkpoint' why did they have heavily armed troops there & why did those troops consider it necessary to defend it with a "hail of bullets"?

They had armed troops there. Were they heavily armed? Why would they allow someone to speed through a checkpoint?

They had armed troops there. Were they heavily armed? Why would they allow someone to speed through a checkpoint?

How else do you explain a "hail of bullets" and a "volley of gunfire"?

I repeat; Why did they not simply cordon off out of bound areas?

They had armed troops there. Were they heavily armed? Why would they allow someone to speed through a checkpoint?

How else do you explain a "hail of bullets" and a "volley of gunfire"?

I repeat; Why did they not simply cordon off out of bound areas?

I explain a "hail of bullets" and a "volley of gunfire" with some soldiers with guns. It could be explained with a soldier with a gun.

What is a checkpoint if not a cordon?

They had armed troops there. Were they heavily armed? Why would they allow someone to speed through a checkpoint?

How else do you explain a "hail of bullets" and a "volley of gunfire"?

I repeat; Why did they not simply cordon off out of bound areas?

As usual you are twisting the facts and figures. The army had already been attacked and the troops were almost certainly edgy. They had been authorised (not ordered) to fire in self defense. They did. Someone got shot and died which is very sad but the nature of the situation.

As usual you are twisting the facts and figures. The army had already been attacked and the troops were almost certainly edgy. They had been authorised (not ordered) to fire in self defense. They did. Someone got shot and died which is very sad but the nature of the situation.

This is a pointless argument. Agree to disagree and wait for the court's decision.

As we know from Thaksin's land case, the court's will in no way show any political bias when adjudicating.

As usual you are twisting the facts and figures. The army had already been attacked and the troops were almost certainly edgy. They had been authorised (not ordered) to fire in self defense. They did. Someone got shot and died which is very sad but the nature of the situation.

This is a pointless argument. Agree to disagree and wait for the court's decision.

As we know from Thaksin's land case, the court's will in no way show any political bias when adjudicating.

The court just concluded it's inquest. Regarding this incident there have been no charges laid yet as far as I know.

BTW your baiting on Thaksin's land case and his bail jumping is totally off topic.

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.

you will never stop apologizing for the government, the army and the results of their decisions.

the government and the army ARE responsible for what THEY do.

and in this case, it caused the deaths of many many people and among them, this 14 year old boy

And the others are totally innocent, peaceful protesters who only have the government to blame for their losses. I mean who else should one blame for ones own actions?

I'll guess we'll find out when we get to their inquests won't we. As opposed to your suppositions when you couldn't possibly know the facts surrounding the fate of the other 87 deaths.

And the others are totally innocent, peaceful protesters who only have the government to blame for their losses. I mean who else should one blame for ones own actions?

I'll guess we'll find out when we get to their inquests won't we. As opposed to your suppositions when you couldn't possibly know the facts surrounding the fate of the other 87 deaths.

My dear mutt, that's your guess.

Only six hours and 45 minutes more to midnight. Please excuse me, time to walk to 7/11 to buy a beer

There were no reports of 'armed protesters' but instead a van "that had strayed into the area" "There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn (the judge in the taxi driver case) said. The van in question also had no sign of weapons.

"..Kunakorn was hit by a hail of bullets"

Sounds like an excessive and incompetent response by troops who weren't following the rules of engagement.

A van speeding towards an army checkpoint during protests where the protesters were armed with guns and grenades leads to the death of a bystander. That doesn't necessarily sound like excessive force. How do you stop a van speeding towards an army checkpoint?

It's interesting that you say they didn't follow the rules of engagement, since that would mean that would clearly mean that Abhisit and Suthep would not be charged for this death.

Sent from my HTC phone.

The only reference to a van speeding towards an army checkpoint has been yours.

Even the Nation has written that the van strayed into an area controlled by the army. Straying to me doesn't sound like speeding into an army checkpoint but nothing like a bit of embellishment to help.

I think I'd believe this version of events with triggerhappy soldiers given carte blanche to avoid any retrospectful investigation by two differing RoE's amending their story to suit. Remember the two snipers being given briefings during their "interviews" with the DSI?

As far as following the RoE it depends which version they were operating under. I believe the 2nd "looser" version was in place when this happened.

Forensic ballistics experts told the court that the bullet that killed Phan was the same as the ones used to shoot at the van, which the army has accepted firing at.

The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event.

Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb.

In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home.

"There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel," Jitakorn said.

http://www.thephuketnews.com/army-behind-thai-protest-death-inquest-33258.php