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

[rubl]

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.

.. rest removed

The inquest into the death of the taxi driver who was killed in the same 'van' incident:

2012-09-17

"According to witnesses, Mr Pan ran out of a condominium near the Airport Rail Link Rajprarob station on May 15, 2010, to see the army’s action when a van was stopped by the army for fear it might be loaded with bombs. The authorities reportedly opened fire at the van when its driver, identified as Samorn Maithong, failed to stop."

http://tna.mcot.net/...b01da885800001b

2012-09-18

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri, adding the troops were on duty and following orders at the time."

http://www.scmp.com/...ead-troops-2010

2012-09-18

"Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop. Soldiers, fearing a potential car bomb, opened fire.

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

http://www.nationmul...t-30190600.html

A van in a restricted area causing two people to loose their life. Why didn't the driver stop? Did he think he was ambushed by MiB? Why do we not have more details on the route the van driver took? Any confirmation he really had dropped of guests at a hotel?

Further info may not help the two who died, but helps us to understand how it could come to this. Mind you, the taxi-driver might have earned a posthumous nomination for a Darwin award

Edited December 31, 2012 by rubl

[gatorsoft]

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.

Since there was no mention of bail jumping, I'd say you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing.

[rubl]

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.

Since there was no mention of bail jumping, I'd say you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing.

One might say I added the 'bail jumping' to emphasize the 'off topic' bit

Edited December 31, 2012 by rubl

[Scott]

One post deleted. Please stay on topic.

[seajae]

this may be too simple for some to understand but when you have red shirts declaring they going to burn down Bangkok and shoot soldiers etc then there are "do not enter" areas marked out so this cannot happen then obviously anyone/thing entering these areas will be shot at. This is what happens in areas declared off limits with live fire to back it up, when the van entered the area the army fired on what they assumed was a possible terrorist(red shirt) threat due to these areas being declared, they had the right to lay down fire to stop the van, there was also a curfew in place so anyone in the street at the time was responsible for anything that happened to them including being hit by bullets. This is just common sense, politics does not come into it, a cufew was in place, no go areas were declared, anyone breaking these were themselves at fault, no one else. I suggest those trying to accuse the govt realize that these regulations were legal if they were declared by the govt so they are not responsible for what happened, those that caused the regulations to be made are, the red shirts that threatened the city.

Edited January 2, 2013 by metisdead
: Bold font removed.

[muttley]

this may be too simple for some to understand but when you have red shirts declaring they going to burn down Bangkok and shoot soldiers etc then there are "do not enter" areas marked out so this cannot happen then obviously anyone/thing entering these areas will be shot at. This is what happens in areas declared off limits with live fire to back it up, when the van entered the area the army fired on what they assumed was a possible terrorist(red shirt) threat due to these areas being declared, they had the right to lay down fire to stop the van, there was also a curfew in place so anyone in the street at the time was responsible for anything that happened to them including being hit by bullets. This is just common sense, politics does not come into it, a cufew was in place, no go areas were declared, anyone breaking these were themselves at fault, no one else. I suggest those trying to accuse the govt realize that these regulations were legal if they were declared by the govt so they are not responsible for what happened, those that caused the regulations to be made are, the red shirts that threatened the city.

Oh, OK, thats what happened. Don't know why they bother having inquests when it's that simple.

[seajae]

this may be too simple for some to understand but when you have red shirts declaring they going to burn down Bangkok and shoot soldiers etc then there are "do not enter" areas marked out so this cannot happen then obviously anyone/thing entering these areas will be shot at. This is what happens in areas declared off limits with live fire to back it up, when the van entered the area the army fired on what they assumed was a possible terrorist(red shirt) threat due to these areas being declared, they had the right to lay down fire to stop the van, there was also a curfew in place so anyone in the street at the time was responsible for anything that happened to them including being hit by bullets. This is just common sense, politics does not come into it, a cufew was in place, no go areas were declared, anyone breaking these were themselves at fault, no one else. I suggest those trying to accuse the govt realize that these regulations were legal if they were declared by the govt so they are not responsible for what happened, those that caused the regulations to be made are, the red shirts that threatened the city.

Oh, OK, thats what happened. Don't know why they bother having inquests when it's that simple.

well those are the facts that have been reported, in reality this is simply a stitch up by thaksins goons. Instead of trying to put personal bias into it look at the facts, the area was declared to be a live fire area, there was a curfew in place, anyone breaking either of these was obviously inviting trouble on themselves. The van driver went into the area and was fired on, 2 people decided to ignore the curfew and were killed during the exchange of fire, bad aiming by the army but they were in a position to legally fire on the van. All the courts re doing is thaksins bidding to cause problems, you want to blame someone, blame the idiots that set the red shirts in motion and called for them to terrorize Bangkok, thats who started this and should be held responsible. Protecting Bangkok from these idiots needed to be done or do you think threatening violence/death deserves a pat on the back.

[koosdeboer]

this may be too simple for some to understand but when you have red shirts declaring they going to burn down Bangkok and shoot soldiers etc then there are "do not enter" areas marked out so this cannot happen then obviously anyone/thing entering these areas will be shot at. This is what happens in areas declared off limits with live fire to back it up, when the van entered the area the army fired on what they assumed was a possible terrorist(red shirt) threat due to these areas being declared, they had the right to lay down fire to stop the van, there was also a curfew in place so anyone in the street at the time was responsible for anything that happened to them including being hit by bullets. This is just common sense, politics does not come into it, a cufew was in place, no go areas were declared, anyone breaking these were themselves at fault, no one else. I suggest those trying to accuse the govt realize that these regulations were legal if they were declared by the govt so they are not responsible for what happened, those that caused the regulations to be made are, the red shirts that threatened the city.

Oh, OK, thats what happened. Don't know why they bother having inquests when it's that simple.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect App

Dear muttley, please watch this video of Michael Jon. If you still insist that there was no violence from the red side and that abhisit is a murderer than there's something wrong with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbOrK5CPuew&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[nurofiend]

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?

where are you getting the source for the van speeding?

let me guess, the army? the nation?

what about witnesses?

genuine question that i want to know the answer to.