Infamous Video 'Sniper' Denies Shooting At Redshirts
By Khaosod Online



BANGKOK: -- The soldier who had been captured on video instructing his fellow soldier to shoot at a Molotov-throwing Redshirts protester on 15 May 2010 told the court his team was merely firing blank rounds.

MSG Kacharat Niamrord was testifying to the court as a witness in the inquests of Mr. Mana Saenpreasertsri and Mr. Ponsawan Nakachai, who were shot dead during the clashes between the soldiers and the Redshirts on Rama IV Road.

The court is trying to establish whether the 2 individuals were shot dead by the military as the Redshirts have claimed. The military has repeatedly denied any responsibility in the deaths of more than 90 people killed throughout the political violence of April-May 2010.

MSG Kacharat said he was a tank driver assigned to the 5th Cavalry Battalion in Lopburi Province. He said his unit was stationed near Lumpini Park on 15 May 2010 to join the military operation against the Redshirts.

According to the witness, the situation grew tense in the afternoon as 3-4 M79 grenade attacks landed near his unit′s position, while a number of buildings, vehicles, and rubber tires were burned by the protesters. Sounds of gunshots and explosion were echoing in the area, MSG Kacharat said.

Around 15.00, the soldier said, he switched from a shotgun to an M-16 rifle armed with sniper scope and blank rounds. He and SGT Sarinkarn Taweecheep then took position on the second floor of a building opposite Lumpini Boxing Stadium "to observe the situation and alert other units" of potential dangers.

It was at this position that the pair was captured on a now notorious video, which showed SGT Sarinkarn aiming his sniper rifle, firing his weapon as MSG Kacharat gave instructions.

In the video, the Master Sergeant could be heard instructing SGT Sarinkarn to shoot at a protest who had been throwing Molotov cocktails for many times. The Sergeant fired the rifle. MSG Kacharat suddenly stood up, his hand stretched out, shouting "He′s down! He′s down! Don′t repeat [the shot]!".

SGT Sarinkarn disobeyed him nonetheless, firing his weapon one more time, before MSG Kacharat pushed him to stop.

However, MSG Kacharat insisted to the judges yesterday that SGT Sarinkarn was firing blank rounds, and that he was in fact saying "Ceasefire! Enough!" because "the exercise rounds were limited. We were not supposed to waste them".

The witness said he had no idea at which direction the Sergeant was aiming. He also claimed he saw no one shot throughout the firing.

Asked by the lawyer representing the families of the deceased which direction the witness and SGT Sarinkarn were facing, MSG Kacharat replied they were facing toward a burning garbage truck, and not the protesters.

Mr. Sukit Tasanasunthornsawong, a doctor at Lertsin Hospital, later testified that he received the body of Mr. Ponsawan around 16.45 on 15 May 2010. Mr. Sukit said he found gunshot wounds on the right ribcage, the bullet penetrating the victim′s lung and liver.

He told the court he tried operating Mr. Ponsawan, but the victim was bleeding too profusely. The victim reportedly died after the operation.

Source: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM09UWTNPRGt4TlE9PQ==

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-09-21

...so he fired one more blank round in to the body after being told the targeted RedShirt was down...how is this eager beaver *still* able to procure his ice? ;-} rap.

blank rounds my ass

Oh my word, this is the best story they can come up with?

You don't need a sniper scope to fire blank rounds neither do you take time to aim when firing blanks. If Firing at someone trowing Molotov cocktails that would be justifiable deadly force in my book.

The red shirt leadership wanted casualties, in a forced-martyrdom operation, to give them extra leverage with the public. Red shirt leaders were quoted during the later stages of the seige, saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause."

The redshirts had occupied for months, been given medical treatment (when they poured their own blood everywhere), food and drinks, and a place to stage peaceful protest. They got months of protest time, in contrast with most other nations where they would have had ten hours at most, before being forcibly removed in the first evening. They were granted early elections, which was what they demanded. Nonetheless they did not go home. Why? Why were they encouraged to stay in that place, a 'hot zone', after they had made their point and got their early elections. The weather was very hot, the authorities were getting stressed out after months of seige, tensions were rising, and the reds did not go home. Why? The only reason the redshirt leadership did not order a close to the seige, after getting early elections, is that they wanted martyrs. Some people, including me, believe that the only snipers making killshots were foreign contractors hired by Thaksin, pro-shooters who were taking out reds and soldiers alike in an effort to escalate the situation and lead to immediate overthrow of the PM. Early elections were not enough for "some people." If you want to know who ordered the kills, look at those people first.

Edited September 21, 201312 yr by Yunla

Yes; blank rounds, fired from a distant sniper, should be a great deterrent. It's a classic tactic used all over the world.

Edited September 21, 201312 yr by Curt1591

For a minute there, it appeared that you were actually going to admit that the army may have actually shot someone. Good to see you edited it.

Edited September 21, 201312 yr by Curt1591

I edit typos only, coz I have late stage MS, am 3/4 blind and its like typing with two lumps of wood.

Yes; blank rounds, fired from a distant sniper, should be a great deterrent. It's a classic tactic used all over the world.

waterballoons are more effective than blank rounds

I might believe "rubber" bullets but not blanks.

Sorry but I'm not really getting this at all.

A soldier shoots someone who is essentially about to throw a bomb, and this is defended by saying that he was only shooting blanks.

You really would have to be dumber than dumb to believe that is really what happened.

Oh, wait, it could have been an evil spirit.

2 individuals shot dead? For real? I'm quite sure I saw the reds godhead on live TV that day saying that absolutely for sure the army had "murdered" at least 300 of the poor unarmed protesters. What ever happened to the 300+ corpses, or was he getting ahead of himself and guessing that his orders had been followed more closely than they actually were?

Why waste time shooting blanks? They can shout " pang or pow or boom " too !!!!

And I bet it's more affective ......

For this story to have any credibility then the audience would have to be as dumb as a herd of buffalo.

Firing blank rounds my arse. The Thai military operational response to insurgents who are using grenade launchers and petrol bombs is to

fire blank rounds may well explain why the terrorist in the south are winning the war.

There is no credibility in this story what so ever however, it does indicate the intelect of both the military and the public .

For this story to have any credibility then the audience would have to be as dumb as a herd of buffalo.

Firing blank rounds my arse. The Thai military operational response to insurgents who are using grenade launchers and petrol bombs is to

fire blank rounds may well explain why the terrorist in the south are winning the war.

There is no credibility in this story what so ever however, it does indicate the intelect of both the military and the public .

So the story's a winner then

I edit typos only, coz I have late stage MS, am 3/4 blind and its like typing with two lumps of wood.

I happened to read your post before I wrote my first reply. When I posted, I saw your edit. You didn't correct any

typo"; you added the Thaksin BS at the end.

I had to edit my post stating that I was suprised that no one had denied that the army killed anyone. But you, apparently, had simply forgotten to do that in your original, unedited post.

I might believe "rubber" bullets but not blanks.

You should be working for the Thai army JAG Corps!

For this story to have any credibility then the audience would have to be as dumb as a herd of buffalo.

Firing blank rounds my arse. The Thai military operational response to insurgents who are using grenade launchers and petrol bombs is to

fire blank rounds may well explain why the terrorist in the south are winning the war.

There is no credibility in this story what so ever however, it does indicate the intelect of both the military and the public .

So the story's a winner then

You are being a bit hard on buffaloes.

The red shirt leadership wanted casualties, in a forced-martyrdom operation, to give them extra leverage with the public. Red shirt leaders were quoted during the later stages of the seige, saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause."

The redshirts had occupied for months, been given medical treatment (when they poured their own blood everywhere), food and drinks, and a place to stage peaceful protest. They got months of protest time, in contrast with most other nations where they would have had ten hours at most, before being forcibly removed in the first evening. They were granted early elections, which was what they demanded. Nonetheless they did not go home. Why? Why were they encouraged to stay in that place, a 'hot zone', after they had made their point and got their early elections. The weather was very hot, the authorities were getting stressed out after months of seige, tensions were rising, and the reds did not go home. Why? The only reason the redshirt leadership did not order a close to the seige, after getting early elections, is that they wanted martyrs. Some people, including me, believe that the only snipers making killshots were foreign contractors hired by Thaksin, pro-shooters who were taking out reds and soldiers alike in an effort to escalate the situation and lead to immediate overthrow of the PM. Early elections were not enough for "some people." If you want to know who ordered the kills, look at those people first.

YOU can't be serious, your story is as fact full as the solder's in this story,

FACT: A "BLANK" is a cartridge, with gun powder, but NO projectile, so the soldier is not telling the truth, or he is being miss quoted, and saying that rubber bullets, yes your houner, live rounds we were using,

as far as foreign contract sniper hired by Thaksin, that is one of the most stupid thing's I have ever heard,

I might believe "rubber" bullets but not blanks.

You should be working for the Thai army JAG Corps!

How do you know I don't?

Anyone who's fired live ammo compared with blanks know two things.

1. Blanks don't recoil like live ammo does. There's more than enough recoil to show live rounds.

2. A weapon firing blanks usually needs a blank firing adapter. There isn't enough gas to expel the round from the gun. The adapter is at the tip of the gun resulting in my pressure allowing the blank to be ejected after firing. I don't see this on this weapon. Yet the rounds were easily expelled.

A blank-firing adapter or blank-firing attachment (BFA), sometimes called a blank adapter or blank attachment, is a device used in conjunction with blank ammunition. Blank firing adapters are required for allowing blanks to cycle most automatic firearms. It can also be a safety feature designed so if a live round is mistakenly fired, most of the energy is spent smashing through the BFA reducing both the range and damage inflicted. A BFA may also divert the hot gases from a blank discharge out to the sides, reducing the risk of injury to the target of an aimed shot.^[1]

^{Why do people blatantly lie when it makes them look even dumber? The I didn't know or you saw it wrong is getting old really quick. Own your actions.!}

I might believe "rubber" bullets but not blanks.

You should be working for the Thai army JAG Corps!

How do you know I don't?

Because the fool would have had a better story.

is there a Blank Firing Adapter on the end of the AR-16 he is firing?

used in conjunction with blank ammunition and required for allowing blank ammunition to cycle.

if he is shooting blanks, what is the snipers spotter reacting to?

what is the sniper looking at down range after shooting?

why spend so much time aiming if you are firing blanks?

why not use flash bang grenades?

how many times do you have to shoot someone with blanks?

Edited September 21, 201312 yr by NCC1701A

We hear all these rationalization about blanks and all the rationalizations that try to make everyone think that it's the Red Shirts own fault because they were enticing the troops.

Well, one might conclude that the army's use of blanks could therefore be construed as a means to incite the Red Shirts into violence.

After all, prior to all the armed troops showing up, the scene was pretty mellow.

This is obviously BS, he should be indicted on charges of breaking the RoE and murder.

This is obviously BS, he should be indicted on charges of breaking the RoE and murder.

Has anyone from the army outlined the RoE during the riots? This should be a keypoint in the entire investigation. Against popular belief, sniper teams do not engage off their own backs, these teams have to be following orders from higher up.

As commented before, without a proper attachment or fitting on the weapon, the weapon will not be effective firing blank rounds. it is the first time I have ever seen a spotter being used for a sniper using blanks, the only reason I can think off would be training to ensure the sniper had his/her procedures right, which wouldn't be the case here.

Don't know if some one mentioned this.

There is a definite recoil on the shot.

To me it doesn't look like a big recoil, but it may be ameliorated by the recoilless nature of the weapon.

Blanks are by their nature supposed to be lightweight and I would expect little recoil.

The obvious next step would be to compare recoils from a full round and a blank with the video above.

(It may be with mentioning that rifle may need an adaptor to enable it's action to cycle with the low compression of a blank)

Edited September 21, 201312 yr by cheeryble

I am sure this was a well thought out reason that has already been floated to the judge to see if can be "bought". I agree though that in a n"normal" society firing at a protester about to throw a Molotov would be justifiable if it was a shot to wing him.

Remember though this is not a normal society. There is no justifiable killing. There is IMHO just killing and Killing that ha enough money to back it up.

Also even though the story has a lot of problems you have to think that it is going to be very hard for the prosecutor to prove them wrong.

yes he can bring in testimony but it is a person's word against a THAI Soldier.

Bullshit,you dont use a scope to shoot blanks,what about the blank firing device fitted to the barrel to cycle rounds without re cocking rifle !!!!!!!!