Hunt for guards in attack

[Siripon]

The first assault was shown on ASTV Manager of a man being stomped on the ground by a crowd. The courts have refused to allow the police arrest warrants based on not getting involved in politics. Since then there have been a number of other similar assaults video's and pictures have been doing the rounds. I am sure if anyone wants to, they can find them. The evidence is pretty clear cut in each of these cases.

This has been doing the rounds on Thai social media and generating a fair deal of anger and also shock at the court decisions among those who do not support the anti-government protests including a lot of political neutrals. Unfortunately the information supplied on TV comes mostly from one part of the English language media that is doing its best to urge the Suthepista's on, and gives no to little coverage of events that do not fit their propaganda line. They did not even report on the largest rallies on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday this week, which were not in Bangkok. It is hard I understand for anyone on TV to form an opinion based on the supply of limited propaganda.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Following social media Thai comments it seems some/many are worried that following these things by the judiciary that if the constitution court dissolves the government parties because a fully elected senate is unconstitutional that things could get very heated. The double standards accusations have a lot of traction in Thailand. One of the English language print papers this morning had comments on how a "third judicial coup" (their words not mine) would go down.

I doubt the judges will find against Pheua Thai on the Senate issue but if you have a fully elected Senate why bother having it, it simply duplicates Parliament?

[Thaddeus]

From left to right.

1. Picked up a pan scourer instead of his Mac 3.

2. Knows where his woggle is.

3. Why am I here?

And this story is the example of violent attacks (plural) by protest guards mentioned in a different thread.

Lesson, if protesters are only using harsh language, which under a true democracy they are perfectly entitled to do, don't go sneaking in carrying guns without any proof that you can have one.

And don't make any assumptions based on the words of the alleged aggressors. And read the OP

Chira, who had sustained bruises on the face, head and body as well as a broken tooth, Chira was recovering and would be released from hospital in 4-5 days.

If normal mobs are anything to go by, when attacked you curl up in a ball protect the face and take the damage in the legs and body whilst getting a kicking. I would suspect this is the case here - 10,20, it doesn't matter how many, it's not going to be queensbury rules.

I can only say what I see. If he did sustain other injuries, why only take a picture of his face?

They are not exactly well known for not showing graphic images here.

[hammered]

The first assault was shown on ASTV Manager of a man being stomped on the ground by a crowd. The courts have refused to allow the police arrest warrants based on not getting involved in politics. Since then there have been a number of other similar assaults video's and pictures have been doing the rounds. I am sure if anyone wants to, they can find them. The evidence is pretty clear cut in each of these cases.

This has been doing the rounds on Thai social media and generating a fair deal of anger and also shock at the court decisions among those who do not support the anti-government protests including a lot of political neutrals. Unfortunately the information supplied on TV comes mostly from one part of the English language media that is doing its best to urge the Suthepista's on, and gives no to little coverage of events that do not fit their propaganda line. They did not even report on the largest rallies on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday this week, which were not in Bangkok. It is hard I understand for anyone on TV to form an opinion based on the supply of limited propaganda.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Following social media Thai comments it seems some/many are worried that following these things by the judiciary that if the constitution court dissolves the government parties because a fully elected senate is unconstitutional that things could get very heated. The double standards accusations have a lot of traction in Thailand. One of the English language print papers this morning had comments on how a "third judicial coup" (their words not mine) would go down.

I doubt the judges will find against Pheua Thai on the Senate issue but if you have a fully elected Senate why bother having it, it simply duplicates Parliament?

It is a question you could ask many countries. I do tend to agree myself however. I guess the argument is that if the upper house is fully elected it can have more powers, so you can have a kind of check by each house on the other. You could also say why bother having a half elected half appointed house (by 7 people i have heard) as it should have no role in a democracy. If PT and allies tried to abolish the senate I would think they would face a firestorm so just making it more democratic will improve it especially after seeing that bunch of old losers refusing to attend a meeting to try and resolve the problems of the country on Friday

I hope your prediction is correct. It would be quite a difficult thing to explain, and I can just imagine the international headlines. Personally I think the government have more worries over the use of cards case, which will likely see a revote being needed imho.

[JRSoul]

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

[Bagwan]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police. Would you say the same thing if it was in your country. You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

Yes I definitely would, anyone who attacks police is scum no matter what country they are in.

Please connect brain before reaching for your keyboard. These two cops directly disobeyed orders (if the head honcho is to be believed) and refused to cooperate with 'the guards'. In any disciplined force disobedience is rewarded with a spell in chokey or reduction rank, not a bunch of flowers. I guess the financial settlement was compensation for being off duty for a while thus going short of the rewards of extortion. I suspect that the claim that they were attacked is gilding the lily and the minor injuries (I've received worse playing rugby) were causing when bringing them under physical control. Som nam na applies.

[hammered]

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

[15Peter20]

Right, that does it. All Dems and their violent thugish yellow guards are into violence and intimidation for ever more, and I will now spend the next 3 years on TV branding anyone that disagrees with me as a supporter of violence and/or paid proxy of agitators. If any of the yellows (who I will henceforth term as 'scum' regardless of age, gender or manner) subsequently damage my car or are rude to anyone I know, that time limit may be extended further. Sane readers of TV, consider yourselves warned.

Edited November 17, 2013 by 15Peter20

[ratcatcher]

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

Interesting post.

"In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided upon"

Agreed. But in this case, the opposition was apparently denied sufficient floor time for true debate and the bill was rushed through at the hour of 4.25 a.m., hardly reasonable surely?

Is the speaker of the house neutral, as he should be? Neutrality is a dream here.

[Bagwan]

You people are so blinded by your hate for Thaksin that you can not tell right from wrong. Even if they police had guns were not id as police and refused to tell them they were police, mob action is not acceptable. Like I said they should have turn them over to the police. Mob rule makes them no better than the Reds.

Some might think you are blinded by stupidity. They resisted being taken to be interrogated and then handed over to their corrupt colleagues. Can you tell the difference between right and wrong? The official story is that they ignored an order NOT to carry weapons; is that not wrong?

I believe the police head honcho is covering his ass by saying he ordered his loutish underlings not to go armed and is content to let the two 'intelligence gatherers hang out to dry.

[thaicbr]

I wonder how Homeland Security, or our UK Border Control, might treat two armed men, who were in civilian clothes and didn't identify themselves as police ?

 

I suspect they would use reasonable force, to detain them, especially if there was a suspicion that someone might be trying to provoke an incident at a peaceful-rally, for their own ends.

 

The police should have identified themselves immediately they were caught.

 

And what on earth were they doing there, armed ?

Police in Thailand are generally armed 24/7. I once went on a bike night event with a few local police all were carrying their guns and all got pissed and rode home

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[hammered]

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

Interesting post.

"In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided upon"

Agreed. But in this case, the opposition was apparently denied sufficient floor time for true debate and the bill was rushed through at the hour of 4.25 a.m., hardly reasonable surely?

Is the speaker of the house neutral, as he should be? Neutrality is a dream here.

I agree that procedurally the amnesty was a mess albeit carried out legally. Exactly why it was rushed through is a good question, that nobody has answered well. The difference between speaker and a judge is that a judge is appointed for life whereas a speaker usually has a limited term and the people can vote him/her out. Legislatures by their nature can/often are be adversarial too because the people can change them. A court is meant to be a place of strict neutrality. That is supposed to be part of the "contract" under which the people grant power to a judiciary that is allowed to judge them in a democracy. Another part would be formal equality of all in the eyes of the law. If that breaks down, it would be the role of the legislature to reform the judiciary through passage of law.

[thaicbr]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police.  Would you say the same thing if it was in your country.  You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

 

Well, it was your favourite government that was spreading unfounded rumours of violent third hands, weapons caches and infiltration by troublemakers, asking the protestors to better go home. So it is understandable that the guards were highly alerted and "heavy-handed" when some individuals matching the government's description were found lurking around the protest site.

 

These buffoons-in-brown should stick to extorting tea money and not try to play undercover cops. They are simply not up to it.

 

The guards at the rally have been heavy handed on numerous occasions. A TV sponsor had a member of staff assaulted while trying to deliver to the area. He beeped his motorcycle horn to try and get through on the road access and was set upon. Nothing serious. Similar to the coppers. Only difference he was back at work the next day.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[kimamey]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police. Would you say the same thing if it was in your country. You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

I certainly wouldn't condone it anywhere but with that many protesters there will be some who cross the line. It's still not right but the protests do seem to have been generally peaceful so far.

This does look a bit odd though. It just needs a fair unbiased investigation to sort it out and take any action needed

[hammered]

Another video came out on You Tube today of guards stomping and kicking some man. Not sure who he is, but not police.

[whybother]

Another video came out on You Tube today of guards stomping and kicking some man. Not sure who he is, but not police.

Maybe it is the police man in question in plain clothes.

[Nowhereman60]

It amaze me how many stupid people here condones this type of violence from either side. I am so glad I know none of you. Your type disgust me

[JRSoul]

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law................unless of course there is a massive conflict of interest. You might deny that, but the senate disagrees with you unanimously, and somehow their opinion rates higher than yours, as does that of 63 judges.

[fab4]

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

Interesting post.

"In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided upon"

Agreed. But in this case, the opposition was apparently denied sufficient floor time for true debate and the bill was rushed through at the hour of 4.25 a.m., hardly reasonable surely?

Is the speaker of the house neutral, as he should be? Neutrality is a dream here.

How can there not be sufficient time to debate - just more bs you picked up here, they had 19 hours of debate

The 500-member House of Representatives passed the bill after 19 hours of acrimonious debate, which culminated in the entire opposition walking out of the chamber and refusing to vote. The bill was then passed with the 310 members from the pro-Thaksin ruling coalition left in the house voting for it and no votes against. It must now be approved by the Senate to become law.

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1345268/thai-parliament-moves-closer-approving-amnesty-bill

[ginjag]

It amaze me how many stupid people here condones this type of violence from either side. I am so glad I know none of you. Your type disgust me

Be alone then.

[SchuetzRob]

So, the cops want sympathy here?

Little wonder so many BIB are pro-government, pro-PTP etc. as this sort of thing would never happen at a red shirt rally.

seems like a bit of selective memory, although i agree that the red shirts did indeed not disarm and kick police but 'only' army during their peaceful protest in 2010. i am sure that you might still find the relevant picture with the kicked soldiers on a truck on the web.

[Emptyset]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police. Would you say the same thing if it was in your country. You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

I certainly wouldn't condone it anywhere but with that many protesters there will be some who cross the line. It's still not right but the protests do seem to have been generally peaceful so far.

This does look a bit odd though. It just needs a fair unbiased investigation to sort it out and take any action needed

I totally agree that in any large protest there will generally be some who go too far. And that we shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. Violence should be condemned but it doesn't necessarily negate the legitimacy of the protest as a whole. That is a very reasonable attitude to take, imo.

[thaicbr]

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

Interesting post.

"In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided upon"

Agreed. But in this case, the opposition was apparently denied sufficient floor time for true debate and the bill was rushed through at the hour of 4.25 a.m., hardly reasonable surely?

Is the speaker of the house neutral, as he should be? Neutrality is a dream here.

How can there not be sufficient time to debate - just more bs you picked up here, they had 19 hours of debate

The 500-member House of Representatives passed the bill after 19 hours of acrimonious debate, which culminated in the entire opposition walking out of the chamber and refusing to vote. The bill was then passed with the 310 members from the pro-Thaksin ruling coalition left in the house voting for it and no votes against. It must now be approved by the Senate to become law.

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1345268/thai-parliament-moves-closer-approving-amnesty-bill

That's kinda of the point the speaker REFUSED to adjourn the meeting until the next day, which is usual after a certain time has elapsed.. You consider 19 hours straight debate is fine..... BUT the reality of what was scheduled is this.

"First, while the government’s chief whip has stated to the House that the second reading of the amnesty bill will only take place over 2 days (October 31 and November 1) with the third reading to the be held on November 2,"

AND this is what was asked for by the official opposition party as is their right.

"an MP from the opposition Democrat Party has already announced Democrats MPs are looking to debate (at length ?) the second reading. This may slightly delay by a day or two if an extension to the debate is allowed, but not by long."

but this is what happened.

"The passage of the bill apparently caught the opposition and the government's opponents off guard as the third reading vote was caught at about 4am, immediately after the last article of the bill was passed in the second reading."

that was Oct 31st so yes very fair and following the rules.

sources...

http://asiancorrespondent.com/115059/the-amnesty-bill-and-the-procedural-hurdles-ahead/

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-bill-sails-through-third-reading-30218475.html

[thaicbr]

Hopefully any police going into the rally area will either be in uniform or make it known officially that they are police. That's the rules according to the Top police guy.

[cup-O-coffee]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police. Would you say the same thing if it was in your country. You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

I am not sure it is about condoning an action, but based upon the historical behavior and general character of a Thai police officer; their performance, their apathy, their cheek, their extorting and bribing and blackmailing ways, I am not surprised that anyone would, in fact, condone this, and I give a pass for that.

I believe your idealistic reference to "the police" and what being a police man or woman should stand for is worthy of merit and a kind of noble reflection; but the truth is, you are so way out in left field to imply that a Thai police officer - any Thai police officer - does not deserve this.

That Thai police officers somehow carry some kind of imagined (imagined) "goodly" trait, or some kind of valor or honor which makes spiting them an offense... well, it is just plain nonsense.

If you are not able to see that view, then I will give you a pass; but the fact is, this view is, and has been, earned and nurtured in the minds of the general public by the very ones whom you imply as not deserving this.

So, in a roundabout way, they deserve it. It is a small form of the reward that they reap for the disproportionate amount of effort they expend in not being the kind of police man or women which you altruistically imply.

[LomSak27]

So I guess everyone here condones this action against the police. Would you say the same thing if it was in your country. You all should join the mob, you fit in with them

Depends on the colour, if it’s not the right one, a TV poster posse would assemble bellowing righteous indigo-nation