ramrod711 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 What did anyone expect? Ninjas? Police, exactly where they should have been. The question is, did they do anything wrong? One would think that would be the question, but it isn't, the question is will Yingluck be indicted for murder. Why? because it happened on her watch, just like the case against Abhisit and Suthep. If you charge one leader with murder because they ordered peace and order restored....you have to charge the other. I know that isn't what you wanted to hear, but it illustrates just how bizzare the situation is. Every politician, policeman and soldier in the country will now refuse to do as ordered because they may be held accountable. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 It is incriminating because of his silence. It is secretive because they said no police were on any rooftops. They were wearing uniforms but they did make attempts to hide their presence, as did the minister who denied they were there. Why should a government official explain what the police did? Is this a serious question? I guess the values from my country don't apply everywhere - fair enough, there's good and bad everywhere. What silence? The police just came out and commented on it. The silence for the preceding 144 hours since the incident occurred has been profound. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 This is not looking good for Chalerm (or Yingluck for that matter) Why was it wrong to place riot police on top of the building though? I have no idea why they didn't just admit it in the first place. I guess Adul should be applauded for his honesty although that's what should be expected, not the absurd fabrications we're used to from Chalerm. If they'd been honest about it from the beginning, there wouldn't have been all these rumours about Cambodians up there shooting at both sides etc. No but it was wrong to shoot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) What did anyone expect? Ninjas? Police, exactly where they should have been. The question is, did they do anything wrong? One would think that would be the question, but it isn't, the question is will Yingluck be indicted for murder. Why? because it happened on her watch, just like the case against Abhisit and Suthep. If you charge one leader with murder because they ordered peace and order restored....you have to charge the other. I know that isn't what you wanted to hear, but it illustrates just how bizzare the situation is. Every politician, policeman and soldier in the country will now refuse to do as ordered because they may be held accountable. No, I don't agree. As much as I dislike Suthep, I don't believe he should be tried for the 2010 deaths , anymore than Abhisit. I favour the amnesty bill as originally proposed, as a path to reconciliation Edited January 2, 2014 by Prbkk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocN Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Okay...so what we know is, that there have been police, stationed on rooftops and that people have been shot from high vantage points. Is there a connection? Possibly! Is there any prove? No- at least not yet! ....soooooooo.... And how fast was it for the protestors to get blamed for his death? Soooooo By me? Nope! So, please stop annoying me with your cra...highly intelligent coments! Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRSoul Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Pol Gen Adul admitted that “men in black” are police and vowed to investigate and bring them to justice procedure. Would be interesting to see the exact quote of what he said. Because why bring them to justice procedure when we don't know if they did anything illegal? I guess it's plausible that a police unknowingly fired live ammunition instead of rubber bullets, and that the policeman got caught in the line of fire. If he was shot by friendly fire, I very much doubt it was intentional as the location of the firing can be traced back to their position. And as Emptyset pointed out, the location of the two sites makes it very unrealistic. As I recall, many of you, Yellow bashers,said that this is a fake picture and the Yellows should be ashamed for presenting false facts. Eat your words now. Who said that the picture was fake? I haven't seen any such post. I certainly did not make that claim. It was pretty obvious that the men in black were police as you can clearly see one of them throwing a tear gas grenade in a video. "I guess it's plausible that a police unknowingly fired live ammunition instead of rubber bullets......" That is the first contender for stupid statement of the year. It will be very hard to top in the month's ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 This is not looking good for Chalerm (or Yingluck for that matter) Why was it wrong to place riot police on top of the building though? I have no idea why they didn't just admit it in the first place. I guess Adul should be applauded for his honesty although that's what should be expected, not the absurd fabrications we're used to from Chalerm. If they'd been honest about it from the beginning, there wouldn't have been all these rumours about Cambodians up there shooting at both sides etc. No but it was wrong to shoot.... If they shot anyone, it could only have been the protester who died, Wasu who was at the Labour Ministry, not the cops who were shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyk Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) With this going public. Wow, If this don't fill up a record number of buses heading to BKK for the shut down nothing will! Edited January 2, 2014 by garyk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 With this going public. Wow, If this don't fill up a record number of buses heading to BKK for the shut down nothing will! And how many men in black policemen will be scurrying about on how many roofs on that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA_FARANG Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Of course they were police. A news video segment clearly showing police firing from the roof of a building using what looked like a shotgun at protesters below was shown on Thai television the day of that drmonstration or riot. There were two policemen, one firing what looked like a shotgun, the other with either a spotting scope or binoculars who picked out protesters below as targets. I saw it clearly and they appeared to be dressed in black uniforms. At the time I assumed they were fireing rubber bullets or maybe tear gas shells but the camera was to far away to see that kind of detail. I was watching coverage of the demonstration that day and clearlyy saw men in what appeared to be black police uniforms firing a shotgun-like weapon from a rooftop at protesters. That was at a time tear gas canisters were being thrown and I believe possibly also being fired into the crowd.. I suspect many Thais in Bangkok also saw that video ..... but as I said the camera was to far away to make out any details of exactly what was being fired. More than that I can not say. The camera was just to far away for an exact identification of exactly whatwas beong fired. Edited January 2, 2014 by metisdead Oversize font reset to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maha Sarakham Marty Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 If they shot anyone, it could only have been the protester who died, Wasu who was at the Labour Ministry, not the cops who were shot. Wow, that's quite a leap of certainty from page 1 of the thread when, citing your unknown blogger's version of events, you were at least cautiously saying, "seems very unlikely", in relation to the cop's potentially being responsible for the cop killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVGerry Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Okay...so what we know is, that there have been police, stationed on rooftops and that people have been shot from high vantage points. Is there a connection? Possibly! Is there any prove? No- at least not yet! ....soooooooo.... And how fast was it for the protestors to get blamed for his death? Soooooo By me? Nope! So, please stop annoying me with your cra...highly intelligent coments! Thank you You post, you get replies. That's how an internet forum works. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyk Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 With this going public. Wow, If this don't fill up a record number of buses heading to BKK for the shut down nothing will! And how many men in black policemen will be scurrying about on how many roofs on that day? No telling. But this is dynamite IMO. Maybe wrong, but I bet allot of Thai's are furious. Also I bet allot of people that would not usually attend these pep rallies may head out to attend. Especially after hearing this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 What did anyone expect? Ninjas? Police, exactly where they should have been. The question is, did they do anything wrong? One would think that would be the question, but it isn't, the question is will Yingluck be indicted for murder. Why? because it happened on her watch, just like the case against Abhisit and Suthep. If you charge one leader with murder because they ordered peace and order restored....you have to charge the other. I know that isn't what you wanted to hear, but it illustrates just how bizzare the situation is. Every politician, policeman and soldier in the country will now refuse to do as ordered because they may be held accountable. No, I don't agree. As much as I dislike Suthep, I don't believe he should be tried for the 2010 deaths , anymore than Abhisit. I favour the amnesty bill as originally proposed, as a path to reconciliation Nice try, doesn't wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) What attempts to hide their presence? Crouching behind a wall in an elevated position? When people are injured or especially if there are deaths involved, there is usually a need for officials to answer for the actions of police, in Europe or anywhere else, if the police are "battling" protesters. Even in Syria. I guess we don't agree on this, and never will. The dead police was also crouching. Maybe this is a police tactic because they are afraid to get shot to death by violent fascist yellowshirts, like what indeed happen that day. I agree with you that there is a need to explain what happen, like how the protesters and the police officer were killed. But to answer some absurd conspiracy theories about riot police on a rooftop is not one of them. Edited January 2, 2014 by diceq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 diceq when in a hole that you want to get out of - stop digging! What exactly do you disagree with regarding my post? Clearly you have no arguments and have to resort to trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The government didn't place any people on rooftops, the police did. Source, please. The government officials have no information on police tactics unless the specifically call up the police chief and ask. Source, please. You doubt that Chalerm was lying, at least 90% people on this forum think otherwise. Chalerm got caught red handed far too many times to be trusted any longer. And if you do not see how big this story is then you're simply trolling here. It goes all the way back to 2010 and will definitely vindicate Abhisit and even Suthep. Men in black are real, men in black are part of Thai police force, men in black are most likely a paramilitary formation. And they were killing both Thai soldiers and red mob protesters in 2010. A proven fact. Red mob supporters should also start knocking on Chalerm's door and demand answers with regard to 2010. Poor deluded and manipulated souls. It's common sense. It's indeed possible that the government ordered the police to be on that roof. But I very much doubt it. I don't trust Charlem either, but that does not make him a liar in this case. And very much doubt that 90% of the people here think he was lying. He has absolutely nothing to gain to lie in this situation. Especially when there's ample proof that there were indeed police on the rooftop. It's much more plausible, that if he did in fact say that, that he was misinformed or misunderstood the question. And I never said that 'men in black' aren't real. That's the color of the police riot uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 What do you think about this VDO => http://youtu.be/WvcO0qkOiI8 Especially from 0:45 Here the police is not on a roof! All I see is a bunch of policemen running, a hurt, possibly dead protester. And then a bunch of protesters carrying a wounded person. What exactly did the police do wrong here do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Its was pretty obvious given the protests from the rank and file BIB and from the footage. The question remains who authorised the tactic and did they approve the live fire? But we all know where they buck stops as is clearly demonstrated with the charges against Abihist and Suthep. The bottom line is now the lack of honesty and integrity of the PTP leadership is on open display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Same day: "Regarding the “men in black” seen on the rooftop of the Labour Ministry on December 26 as shown in social media, Chalerm denied that they were policemen but they were protesters attempting to use the Labour Ministry to carry out violent incidents." http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/693546-chalerm-to-propose-a-reform-assembly-to-write-a-new-thai-charter/ Thanks for posting that source. To me that proves absolutely nothing. There is no direct quote from Charlerm. For all we know he could have been commenting on something else. Either him or the newspaper (that absurdly claims that you can trust them) might have confused the issue. Without a direct quote that source is completely worthless. And even if he did say that. It does not prove that he was lying. It would just prove that he was wrong. It's especially easy to be wrong when you make statements on the same day without knowing all facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The one shot in the shoulder was hit by a .38 round, haven't seen details of the bullet type for the two that were killed. I saw it mentioned somewhere that they were also handgun rounds but having checked, I can't confirm it. These are pictures of the guy shot in the shoulder and the .38 round from the Police Spokesman's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=206533802868286&id=196116867243313 What caliber does the police use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I assume you're trolling, but in case you're not . . . it's extraordinary simply because they had denied originally that they WERE Police on the rooftops and had made the implication that they were instead protestors dressed in stolen Police uniforms. If accurate, his statement about "justice" also implies that they already know they were doing something criminal/illegal. Admitting that the mysterious "men in black" are actually Police opens a whole new can of worms, going right back to 2010 as I'm sure you'll soon see being explored. You can't state that as a fact because you don't have the evidence for it. And even if he did it does not matter because it is obvious to anyone who has seen the video that they were police. The 'men in black' on the rooftop were normal riot police. There is nothing mysterious about them. Your attempt to link them together with something that happen 4 years ago is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirit47 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 The police chief must confess this, because some honest Policemen would not longer cover this gun-men. That was the real reason for the 500 men, Police rally last week. Now it would be interessting who order them, and about this, the Thais very smart. But for me now its clear, the Shin-clan-PTP-Syndicate have responsible for this, and they shout their own people in 2010. The question is every time, who have the favour. And I think, the german Journalist who think the gunmen in 2010 was a special force from the south, was wrong. I think, now its time for the military to intervene and investigate the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 "I guess it's plausible that a police unknowingly fired live ammunition instead of rubber bullets......" That is the first contender for stupid statement of the year. It will be very hard to top in the month's ahead. And do you care to elaborate why you think that is stupid? The police were under a lot of stress. Humans make mistakes under stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I assume you're trolling, but in case you're not . . . it's extraordinary simply because they had denied originally that they WERE Police on the rooftops and had made the implication that they were instead protestors dressed in stolen Police uniforms. If accurate, his statement about "justice" also implies that they already know they were doing something criminal/illegal. Admitting that the mysterious "men in black" are actually Police opens a whole new can of worms, going right back to 2010 as I'm sure you'll soon see being explored. You can't state that as a fact because you don't have the evidence for it. And even if he did it does not matter because it is obvious to anyone who has seen the video that they were police. The 'men in black' on the rooftop were normal riot police. There is nothing mysterious about them. Your attempt to link them together with something that happen 4 years ago is absurd. Don't think I stated anything as "fact" nor did I say I had any "evidence". What I did say was that the Police Chief himself acknowledged them as "men in black" and prior to this they were claiming they were protestors. If you can't connect the dots, read between the lines, and see whats actually going on here in Thailand, well, that's your issue not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Its was pretty obvious given the protests from the rank and file BIB and from the footage. The question remains who authorised the tactic and did they approve the live fire? But we all know where they buck stops as is clearly demonstrated with the charges against Abihist and Suthep. The bottom line is now the lack of honesty and integrity of the PTP leadership is on open display. Were there any live fire other than the one protester and the police officer that were shot with .38 caliber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieinthailand Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Will Yincluck and Chalerm now be indicted for murder Will and Suthep answer on his charges? so far it's I'm just to busy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Don't think I stated anything as "fact" nor did I say I had any "evidence". What I did say was that the Police Chief himself acknowledged them as "men in black" and prior to this they were claiming they were protestors. If you can't connect the dots, read between the lines, and see whats actually going on here in Thailand, well, that's your issue not mine. Let me quote you: it's extraordinary simply because they had denied originally that they WERE Police That sounds like stating a fact to me. I'd like to see some actual evidence for it. And I can see what's going on in Thailand just fine thank you. It's a pity that you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluespunk Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 What attempts to hide their presence? Crouching behind a wall in an elevated position? When people are injured or especially if there are deaths involved, there is usually a need for officials to answer for the actions of police, in Europe or anywhere else, if the police are "battling" protesters. Even in Syria. I guess we don't agree on this, and never will. The dead police was also crouching. Maybe this is a police tactic because they are afraid to get shot to death by violent fascist yellowshirts, like what indeed happen that day. I agree with you that there is a need to explain what happen, like how the protesters and the police officer were killed. But to answer some absurd conspiracy theories about riot police on a rooftop is not one of them. Your second paragraph talks about absurd conspiracy theories which is quite ironic considering the content of your first one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diceq Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Your second paragraph talks about absurd conspiracy theories which is quite ironic considering the content of your first one. So that my guess that the police might be crouching because they afraid to get shot to death is a conspiracy theory you mean? Where in that lies the conspiracy? Do you even know the definition of the word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now