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

[metisdead]

A post quoting Bangkok Post content has been removed.

[Varangkul]

"However, I'm fairly convinced the guys on top of the building were not men in black stationed there to shoot people, but rather riot policemen defending the ministry."

I am confused! How do you defend a building from illegal entry by stationing defenders on the roof, several stories high, when the threat of entry comes from the ground? Were the protesters likely to user helicopters?

[diceq]

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!

Simple logic dictates that. The red shirts have nothing to gain from shooting a police officer, on the other hand the yellow shirts have everything to gain from provoking the police. Not to mention that supposedly he was shot with a handgun .38 caliber. Making it reasonable to assume he was shot close range. If I am not mistaken, the location of the police officer when he was shot was in close proximity to the rioters, and happened after the police starting firing rubber bullets. Which is yet another reason to assume it was done by a yellow shirt.

And normally, when a police dies or is wounded in a riot, do you:

A. Think it was perpetrated by the violent rioters, or;

B. An elaborate conspiracy theory?

This is why I think it's very reasonable to claim that this is what "seemed to have happened".

And again, if I am not mistaken, I think I only asked for proof of the claim that the government did in fact deny and lie that the police on the rooftop were police. Because to me that made very little sense. And also because some were using that as an argument to draw the conclusion that the police had killed one of their own. Which is yet another absurd and far-fetched conclusion.

Edited January 2, 2014 by diceq

[diceq]

"However, I'm fairly convinced the guys on top of the building were not men in black stationed there to shoot people, but rather riot policemen defending the ministry."

I am confused! How do you defend a building from illegal entry by stationing defenders on the roof, several stories high, when the threat of entry comes from the ground? Were the protesters likely to user helicopters?

I don't think they were there to protect the ministry. If I am not mistaken the police claimed that these people were not armed. So maybe their main objective was to throw tear gas grenades down on to the crowd, as seen in a video.

[diceq]

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.

If you read this it will become apparent:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/117827/who-were-the-men-on-the-roof-of-the-ministry-of-labor/

[Emster23]

As many of us know from experience, once the habit of lying is in place it becomes second nature, even when the truth would be less damaging. Clearly we can see Lee Harvey Oswald was up there, in that 6th floor window.

[Emptyset]

"However, I'm fairly convinced the guys on top of the building were not men in black stationed there to shoot people, but rather riot policemen defending the ministry."

I am confused! How do you defend a building from illegal entry by stationing defenders on the roof, several stories high, when the threat of entry comes from the ground? Were the protesters likely to user helicopters?

I don't know... how were castles in medieval times defended by people on castle walls? They had police on the ground and on the roof. The building was only three storeys, not that high, good vantage point and place to toss/shoot tear gas grenades from I guess.

[PeterSmiles]

"However, I'm fairly convinced the guys on top of the building were not men in black stationed there to shoot people, but rather riot policemen defending the ministry."

I am confused! How do you defend a building from illegal entry by stationing defenders on the roof, several stories high, when the threat of entry comes from the ground? Were the protesters likely to user helicopters?

I don't know... how were castles in medieval times defended by people on castle walls? They had police on the ground and on the roof. The building was only three storeys, not that high, good vantage point and place to toss/shoot tear gas grenades from I guess.

Anything thrown from a third floor becomes a projectile, I'm not sure if that is the purpose of a teargas grenade. And wasn't it clear from the video that there was shooting going on as well ?

[diceq]

Anything thrown from a third floor becomes a projectile, I'm not sure if that is the purpose of a teargas grenade. And wasn't it clear from the video that there was shooting going on as well ?

Pebbles too huh? The purpose of a tear gas grenade is to disperse a crowd, that should go without saying. And no, I did not see any shooting in the video that I saw.

[Wat dee]

Will Yincluck and Chalerm now be indicted for murder

Bush and Downing street lapdog will be indicted for war crimes first.

[Chao Lao Beach]

So that means the undercover RED FORCE police aka the men in black have burnt down Central World over 3 years ago then?

Not exactly, just a BBQ to roast marsh-mellows

[philliphn]

So that means the undercover RED FORCE police aka the men in black have burnt down Central World over 3 years ago then?

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me! No one has accused any specific Police Officer of these allegations. They were where they should have been. Just because the shot came from a height. Does not automatically mean the Police did it. The police were on the roof to try and prevent such an occurrence. Seems reasonable to me. Having said that. Accidents can happen.

[smedly]

you know what makes me laugh about threads like these, posters here go through endless arguments based on statements/announcements from Thai authorities which at the end of the day are almost certain to be lies

The smart people make a comment on the article and give a reason for their view and that's it, this thread is full of endless arguments of crap and personal insults - it cracks me up lol

Going back to the OP - here is what I think

Adul has been forced to tell the truth about what he knows

Adul doesn't seem to be in control of the men that were on the roof and yet he is the police chief - shocking

Charlerm did state that the men on the roof were not police and he didn't know who they were, so Adul and Charlerm need to sit down and sort that out publicly

It is clear from the video footage that the men on the roof were active as puffs of smoke can be clearly seen

and lastly if anyone thinks they will ever hear the truth about this from the government or police then they are very naïve

not much more to discuss here

[fasteddie]

In this case though, why didn't Chalerm just say, 'sure, we stationed police up there to prevent protesters breaking into the Labour Ministry' - and apparently the Labour Ministry did come under attack per The Nation witness quotes. Though whether that was before or after police up there fired tear gas down on the protesters I'm not sure.

Fact is, in this case it was actually easier for Chalerm to tell the truth. The truth would've served him and the government better than these stories which even many die hard PT supporters will find hard to believe. Yet he still chose to lie. Guess he doesn't know any other way.

The government didn't place any people on rooftops, the police did. The government officials have no information on police tactics unless they specifically call up the police chief and ask. I am not familiar with what Chalerm did say, I would be interested to see a quote of that. But in either case I doubt he was lying, just misinformed. Because as you correctly point out, he has nothing to gain by lying about it. Quite the opposite. If he did say that I very much doubt he saw the same video as I did.

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.

Oh please! you're jumping to so many conclusions, why do you assume the men in black police uniforms on the ministry roof have any connection with those in 2010? Grasping at straws in the extreme methinks!

[JRSoul]

So that means the undercover RED FORCE police aka the men in black have burnt down Central World over 3 years ago then?

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me! No one has accused any specific Police Officer of these allegations. They were where they should have been. Just because the shot came from a height. Does not automatically mean the Police did it. The police were on the roof to try and prevent such an occurrence. Seems reasonable to me. Having said that. Accidents can happen.

Accidents can happen? How do you "accidentally" point a handgun at a crowd and shoot a few people? That's almost as stupid as diceman saying you could do the same thing not knowing what rounds were in the gun,

[peecee]

So since the policeman who died was shot from a higher angle, it could have been a blue on blue killing. This is looking bad for the police and the Shinawatra government.

This black on brown is now blue on blue? Wow; good job it wasn't yellow or red on brown!

[sirchai]

Santa's reindeer are Turbo charged now? Don't get it.-

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

here is what I think

Adul has been forced to tell the truth about what he knows

Adul doesn't seem to be in control of the men that were on the roof and yet he is the police chief - shocking

Charlerm did state that the men on the roof were not police and he didn't know who they were, so Adul and Charlerm need to sit down and sort that out publicly

It is clear from the video footage that the men on the roof were active as puffs of smoke can be clearly seen

and lastly if anyone thinks they will ever hear the truth about this from the government or police then they are very naïve

I agree with much of the above, but. I also wonder if the Police Adul is becoming a version of the previous Army Sonthi.

Both were appointed by Thaksin and is Adul looking to kick him in the nuts the way Sonthi did?

As he is disputing chalerm and surapong in various ways, it sort of seems that he's making Thaksin look bad.

[shrimpythailand]

So since the policeman who died was shot from a higher angle, it could have been a blue on blue killing. This is looking bad for the police and the Shinawatra government.

Black on Brown...

[smedly]

I think those in the know will be very carefully making choices as to who they will side themselves with - perhaps Adul has an idea of where he should be at right now, I'm sure he would like to keep his job

[Ricardo]

were

"However, I'm fairly convinced the guys on top of the building were not men in black stationed there to shoot people, but rather riot policemen defending the ministry."

I am confused! How do you defend a building from illegal entry by stationing defenders on the roof, several stories high, when the threat of entry comes from the ground? Were the protesters likely to user helicopters?

I don't think they were there to protect the ministry. If I am not mistaken the police claimed that these people were not armed. So maybe their main objective was to throw tear gas grenades down on to the crowd, as seen in a video.

If the police threw down tear-gas grenades, which might explain the puffs-of-smoke if they used grenade-launchers, then surely they were armed, if only with grenades, which would throw doubt on any police claims "that these people were not armed" ?

And every policeman I ever saw in Thailand was carrying a gun, so how likely is it that these men-in-black police weren't similarly armed, the question is rather whether-or-not they used their guns from the rooftop, and what provoked them to do so ?

[boomerangutang]

He could only admit it, when it because increasingly ludicrous to deny it - due to weight of evidence.

The day Thai cops or military or politicians tell the truth - without inducements (or being forced to), is the day we'll start planting bananas at the North Pole.

[GeorgeO]

Those of you who are attempting to get dicey to listen to reason are completely wasting your time. There is nothing you can say that will have any impact on his mindset, so if I were you, I wouldn't bother wasting any more of your time continuing the argument with him.

[JRSoul]

Are there any reports of protesters being injured by tear gas canisters, because an object dropped fro a 15m building will hit the ground, or your foot, at more than 60km/h? If you were lucky enough to be hit in the head, it would be moving slower, but any vertical force applied at launch would increase terminal velocity. All in all, not a recommenced practice unless you don't GAF.

[Scott]

A post with an unsourced link has been deleted.

[bangkokpoppys]

It was Lee Harvey Osmond...

Edited January 3, 2014 by bangkokpoppys

[Skywalker69]

This is an extraordinary admission. It is unexpected to encounter this degree of candor from the police. But the admission has been made, and frankly really doesn't come as a surprise. It also lends additional light to the general campaign of anonymous attacks against the protesters. The edifice of this administration appears to be crumbling from within. It seems to be all catching up with it. As the registration period has now ended with well over 5 % of the constituencies uncontested, the election itself seems now pointless from even Pheu Thai's standpoint. It's time to turn down the pressure cooker, and allow reform discussions to take place in a manner that engages the input of all sectors of society in a peaceful manner.

Again, care to explain what's so extraordinary about admitting that the police had people stationed on rooftops?

Will this pictures do?