Injured 2010 Protesters Want Legal Action Against Former Key Govt Leaders: Thailand

[hellodolly]

I thought that those who accepted financial compensation from the government also had to sign not to sue the government?

Since when has a red shirt let legality get in the way of what they want?

[rubl]

Not only them , think about the families of 90 persons how has been killed of Abhisit and Suthep administration .

Are you including soldiers and civilians killed by red shirts guns and grenades in that?

Sent from my HTC phone.

I am sure I have pointed out before. soldiers were only killed in one incident. There as only been one investigation into that incident, like it or not and the evidence points to someone close by lobbying in a flash grenade and taking cover behind a military vehicle with the sole intent of upping the anti to justify shooting civillians. The army or the dems (sorry they the same thing) have had long enough to bring in their evidence to counter claim the Amsterdam case. The fact that they have failed to do so even for the grieving parents of the deceased soldiers clearly indicates they cannot refute the evidence provided by the red lawyer. Other than one pop up soldier copping one in the back of his head from his army colleague no others soldiers were killed during the unrest of 2010.

I hope me pointing this out stops you posting alike in another thread

The 'flash grenade' part is BS. Also saying 'just in one incident' is ignoring the strange situation of 'peaceful protesters' lobbing grenades. A 'few' more were lobbed afterwards, even uptill the 19th of May with a few soldiers and vanderGrift 'only' wounded, but not killed. Now that really explains and justifies things, doesn't it?

I hope me pointing this out for the uhmptheenth time will stop you from posting BS in this or other threads, but I doubt it.

[hellodolly]

Perhaps some of the families of the approximately 2500 people reportedly massacred in the Thaksin sponsored crack down on drug dealers and related characters, back in the early years of the last decade, will attempt to sue, for deaths incurred, the members of TRT and Thaksin and his family, drivers, gardeners and Uncle Tom Cobley and All.

Interesting point.

Why have they not done so ???

They should have redress within the legal system, so why have seemingly no complaints been filed ?

Its called double standards. It is OK for Thaksin after all he is the great savior of Thailand.

[15Peter20]

Not only them , think about the families of 90 persons how has been killed of Abhisit and Suthep administration .

Are you including soldiers and civilians killed by red shirts guns and grenades in that?

Sent from my HTC phone.

I am sure I have pointed out before. soldiers were only killed in one incident. There as only been one investigation into that incident, like it or not and the evidence points to someone close by lobbying in a flash grenade and taking cover behind a military vehicle with the sole intent of upping the anti to justify shooting civillians. The army or the dems (sorry they the same thing) have had long enough to bring in their evidence to counter claim the Amsterdam case. The fact that they have failed to do so even for the grieving parents of the deceased soldiers clearly indicates they cannot refute the evidence provided by the red lawyer. Other than one pop up soldier copping one in the back of his head from his army colleague no others soldiers were killed during the unrest of 2010.

I hope me pointing this out stops you posting alike in another thread

The 'flash grenade' part is BS. Also saying 'just in one incident' is ignoring the strange situation of 'peaceful protesters' lobbing grenades. A 'few' more were lobbed afterwards, even uptill the 19th of May with a few soldiers and vanderGrift 'only' wounded, but not killed. Now that really explains and justifies things, doesn't it?

I hope me pointing this out for the uhmptheenth time will stop you from posting BS in this or other threads, but I doubt it.

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

[OzMick]

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

One case of a soldier NOT being killed was when he and 3 (?) companions refused to shoot or run over protesters. They were dragged from their truck without resistance and were in the process of being beaten until one was shot while on the ground with what seemed to be a handgun. Has the red shirt ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest the peaceful nature of the unarmed protesters? Some will never know even when it is clear as day.

[rubl]

The 'flash grenade' part is BS. Also saying 'just in one incident' is ignoring the strange situation of 'peaceful protesters' lobbing grenades. A 'few' more were lobbed afterwards, even uptill the 19th of May with a few soldiers and vanderGrift 'only' wounded, but not killed. Now that really explains and justifies things, doesn't it?

I hope me pointing this out for the uhmptheenth time will stop you from posting BS in this or other threads, but I doubt it.

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

The case of 'friendly fire', very unfortunate, similar to the case of the 'running out of house to see what's happening'. Somewhat different from the cases of 'peaceful protesters with militants mingling', or just the casual 'democratically grenade lobbing group of peaceful protesters'. One should really make an efford to distinguish between these various groups and factions

Still that doesn't explain why some think they should seek legal action against former key Govt. leaders rather than their legal successors. Unless it's the example set by the DSI of course. Mind you, those who accepted millions in compensation were supposed to sign not to sue the current government

[waza]

Perhap Abhisist should take a leaf out of Thaksins book and sue this group for defamation.

PS: Peacefull redshirt protestors in action....

Edited December 27, 2012 by waza

[lemoncake]

To be honest, I am rather baffled that PAD has not filed any similar claims.

Actually PAD has been really quite lately, is there something bigger being boiled or there has to be something being orchestrated behind closed doors

[backtonormal]

Not only them , think about the families of 90 persons how has been killed of Abhisit and Suthep administration .

Are you including soldiers and civilians killed by red shirts guns and grenades in that?

Sent from my HTC phone.

I am sure I have pointed out before. soldiers were only killed in one incident. There as only been one investigation into that incident, like it or not and the evidence points to someone close by lobbying in a flash grenade and taking cover behind a military vehicle with the sole intent of upping the anti to justify shooting civillians. The army or the dems (sorry they the same thing) have had long enough to bring in their evidence to counter claim the Amsterdam case. The fact that they have failed to do so even for the grieving parents of the deceased soldiers clearly indicates they cannot refute the evidence provided by the red lawyer. Other than one pop up soldier copping one in the back of his head from his army colleague no others soldiers were killed during the unrest of 2010.

I hope me pointing this out stops you posting alike in another thread

The 'flash grenade' part is BS. Also saying 'just in one incident' is ignoring the strange situation of 'peaceful protesters' lobbing grenades. A 'few' more were lobbed afterwards, even uptill the 19th of May with a few soldiers and vanderGrift 'only' wounded, but not killed. Now that really explains and justifies things, doesn't it?

I hope me pointing this out for the uhmptheenth time will stop you from posting BS in this or other threads, but I doubt it.

Today the DSI is on the verge of issuing 3 arrests warrants in connection with the incident. So I am waiting to be corrected. Are you that confident it was rocket propelled or are you just singing from the same hymn sheet

Can you explain why the flash grenade bit is BS

Edited December 28, 2012 by backtonormal

[OzMick]

Today the DSI is on the verge of issuing 3 arrests warrants in connection with the incident. So I am waiting to be corrected. Are you that confident it was rocket propelled or are you just singing from the same hymn sheet

Can you explain why the flash grenade bit is BS

"A stun grenade, also known as a flash grenade or flashbang, is a non-lethal explosive device used to temporarily disorient an enemy's senses."

BS - nothing unusual,in fact normal.

Edited December 28, 2012 by OzMick

[Skywalker69]

I thought that those who accepted financial compensation from the government also had to sign not to sue the government?

Perhaps you read that on here and thought it was the truth. That sort of thing goes on a lot here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16500472

[muttley]

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

One case of a soldier NOT being killed was when he and 3 (?) companions refused to shoot or run over protesters. They were dragged from their truck without resistance and were in the process of being beaten until one was shot while on the ground with what seemed to be a handgun. Has the red shirt ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest the peaceful nature of the unarmed protesters? Some will never know even when it is clear as day.

You've repeated this story on a number of occasions but I can only understand the reason for the "?'s". Would you like to share with us the details of this apochryphal tale?

[Skywalker69]

I wonder what these people were doing at the time that they got injured.

Perhaps they were unarmed, peaceable demonstrators who were unjustifiably shot.

Let's have an enquiry and a full investigation to find out.

That would the reasonable course, would it not ??

Thank you for your innuendo.

Given that most of the people killed and injured after April 10 were attacking the army behind tyres outside the petrol soaked barricades, they were probably not "peaceable demonstrators".

Sent from my HTC phone.

But there is such a big difference between being a "non peaceful demonstrator" by carrying a catapult and maybe even using it and being justifiably shot and killed for doing so - to my , what I think is reasonable, mind.

Some if not most of the posters on here think that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot and kill such protesters.

Personally I want nothing to do with them.

[muttley]

But there is such a big difference between being a "non peaceful demonstrator" by carrying a catapult and maybe even using it and being justifiably shot and killed for doing so - to my , what I think is reasonable, mind.

Some if not most of the posters on here think that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot and kill such protesters.

Personally I want nothing to do with them.

video snipped

You seem to have a lot to say for yourself - who are you, the C & P Poster? What I am I supposed to interact with?

So far you have given me a link to a BBC site that says nothing about not suing the government whilst being paid from a fund that was recommended by the " official Truth for Reconciliation Commission" which was set up by Abhisit.

An unrelated video showing red shirts with others trying to stop them "roughing up" an army guy, then presumably a shot, which must have miraculously hit only the army guy as he was surrounded by red shirts and they aren't armed, so who is? Then we see the army guy being looked after by these same red shirts who call for an ambulance and put him in it. Hardly the action of the perpretrators is it?

So just what was your point?

Edited December 28, 2012 by craigt3365
Do not alter another member's post when replying.

[OzMick]

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

One case of a soldier NOT being killed was when he and 3 (?) companions refused to shoot or run over protesters. They were dragged from their truck without resistance and were in the process of being beaten until one was shot while on the ground with what seemed to be a handgun. Has the red shirt ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest the peaceful nature of the unarmed protesters? Some will never know even when it is clear as day.

You've repeated this story on a number of occasions but I can only understand the reason for the "?'s". Would you like to share with us the details of this apochryphal tale?

Nothing mysterious, a widely shown video at the time of a military truck surrounded by red protesters, 2 soldiers in the back and a driver (possibly another) in the cab. They refused to fire upon (those in the back had M16s) or drive over/through the crowd, whereupon they were pulled out of the vehicle and attacked. One of the soldiers while on the ground and surrounded by reds was shot. Most fled, some stayed to render assistance. it was thought at the time that he had died, but later news that he survived. A clear case of attempted murder.

i don't have a link at hand, but if you insist I'm sure someone on TVF will.

[OzMick]

But there is such a big difference between being a "non peaceful demonstrator" by carrying a catapult and maybe even using it and being justifiably shot and killed for doing so - to my , what I think is reasonable, mind.

Some if not most of the posters on here think that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot and kill such protesters.

Personally I want nothing to do with them.

unrelated video snipped

You seem to have a lot to say for yourself - who are you, the C & P Poster? What I am I supposed to interact with?

So far you have given me a link to a BBC site that says nothing about not suing the government whilst being paid from a fund that was recommended by the " official Truth for Reconciliation Commission" which was set up by Abhisit.

An unrelated video showing red shirts with others trying to stop them "roughing up" an army guy, then presumably a shot, which must have miraculously hit only the army guy as he was surrounded by red shirts and they aren't armed, so who is? Then we see the army guy being looked after by these same red shirts who call for an ambulance and put him in it. Hardly the action of the perpretrators is it?

So just what was your point?

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

[longway]

A couple of pics of peaceful committed democracy activists who's sole motive in being in rajaprasong was to bring democracy and justice to thailand and nothing to do with getting a bit of money to fight and drinking as much lao khao they could get their hands on.

One of the dreaded black shirts, armed as well.

Edited December 28, 2012 by longway

[gatorsoft]

But there is such a big difference between being a "non peaceful demonstrator" by carrying a catapult and maybe even using it and being justifiably shot and killed for doing so - to my , what I think is reasonable, mind.

Some if not most of the posters on here think that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot and kill such protesters.

Personally I want nothing to do with them.

unrelated video snipped

You seem to have a lot to say for yourself - who are you, the C & P Poster? What I am I supposed to interact with?

So far you have given me a link to a BBC site that says nothing about not suing the government whilst being paid from a fund that was recommended by the " official Truth for Reconciliation Commission" which was set up by Abhisit.

An unrelated video showing red shirts with others trying to stop them "roughing up" an army guy, then presumably a shot, which must have miraculously hit only the army guy as he was surrounded by red shirts and they aren't armed, so who is? Then we see the army guy being looked after by these same red shirts who call for an ambulance and put him in it. Hardly the action of the perpretrators is it?

So just what was your point?

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

And apparently you were there to confirm that they were armed and saw who fired the shot? Shouldn't you be bringing your evidence to the attention of the authorities? The whole world saw unarmed protesters desperately running for cover gunned down by soldiers. Fighting back and self-defense is justified, what the world saw was essentially state-sanctioned murder. But I'm sure your blinders prevented you from seeing any of that.

[muttley]

One other case of a soldier being killed was of course when a soldier on a motorbike riding back towards his own colleagues was shot dead. He was widely reported to have been shot by one of his own. Has the person who pulled the trigger ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest an over-eagerness to shoot by a Thai soldier? I guess we'll never know.

One case of a soldier NOT being killed was when he and 3 (?) companions refused to shoot or run over protesters. They were dragged from their truck without resistance and were in the process of being beaten until one was shot while on the ground with what seemed to be a handgun. Has the red shirt ever been identified or investigated? Does it suggest the peaceful nature of the unarmed protesters? Some will never know even when it is clear as day.

You've repeated this story on a number of occasions but I can only understand the reason for the "?'s". Would you like to share with us the details of this apochryphal tale?

Nothing mysterious, a widely shown video at the time of a military truck surrounded by red protesters, 2 soldiers in the back and a driver (possibly another) in the cab. They refused to fire upon (those in the back had M16s) or drive over/through the crowd, whereupon they were pulled out of the vehicle and attacked. One of the soldiers while on the ground and surrounded by reds was shot. Most fled, some stayed to render assistance. it was thought at the time that he had died, but later news that he survived. A clear case of attempted murder.

i don't have a link at hand, but if you insist I'm sure someone on TVF will.

Oh thats what was happening on the video shown here. Isn't refusing to fire at unarmed protesters and refusing to drive through them or over them normal driving practice for the Army or did they make a remarkable show of reluctance to do so on this occasion only? How were you made aware that this was the situation? Likewise the info about the soldier who died but survived?

One of the army guys had a gun which he rightly refused to handover - I take it you would find this a normal situation to shoot the protesters at this point? We hear a bang on the tape and you conclude he has been shot. A clear case of attempted murder - I think I'll leave that incident for the courts to sort out.

Edited December 28, 2012 by muttley

[longway]

Dtaa sawang in the eyes of some, terrorists in the eyes of others.

[OzMick]

Oh thats what was happening on the video shown here. Isn't refusing to fire at unarmed protesters and refusing to drive through them or over them normal driving practice for the Army or did they make a remarkable show of reluctance to do so on this occasion only?

One of the army guys had a gun which he rightly refused to handover - I take it you would find this a normal situation to shoot the protesters at this point? We hear a bang on the tape and you conclude he has been shot. I think I'll leave that incident for the courts to sort out.

I "conclude" nothing of the sort. It was widely reported initially that he had be shot and died, later corrected to shot and survived.

Is it normal for protesters to disarm and assault security forces? Certainly it would be SOP to resist, to fire warning shots at least. Just when do "peaceful protesters" turn into rioters?

[muttley]

But there is such a big difference between being a "non peaceful demonstrator" by carrying a catapult and maybe even using it and being justifiably shot and killed for doing so - to my , what I think is reasonable, mind.

Some if not most of the posters on here think that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot and kill such protesters.

Personally I want nothing to do with them.

unrelated video snipped

You seem to have a lot to say for yourself - who are you, the C & P Poster? What I am I supposed to interact with?

So far you have given me a link to a BBC site that says nothing about not suing the government whilst being paid from a fund that was recommended by the " official Truth for Reconciliation Commission" which was set up by Abhisit.

An unrelated video showing red shirts with others trying to stop them "roughing up" an army guy, then presumably a shot, which must have miraculously hit only the army guy as he was surrounded by red shirts and they aren't armed, so who is? Then we see the army guy being looked after by these same red shirts who call for an ambulance and put him in it. Hardly the action of the perpretrators is it?

So just what was your point?

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

[craigt3365]

Muttley: Please DO NOT alter a member's post when replying. It is a violation of forum rules. Further violations will result in an official warning.

[OzMick]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

[Skywalker69]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

OzMick don´t bother, he is trolling, Wonder what his nic was before he got banned.

[waza]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

This soldier was shot with his own rifle after a redshirt took it off him. Here is video evidence of redshirt violence towards the security forces and yet no charges. Is it any wonder that free fire zones were set up to keep the 2 sides apart.

Edited December 28, 2012 by waza

[gatorsoft]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

Where I come from it is said that accused is innocent until proven guilty. That said, the actions of the protesters certainly appear appalling whether they fired a shot or not. It does seem like an unprovoked attack on someone trying to be peaceful. However, without the context of events that led up to this, that is only speculation. I'm glad that some of the protesters did the right thing and tried to help the fallen soldier, just showing once again that nothing is strictly black and white, us and them.

[gatorsoft]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

This soldier was shot with his own rifle after a redshirt took it off him. Here is video evidence of redshirt violence towards the security forces and yet no charges. Is it any wonder that free fire zones were set up to keep the 2 sides apart.

Just how did you come onto this information that you present as fact? (That he was shot by his own rifle after a redshirt took it off him) Are you sure he even had a rifle? Could he have been in the cab and armed only with a sidearm? The video did not seem that conclusive.

[muttley]

.

Oh thats what was happening on the video shown here. Isn't refusing to fire at unarmed protesters and refusing to drive through them or over them normal driving practice for the Army or did they make a remarkable show of reluctance to do so on this occasion only?

One of the army guys had a gun which he rightly refused to handover - I take it you would find this a normal situation to shoot the protesters at this point? We hear a bang on the tape and you conclude he has been shot. I think I'll leave that incident for the courts to sort out.

I "conclude" nothing of the sort. It was widely reported initially that he had be shot and died, later corrected to shot and survived.

Is it normal for protesters to disarm and assault security forces? Certainly it would be SOP to resist, to fire warning shots at least. Just when do "peaceful protesters" turn into rioters?

I would agree with you on the warning shots. Unfortunately what we don't get is what happened before we get to the beginning of the video. I wonder why. Perhaps said lorry did try to ride through protesters , who knows. The scenes I saw on that video were not rioting in the sense that I know the word.

It was widely reported that the troops were not carrying live ammunition and either the red shirts were killing each other or running into bullets but did you believe that as well?

Strange that even now these concepts are still being believed by some on this board e.g it turns out that the taxi driver killed whilst "running out" of a doorway was actually standing still video taping the soldiers at the barricade, yet the "running man" and "van crashing through barricades" b/s still has its proponents on this forum

[muttley]

"they weren't armed" ? On what do you base that BS? Did you personally search each and every one? Did you not notice MOST fled the scene, leaving others, obviously dismayed, to render assistance?

What were they secreting arms wise? - but I can see your mindset and why you think its perfectly OK to shoot people that look unarmed but may be concealing a Karl Gustav down their trouser leg. Look at the video. I'll wait for some proper evidence, thankyou and not the musings of an armchair general.

<deleted>? There is a soldier lying on the ground with a bullet in him, do you think it appeared there by miracle?

I did NOT state that it appropriate to shoot seemingly unarmed people, but it is also not the role of peaceful protesters to assault and disarm security officers that are offering no threat to them.

Can you not understand that those actions are serious criminal offences, which yes, may lead to those people being shot.

I'll await the proper evidence.