Van driver injured by 2010 crackdown wants to confront Abhisit

[Tatsujin]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Shot on sight?

Where did you get those rules of engagement from?

Suthep said that he believes this to be in line with international best practice, you see he has never heard of Water Cannon, Tear Gas or Rubber bullets. The RTA found it much easier to shoot innocent protesters sheltering in a temple than to control the Southern Terrorists.

Less lethal methods were employed earlier in the conflict if you remember, it resulted in further grenade attacks, storming of buildings, etc etc. They had plenty of time to disperse peacefully, they chose not to.

[Tatsujin]

Did he receive a verbal or visual warning from the soldiers before they opened fire? Was the area signed as a no entry area? Were there warnings on tv and/or the radio about not entering the area? If the answer was yes to any of the above, did he ignore the warnings? Was he unaware of the warnings? If he chose to ignore any warnings, then he has no recourse, if the area was not signed, or otherwise advertised, then he can claim ignorance.

If I remember correctly, this was at a time that tensions were running very high, and the soldiers feared for their lives. The driver (I believe) was warned and refused to stop.

[Tatsujin]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Shot on sight?

Where did you get those rules of engagement from?

Copy and paste and Google it.

Well that puts abhisit a little under the cosh doesn't it? Who ordered that?

If it's true, then the truth will come out, maybe. Personally I think the Army supported this stance from a lot earlier on in the conflict and Abhisit resisted it until this point. When or if the real truth comes out, we'll all be better informed, but I doubt that the actual RoE's made at that time will ever come to light.

[Tatsujin]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Shot on sight?

Where did you get those rules of engagement from?

Copy and paste and Google it.

Well that puts abhisit a little under the cosh doesn't it? Who ordered that?

If it's true, then the truth will come out, maybe. Personally I think the Army supported this stance from a lot earlier on in the conflict and Abhisit resisted it until this point. When or if the real truth comes out, we'll all be better informed, but I doubt that the actual RoE's made at that time will ever come to light.

I don't think shoot on sight orders were ever issued, were they?

I obviously don't personally have that information in any verifiable form that will satisfy the TV pundits, but:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/15/redshirts-warn-civil-war-thai-troops

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm

Troops have erected signs at Ratchaprarop Road, on the northern edge of the redshirts' camp, warning, in Thai and English: "No Entry, Restricted Area. Live Firing Zone".

Edited June 26, 2013 by Tatsujin

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's not quite the same as shoot on sight is it.

[unanimosity]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

[Thai at Heart]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

[unanimosity]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Shot on sight?

Where did you get those rules of engagement from?

Copy and paste and Google it.

Well that puts abhisit a little under the cosh doesn't it? Who ordered that?

If it's true, then the truth will come out, maybe. Personally I think the Army supported this stance from a lot earlier on in the conflict and Abhisit resisted it until this point. When or if the real truth comes out, we'll all be better informed, but I doubt that the actual RoE's made at that time will ever come to light.

I don't think shoot on sight orders were ever issued, were they?

The signs said live fire zone. If the signs said no parking it would mean ticket on sight. What is the difference?

[gemini81]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Is that what is supposed to happen in a free Country and a free World?

A city under siege by thugs, burning, looting, ...is that supposed to happen in a free world? With freedom comes responsibility, diplomacy.

[unanimosity]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

Your access to information is impressive and no doubt documented. However, this is news to some that only citizens that disobeyed an order to stop were shot and in some cases survived, in other cases killed. Survivng family members of 90 murdered victims may wish to debate that disobedience was responsible for their loved ones murders. What country of origin and state of mind do you call rational for advocating deadly force for a checkpoint violator when so many other options exist?

[Thai at Heart]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

Your access to information is impressive and no doubt documented. However, this is news to some that only citizens that disobeyed an order to stop were shot and in some cases survived, in other cases killed. Survivng family members of 90 murdered victims may wish to debate that disobedience was responsible for their loved ones murders. What country of origin and state of mind do you call rational for advocating deadly force for a checkpoint violator when so many other options exist?

That's not the point is it though.

I didn't say I agreed with the way the army did anything. However, signs were up everywhere, everyone knew the situation.

He's very unfortunate, and it's tragic that anyone died. But, of there is a SOE in effect, and you are ordered to stop, what would you do? Keep going?

I wouldn't even try to run a police stop in Thailand, people have been shot doing that.

Everyone was very well warned.

[Tatsujin]

Well that's not quite the same as shoot on sight is it.

A Google will find the references to shoot on sight. I can't of course verify their accuracy. I do remember MANY warnings on TV and other media however at that time warning the protestors about this self-same thing.

[gemini81]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

Your access to information is impressive and no doubt documented. However, this is news to some that only citizens that disobeyed an order to stop were shot and in some cases survived, in other cases killed. Survivng family members of 90 murdered victims may wish to debate that disobedience was responsible for their loved ones murders. What country of origin and state of mind do you call rational for advocating deadly force for a checkpoint violator when so many other options exist?

other options? the hoses, tear gases, diplomacy, talks, warnings all failed. There were tons of attacks from BTS ratchadamri to wiphawadee, victory monument by these fools...What else was there to do when they were being killed and attacked by rogues, thugs and bums who took their equipment?

This particular guy had to have known the precariousness of the situation. To walk into the zone or anywhere near it is asking for trouble.

Edited June 26, 2013 by gemini81

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's not quite the same as shoot on sight is it.

A Google will find the references to shoot on sight. I can't of course verify their accuracy. I do remember MANY warnings on TV and other media however at that time warning the protestors about this self-same thing.

The issue is whether the soldiers were ordered to shoot anyone and everyone on sight?

[Tatsujin]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

Your access to information is impressive and no doubt documented. However, this is news to some that only citizens that disobeyed an order to stop were shot and in some cases survived, in other cases killed. Survivng family members of 90 murdered victims may wish to debate that disobedience was responsible for their loved ones murders. What country of origin and state of mind do you call rational for advocating deadly force for a checkpoint violator when so many other options exist?

We're not discussing other cases, we're discussing this one where the driver entered an area that was restricted, was warned to stop, and didn't.

[Tatsujin]

Well that's not quite the same as shoot on sight is it.

A Google will find the references to shoot on sight. I can't of course verify their accuracy. I do remember MANY warnings on TV and other media however at that time warning the protestors about this self-same thing.

The issue is whether the soldiers were ordered to shoot anyone and everyone on sight?

Guess we'll have to wait for Abhisit and Suthep's testimony then won't we. The Army has already been absolved of all guilt and given a free pass. I would "guess" however, that under the SoE, it's pretty much a "do what needs to be done" to regain control type of situation.

For me personally, knowing there was an SoE in effect, knowing the Army's past performance, knowing for the many weeks previously what had been happening, I wouldn't go anywhere near an Army checkpoint. Warnings were issued, everyone here knew the situation at that time. If people chose to stay on and protest, or ignore this, then they are either stupid or had a death wish.

EDIT: To expand on what I said earlier, it was the Army that declared live fire zones by all accounts.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1258287/headline

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/thai-troops-ordered-to-shoot-on-sight/story-e6frg6so-1225868915759

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/15/redshirts-warn-civil-war-thai-troops

As Bangkok suffers its worst political unrest for two decades, the Thai army has declared parts of the city "live-fire zones", warning that anyone found entering certain roads in the capital will be shot on sight.

If you want the sources, I guess you'll have to ask The Guardian and any other media outlet that reported the same things.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Tatsujin

[Thai at Heart]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-checkpoint-killings-american-troops

Failure to stop at military checkpoints normally ends badly.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's not quite the same as shoot on sight is it.

A Google will find the references to shoot on sight. I can't of course verify their accuracy. I do remember MANY warnings on TV and other media however at that time warning the protestors about this self-same thing.

The issue is whether the soldiers were ordered to shoot anyone and everyone on sight?

Guess we'll have to wait for Abhisit and Suthep's testimony then won't we. The Army has already been absolved of all guilt and given a free pass. I would "guess" however, that under the SoE, it's pretty much a "do what needs to be done" to regain control type of situation.

For me personally, knowing there was an SoE in effect, knowing the Army's past performance, knowing for the many weeks previously what had been happening, I wouldn't go anywhere near an Army checkpoint. Warnings were issued, everyone here knew the situation at that time. If people chose to stay on and protest, or ignore this, then they are either stupid or had a death wish.

EDIT: To expand on what I said earlier, it was the Army that declared live fire zones by all accounts.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1258287/headline

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/thai-troops-ordered-to-shoot-on-sight/story-e6frg6so-1225868915759

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/15/redshirts-warn-civil-war-thai-troops

As Bangkok suffers its worst political unrest for two decades, the Thai army has declared parts of the city "live-fire zones", warning that anyone found entering certain roads in the capital will be shot on sight.

If you want the sources, I guess you'll have to ask The Guardian and any other media outlet that reported the same things.

I would have to say that is an interpretation.

Why didn't the army just put up machine gun posts and mow down everyone?

[Thai at Heart]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

Edited June 26, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Tatsujin]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

We'll find out when Abhisit and Suthep go to Court as I said earlier. Maybe.

[smedly]

lets see what size of a red mob turn up at the court

[gemini81]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

He didn't order the live fire zone; that's been known for a long time. Except by rural red shirts & some online trollers.

[Baerboxer]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

Well there you go then, it is no longer murder when you warn them first. Aren't you a piece of work.

I would advise you to approach any military checkpoint anywhere in the world and disobey an order to stop and see what happens.

Your access to information is impressive and no doubt documented. However, this is news to some that only citizens that disobeyed an order to stop were shot and in some cases survived, in other cases killed. Survivng family members of 90 murdered victims may wish to debate that disobedience was responsible for their loved ones murders. What country of origin and state of mind do you call rational for advocating deadly force for a checkpoint violator when so many other options exist?

My friend's father was murdered whilst manning a checkpoint in Ulster in the 70's. The tactic the terrorists used was to drive fast at the checkpoint and try to hit a few soldiers/policmen. They gambled that the disciplined servicemen would follow rules of engagement and would be less likely to shoot at a vehicle without knowing who was inside. The scum terrorist claimed he'd panicked out of fear and pressed the wrong pedal - and got away with it.

We do not know the motives of why this guy was in a live fire zone, and chose to ignore instructions. He was fully aware of the consequences and Thai soldiers are less likely to hold their fire if they feel threatend.

What options do you think exist, if manning a checkpoint and someone refuses to stop - say "please" ! Easy to be smart in hindsight of course. Put yourself in the place of the soldiers in this context. What would you have done?

[Thai at Heart]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

He didn't order the live fire zone; that's been known for a long time. Except by rural red shirts & some online trollers.

By "order the live fire zone", what does that mean? The army made it up all by themselves without any consultation? Interesting.

[rubl]

On the 20th of May in the aftermath of the 'cleanup' we had "Police said elite troops had orders to shoot on sight anyone looting, committing arson or inciting unrest, following several days of urban warfare in the capital."

As for 'live fire zone', the army declared parts of Bangkok as such after violence re-erupted after the renegate general Seh Daeng was shot on the 13th of May. Lots of grenades fired by 'friendly militants' who just wanted to show their displeasure of course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/15/redshirts-warn-civil-war-thai-troops

[Pi Sek]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

He didn't order the live fire zone; that's been known for a long time. Except by rural red shirts & some online trollers.

Control of the CRES and the whole security operation was taken from Suthep Thaugsuban and handed to Gen. Anupong Paojinda weeks before live fire zones came into effect, because the protest had changed from civil disobedience into a military operation by armed terrorist/insurgent elements.

[gemini81]

A police spokesman said elite units had been deployed with authorisation to shoot on sight anybody looting, committing arson or inciting unrest.

From the Australian. Can't post the link. Well that doesn't look quite so good for abhisit.

Who issued those orders? No warnings required? Just shoot? Hmmmmm

He didn't order the live fire zone; that's been known for a long time. Except by rural red shirts & some online trollers.

Control of the CRES and the whole security operation was taken from Suthep Thaugsuban and handed to Gen. Anupong Paojinda weeks before live fire zones came into effect, because the protest had changed from civil disobedience into a military operation by armed terrorist/insurgent elements.

True, that's what happened. Simple minded of posters to just automatically blame the then PM (a guy who tried on 3 occasions I recall to meet & use diplomacy with reps of reds wanting it all their way with no compromise.)

The guy injured seems to be lacking knowledge wanting to blame Abhisit (like red shirts have done). Makes you think he was trying to run the soliders over and they fired to defend themselves from his approach. He knew this was a dangerous zone & you don't dare drive there unless you wanna get caught up in the heat.

Thaksin is to blame if you wanna pinpoint one person really; having people dying instead of him, instead of coming here to confront everything himself.

Edited June 26, 2013 by gemini81

[Halion]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

OK ! so just who authorised the "Shoot on sight" order. Against your own unarmed people , that is murder. This van driver was unarmed, the taxi driver was unarmed, the 14 yr old boy was unarmed and the nurse who was killed was unarmed, the Journo was unarmed but killed, the RTA had a "turkey shoot "that day, and Abisit and Suthep just could not care less.

They were in or adjacent to an area designated as a "live fire zone". Culpable proximity... Some by theirown admission were "spectating" The protagonists had held the city center and were causing wanton destruction . Their protest was far from peacefull and in my opinion Abisit's major failure was in trying to negotiate with the demonstrators and thus allowing them a greater foothold. Furthermore the Italian journalist was there by his own volition and was or should have been fully aware of the potential consequences in relation to the situation and his position. Offices and businesess in that area were closed and staff told to stay away . To me anyone caugh up in this was guilty of poor judgement and a diminished understanding of the prevailing conditions.

I would also be interested to learn how the van driver is so sure that the rounds that hit him were from the military. Did he actually see the uniformed soldier discharge his weapon at him . I sincerly doubt this. Military asault rifles are normaly ranged from 100 to 600 meters and the projectile travels well in excess of the speed of sound. You never hear the round that hits you. however, such rounds can still kill in excess of 1,000 meters. Having served in the military and been involved in urban conflicts devoid of clear demarkation, I would state that there is only a very slight chance of knowing the general direction of a round that hit you but it would be very subjective within the confussion and kaos that follows a hit., furthermore a round penetrating a van could deflect the initial direction

significantly depending on several factors. It is all conjecture and most subjective. The van driver sustained wounds to his lower right

torso behind the center line so unless he has eyes in the back of his head he can only speculate at best.

All of these deaths and injuries are repugnant ,however, claims based on emotional opinions and conjecture are simply a waste of time and serve no real purpose especialy here in Thailand where the facts are so often obscure, disjointed and manipulated

[gemini81]

8th April - State of Emergency declared.

15th May - Several areas of the city near the protesters were designated as "live fire zones" by the military, and protesters entering these zones were to be shot on sight.

19th May - A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.

You were warned.

OK ! so just who authorised the "Shoot on sight" order. Against your own unarmed people , that is murder. This van driver was unarmed, the taxi driver was unarmed, the 14 yr old boy was unarmed and the nurse who was killed was unarmed, the Journo was unarmed but killed, the RTA had a "turkey shoot "that day, and Abisit and Suthep just could not care less.

They were in or adjacent to an area designated as a "live fire zone". Culpable proximity... Some by theirown admission were "spectating" The protagonists had held the city center and were causing wanton destruction . Their protest was far from peacefull and in my opinion Abisit's major failure was in trying to negotiate with the demonstrators and thus allowing them a greater foothold. Furthermore the Italian journalist was there by his own volition and was or should have been fully aware of the potential consequences in relation to the situation and his position. Offices and businesess in that area were closed and staff told to stay away . To me anyone caugh up in this was guilty of poor judgement and a diminished understanding of the prevailing conditions.

I would also be interested to learn how the van driver is so sure that the rounds that hit him were from the military. Did he actually see the uniformed soldier discharge his weapon at him . I sincerly doubt this. Military asault rifles are normaly ranged from 100 to 600 meters and the projectile travels well in excess of the speed of sound. You never hear the round that hits you. however, such rounds can still kill in excess of 1,000 meters. Having served in the military and been involved in urban conflicts devoid of clear demarkation, I would state that there is only a very slight chance of knowing the general direction of a round that hit you but it would be very subjective within the confussion and kaos that follows a hit., furthermore a round penetrating a van could deflect the initial direction

significantly depending on several factors. It is all conjecture and most subjective. The van driver sustained wounds to his lower right

torso behind the center line so unless he has eyes in the back of his head he can only speculate at best.

All of these deaths and injuries are repugnant ,however, claims based on emotional opinions and conjecture are simply a waste of time and serve no real purpose especialy here in Thailand where the facts are so often obscure, disjointed and manipulated

That's some sound reasoning and indeed you're right, hard for him to assume who it was and what direction giving the range and velocity; what is clear is he wants it to have been the soldiers. What's also clear is he understands very little about the delegated power and who really called these shots. Just another moaner and fool to have decided to step into the fire and then get burned (or harm soldiers, which may have been his intent, given the circumstances).

Edited June 26, 2013 by gemini81

[Pi Sek]

<snip>

To me anyone caugh up in this was guilty of poor judgement and a diminished understanding of the prevailing conditions.

<snip>

<snip>

Just another moaner and fool to have decided to step into the fire and then get burned.

If these two sentences weren't absolutely correct, I would find them rather insensitive and inappropriate. Unfortunately, they're bang on the mark.