Thailand's police chief admits 'men in black' are police

[Ulic]

I'm impressed they admit they were policeman. Most would deny, deny, deny.

[silent]

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.

Maybe because of this reason :

Forensic police later confirmed that ballistic test on the killed police officer showed he was shot from a high ground position.

Yes, I guess that's why. But if this map is correct then it seems very unlikely that he could have been killed by those on top of the ministry.

The stadium is between the building and the cop that was killed. He was also shot by a pistol round, which given the distance, makes it seem even more improbable that he was shot from the top of this building. The police on top of the building seemed to be aiming their tear gas at protesters directly in front of them, either they were trying to get into the MoL or they were trying to get into the stadium via the soi to the right of the ministry. But the clash which killed the police officer happened on the other side of the stadium. So I doubt they could have shot one of their own from this position, even by accident.

I got the image from here, where there's more detailed analysis of this incident: http://on-off-course.tumblr.com/post/71568627399/was-a-thai-policeman-killed-by-gunmen-stationed-on-top

The video posted there shows police crouching and shots apparently coming from the direction of the protesters. If Narong was crouching when he was shot, which is quite probable, he needn't have been shot from a higher building.

So now we're introducing not only the integrity of Thai police, but the credibility of their Forensics too? Don't confuse us with facts.

Edited January 2, 2014 by silent

[tezzainoz]

What did anyone expect? Ninjas? Police, exactly where they should have been. The question is, did they do anything wrong?

Or the question is

If the men in black where police this times

it sets a precedance that it was the police who shot and murdered many protestors last time

sorry there are two sides to every story

[Tatsujin]

OK, try this (other sources are available on a website we can't quote here):

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/693070-protesters-demand-thai-govt-explanation-of-shootings/

There has been no clarification but a rejection by Metropolitan Police Chief Karonwit Thoopkrachang saying that the men in black were third parties, not police officers or civilians (siding with the government), said Mr Akanat.

So, just to be sure you understand diceq, the Metropolitan Police Chief Karonwit Thoopkrachang said they were not Police. Clear now? Or are you going to reject this also?

As I said before, you really need to get your own information from multiple sources, read between the lines a little, connect the dots, and you'll see what's really going on here. It's not that hard if you have an open mind.

You said that Chalerm denied it. But now you are claiming it was the police? Who's backtracking here?

The article goes on to say:

He also called on caretaker Labour Minister Chalerm Yubumrung to explain the presence of men in black on the rooftop of the Labour Ministry...

Which make it seem like the denial by the police was referring to the bashing of the pick-up, not the men on the roof. It is not entirely clear, which seems to be the norm for most sources in this thread. I am not sure if it's just bad reporting or intentional.

In either case, you shouldn't blame the government for something that the police says. If Chalerm did in fact say what you initially claimed, it's reasonable to assume he did so from the erroneous information he got from the police.

I don't believe I said it was Chalerm, I said "they", and if I was not clear, I was referring to those in authority which included the Govt and Police.

And by the way, you're the one making things "not clear".

You don't work for that Propaganda Wing that Yingluck set up a while ago do you?

[tetleythedog]

Well fancy that!

Yep! Comes as a complete surprise to all and sundry. We should be reporting the news guys, we're weeks ahead of them !!!

[diceq]

So the shot victim cop was shot by other cops who were installed upon a roof?

No, the police simply said that the people on the roof were police. You're jumping to conclusions.

Edited January 2, 2014 by diceq

[Robby nz]

But now we see in the news :

Police assert two victims killed at Din Daeng were not shot from high building in Labour Ministry; police there had no guns while dealing with protesters /MCOT

Does this not contradict the forensic findings ?

Or perhaps they were shot from another high vantage point

[diceq]

Or perhaps they were shot from another high vantage point

Or maybe from a high vantage point relative to where the policeman was. If he was crouching down he could have been shot by a protester on the street.

[tingtongteesood]

If governments were asked to resign every time a policeman accidentally or deliberately shot another individual the World would be devoid of governance.

Hardly a week goes by without some 'trigger happy' policeman shooting,often totally innocent, people.

I cannot see Yingluck's government wanting to lose the moral high ground by ordering one policeman to kill another.

Every government around the World has specially trained forces to call on at times of extreme disorder. There is no reason why Thailand should be different

Of course all this could be avoided if Suthep would only pack up his 'soapbox' and stop inciting violence.

An election is pending. Let him put his X like everyone else.

[rubl]

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.

To me it would seem that you only accept as proven what you'd like to accept.

Of course with this I'm not lying, I may just be wrong

[tingtongteesood]

As opposed to those lovely democratic red shirts ? ( This is sarcasm for those who don't get it )

I haven't heard any redshirt call for a military coup or to overthrow any democratically elected governments, have you? Just because some redshirts use violence does not make them undemocratic.

No they just kill people, vandalize, threaten, intimidate and burn down buildings, lovely people ( more sarcasm people ).

And as has been repeated ad infinitum, they pissed on the constitution and broke the law, screw democracy. They don't believe in the rule of law and think they can do whatever they what to benefit their illustrious fugitive leader. BIG RED MARK ( literally and figuratively I guess in this instance ) right there. The Thaksin mafia family needs to be excised like the cancerous tumour on the ass of the country that they are.

There is nothing democratic about the red thugs that I can see, but please correct us mr. red shirt, I await your reply with great curiosity....

[Emptyset]

Nice backtracking, but I'm not the one that is confused and I'm not misunderstanding anything . . .

I thought maybe you were another user. But just checked the history. This is what you said:

it's extraordinary simply because they had denied originally that they WERE Police

I've been asking you for proof of that claim ever since.

This has a bit about various government statements at the end: http://asiancorrespondent.com/117827/who-were-the-men-on-the-roof-of-the-ministry-of-labor/

Chalerm's statement looked clear enough according to ThaiPBS, but in the original Thai it's more ambiguous and not so clear who he was referring to. But people will naturally assume Chalerm was referring to men on the rooftop. However, Chalerm is Chalerm. He doesn't necessarily clear what he says with the government, police or CAPO first.

[tingtongteesood]

My personal thoughts.

These police were there to incite a violent confrontation. The police were wearing bullet proof vests, the unlucky officer was shot in the side with no protection. So could have been a provocateur situation by Chalerm on Thaksin's orders that went horribly wrong. If this government gets ousted (which they certainly will) I suspect Chalerm won't be hanging around.

Nice conspiracy theory. There is only one little problem with it. The current government is trying very hard not to incite violence to not give the military a justification to carry out another coup. This is painfully obvious when you see the complete lack of police response when the fascists occupy government buildings. How do you think any police force in Europe or U.S would react if a similar incident would occur?

The current government is trying hard to appear not to incite unrest as Yingluck doesn't want to have murder charges against her, PT set the precedent in their thwarted efforts to make the Dems agree to the bullshit amnesty and it must apply to her too, or else the world will see the hypocrisy of the government clearly. Also unlike 2010 they have a power of position and they want to try and keep hold of it so this time a coup is not in their interests. Also the protestors are trying ( for the most part ) very hard not to give the government an excuse to be violent, so give them some credit. In 2010 the red shirts committed violent acts at will, anything they could to cause unrest and make The Dems step down. The 'men in black' were on the reds side for sure.

The current government has a lot to gain from violence actually, as long as they can deny all involvement. They can scare the protestors away with hit and run attacks ( same as the reds did in 2010 ) and discredit them with sacrificial lambs ( same as the reds very probably did in at least 1 documented case, depends how you view the video which I won't link to as it is rather graphic ).

It is my belief that is what happened here, the government just thought they wouldn't get caught, but they did ! The police have stirred up the protestors on orders from the government handed down to the police chief. Did you hear what they were shouting at the protestors at government house over the loud speakers ? Very VERY rude...But people only remember the violence, not why it happened and who instigated it, and since the government is the government, regardless of whether they are good or bad, the international community will side with them as long as they can keep the truth suppressed and get people to read the government propaganda instead.

As for ''fascists'' - if they really are this rather unsavoury lable you have chosen to give them - I would rather have honest fascists working in the interests off the country than criminal whatever Thaksin, Chalerm and the rest of the Mafia family are working in the interests of a fugitive...

Well nice of you to admit that you are fascist. At least you are not a hypocrite.

What happened in 2010 is besides the point though. Using violence against a dictatorship to overthrow it is warranted. It's a view shared by most western governments. But your theory fails to explain why the current government would benefit from violence today.

And you claim that rude words were spoken over an intercom, then the riots started, is that correct?

Actually I am far from fascist, I was merely stating that people working for the sake of the country would be prferable to the Thaksin mafia family control. I am more of a socialist but maybe a bit conservative too....

[falangadang]

So the shot victim cop was shot by other cops who were installed upon a roof?

No, the police simply said that the people on the roof were police. You're jumping to conclusions.

Are you being sarcastic,... or was that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

[rebelplatoon]

I've been trying but somehow I cannot combine these two sentences:

Forensic police later confirmed that ballistic test on the killed police officer showed he was shot from a high ground position.

But the Center for the Administration of Peace and Order said the police was a victim of the violence.

That is, with any logic.

[pmugghc]

I haven't heard any redshirt call for a military coup or to overthrow any democratically elected governments, have you? Just because some redshirts use violence does not make them undemocratic.

When they try to remove all independent agencies that provide checks & balances plus undermining the judiciary that's undemocratic.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 2, 2014 by pmugghc

[whybother]

You're the one coming up with the conspiracy theories. I'm just asking what proof you have for them.

And what conspiracy theory is that? Are you referring to the police seemed to have been shot by a fascist yellowshirt? If so, I suggest you look up the definition of the word conspiracy. If you claim that the police were behind the shooting, that would make you the conspiracy theorist. And it's a nutty conspiracy theory at that.

I haven't claimed anything. You're the one making all the claims. And then you don't provide any evidence for them.

[diceq]

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.

To me it would seem that you only accept as proven what you'd like to accept.

Of course with this I'm not lying, I may just be wrong

No, a video of him getting and answering the question would prove it to me. A quote would be a lot better than what they provided us with. And not to mention that this news outlet seems to be the only that claims he said this.

[diceq]

So the shot victim cop was shot by other cops who were installed upon a roof?

No, the police simply said that the people on the roof were police. You're jumping to conclusions.

Are you being sarcastic,... or was that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

Yes that is extremely unreasonable. Especially given the location of the two sites making it almost impossible:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/693576-thailands-police-chief-admits-men-in-black-are-police/page-2#entry7235372

[Cnxforever]

maybe some on here should get your news from more reliable sources than "the Nation" or "Blueskychannel - the mouth piece of the PAD.

Bangkok Pundit has a much more balanced view and explains in detail and with graphics why it was virtually impossible for the police to have shot from the rooftop other than teargas and that they where sent there AFTER the demonstrators became violent and shot the police officer! The car at the labor ministry that was riddled with bullets was clearly shot at from the direction of the demonstrators breaking into the ministry storming onto the car park.

Don't be fooled by propaganda - keep an open mind!

[diceq]

I haven't heard any redshirt call for a military coup or to overthrow any democratically elected governments, have you? Just because some redshirts use violence does not make them undemocratic.

When they try to remove all independent agencies that provide checks & balances plus undermining the judiciary that's undemocratic.

Not if those independent agencies are removed democratically. And please elaborate what you mean by "undermining the judiciary".

[diceq]

You're the one coming up with the conspiracy theories. I'm just asking what proof you have for them.

And what conspiracy theory is that? Are you referring to the police seemed to have been shot by a fascist yellowshirt? If so, I suggest you look up the definition of the word conspiracy. If you claim that the police were behind the shooting, that would make you the conspiracy theorist. And it's a nutty conspiracy theory at that.

I haven't claimed anything. You're the one making all the claims. And then you don't provide any evidence for them.

You haven't claimed anything?

You're the one coming up with the conspiracy theories.

Then you ask me what proof I have of them, even though I haven't spouted a single one. Nice try.

[diceq]

I don't believe I said it was Chalerm, I said "they", and if I was not clear, I was referring to those in authority which included the Govt and Police.

And by the way, you're the one making things "not clear".

You don't work for that Propaganda Wing that Yingluck set up a while ago do you?

You are right, you didn't.

[diceq]

You are seriously weird.

Are you saying that you haven't claimed that the "fascist yellow shirts shot the policeman"????

I never said it was a group of people. In order for it to be a conspiracy there must be more than one person committing the crime. It's indeed possible that it was a conspiracy, but I never made that claim. You on the other hand claimed the police shot the police did you not?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts, inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

Edit: A troll post has now been removed.

[whybother]

You are seriously weird.

Are you saying that you haven't claimed that the "fascist yellow shirts shot the policeman"????

I never said it was a group of people. In order for it to be a conspiracy there must be more than one person committing the crime. It's indeed possible that it was a conspiracy, but I never made that claim. You on the other hand claimed the police shot the police did you not?

No, I never suggested that police killed the policeman. You on the other hand did claim that the "fascist yellow shirts" killed the policeman. Back track on that one.

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.

[diceq]

No, I never suggested that police killed the policeman. You on the other hand did claim that the "fascist yellow shirts" killed the policeman. Back track on that one.

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.

No, I said that they were afraid to get shot by yellow shirts. "What indeed happened" can in this context mean both one or several. Obviously only one person pulled the trigger, and since I didn't mention anything about that person doing it on orders from a group, the former would be true. But English is not my first language so maybe I am wrong on this point.

[whybother]

No, I never suggested that police killed the policeman. You on the other hand did claim that the "fascist yellow shirts" killed the policeman. Back track on that one.

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.

No, I said that they were afraid to get shot by yellow shirts. "What indeed happened" can in this context mean both one or several. Obviously only one person pulled the trigger, and since I didn't mention anything about that person doing it on orders from a group, the former would be true. But English is not my first language so maybe I am wrong on this point.

Right, so lets get this straight. You are claiming that an individual "violent fascist yellow shirt" shot the policeman, not a group of "violent fascist yellow shirts"?

Just so we can get to the bottom of this, do you have anything to back up that claim?

[diceq]

Right, so lets get this straight. You are claiming that an individual "violent fascist yellow shirt" shot the policeman, not a group of "violent fascist yellow shirts"?

Just so we can get to the bottom of this, do you have anything to back up that claim?

That is correct. If you had read the whole thread you would have seen a later post of mine, where I admitted that I had no proof of that claim, and where I acknowledged that I should have said "like what seemed to have happened".

Hopefully the police weren't so incompetent that they did not film or confiscate CCTV footage of the riots. The police did, a few days ago, come out and say they had 'mountain of evidence' of the events. So maybe this question will be resolved soon.

Edited January 2, 2014 by diceq

[whybother]

Right, so lets get this straight. You are claiming that an individual "violent fascist yellow shirt" shot the policeman, not a group of "violent fascist yellow shirts"?

Just so we can get to the bottom of this, do you have anything to back up that claim?

That is correct. If you had read the whole thread you would have seen a later post of mine, where I admitted that I had no proof of that claim, and where I acknowledged that I should have said "like what seemed to have happened".

Even with out any proof whatsoever, you're still saying that's what "seemed to have happened"! And you've got the gall to quote every second post asking other posters for proof!