No use of force against protesters: Civil Court

[visionchaser45]

"...whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully"

Where has this author been? If these demonstrations are considered "peaceful," then the WW II must have been a love-in. 555

[rubl]

Chalerm is just a pathetic person with zero credibility...

But is funny to see how someone like to quote him when somehow supports his views.

Oh in this case he is not (add at your will "ear medicine", "wine addicted", "father of a policeman assassin").

Edit: cut out quote, after I read my post seemed personal toward the poster I quoted and it was not my intention to be.

Thanks

[newcomer71]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Correct, indeed there was some street war back then. Shooters from both sides should be charged with attempted murder and lock down in jail for the years to come.

Edited February 20, 2014 by newcomer71

[moonao]

These judges work for elites interests, they can't be trusted.

[77Dan]

"...whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully"

Where has this author been? If these demonstrations are considered "peaceful," then the WW II must have been a love-in. 555

That's what the court said. So it's more a question of where have the judges been? Or rather in whose pocket?

[rubl]

"...whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully"

Where has this author been? If these demonstrations are considered "peaceful," then the WW II must have been a love-in. 555

It started peacefully till the government got upset and started talking about rebels, terrorists and police started to 'observe' with undercover armed policemen. Of course some here now have forgotten that, just like why the anti-government protests started. The sneakily modified amnesty bill which became a blanket amnesty bill with extended covering period? Covering the last two years of Thaksin in/out of office AND Yinglucks first two years? The roughly push through in parliament with two readings and two votes in slightly more than 24 hours? The 'please don't protest, go home, it's not done yet' by Yingluck? The "it's not my fault, it's up to the Senate' by Yingluck? Etc., etc.

[diehard60]

I wonder what the court's deffinition of peaceful is? Only 5 grenades and tweny police dead?

[rubl]

"...whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully"

Where has this author been? If these demonstrations are considered "peaceful," then the WW II must have been a love-in. 555

That's what the court said. So it's more a question of where have the judges been? Or rather in whose pocket?

Are you suggesting that the courts might be corrupt?

[spidermike007]

I think it is fair to say the judiciary in this country is completely lost. They have no bearings, and possess little judgment. Also, they do not seem to have much power, as nobody listens to them. In this case, this hair brained law is without clarification. What constitutes a peaceful demonstration? If Suthep is on the stage preaching about how the movement has to oust Yingluck at any cost, is that considered peaceful? If the crowd is blocking access to a government ministry is that considered peaceful? What about them shutting down some of the busiest intersections in the capital? Again, no clarification from a silly body of men and women, who are passing laws that do not apply to the given circumstance.

[englishoak]

"...whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully"

Where has this author been? If these demonstrations are considered "peaceful," then the WW II must have been a love-in. 555

It started peacefully till the government got upset and started talking about rebels, terrorists and police started to 'observe' with undercover armed policemen. Of course some here now have forgotten that, just like why the anti-government protests started. The sneakily modified amnesty bill which became a blanket amnesty bill with extended covering period? Covering the last two years of Thaksin in/out of office AND Yinglucks first two years? The roughly push through in parliament with two readings and two votes in slightly more than 24 hours? The 'please don't protest, go home, it's not done yet' by Yingluck? The "it's not my fault, it's up to the Senate' by Yingluck? Etc., etc.

A lot of protests start off peaceful rubi, they arn't any longer peaceful and havn't been for a while. There is no need for yet another background story etc we all know it, excuses arnt required in a court of law only the facts. are these protests now peaceful or not ? ... don't be selective on days or locations etc is violence a factor at times or not ? Facts thats all the court needs to be looking at and they seemed to have missed out a large chunk of evidence in abundance of the shootings etc for some reason from the protesters.

A ruling is a ruling ( not that anyone ever listens or takes any notice of them ) this is not a good one and its pretty much seen as a joke worldwide.

Simple question you think the ruling is correct in all they have decided to uphold in their decision and that the protests are non violent still ?

[BuddyPinkham]

BANGKOK: -- Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) director Chalerm Yubamrung said Wednesday the Civil Court’s ruling would not clip the centre’s powers and vowed to carry on reclaiming the four other government premises still occupied by protesters.

Offering his thanks to the court for not lifting the Emergency Decree, Chalerm said that the restrictions imposed by the court were just an expression of concern of the court.

For instance the ban on crowd dispersal, the CMPO director said that he would not order dispersal of protesters so long as the protests are peaceful and the protesters are unarmed or they do not trespass on government properties.

He insisted that the court’s ruling would not affect all the arrest warrants which have been issued by the court against leaders of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee.

Police, he added, will continue to conduct searches to look for arms suspected to be concealed by protesters.

Source: http://englishnews.t...-courts-ruling/

He is clinging on to what perceived power he has!

[whybother]

I think it is fair to say the judiciary in this country is completely lost. They have no bearings, and possess little judgment. Also, they do not seem to have much power, as nobody listens to them. In this case, this hair brained law is without clarification. What constitutes a peaceful demonstration? If Suthep is on the stage preaching about how the movement has to oust Yingluck at any cost, is that considered peaceful? If the crowd is blocking access to a government ministry is that considered peaceful? What about them shutting down some of the busiest intersections in the capital? Again, no clarification from a silly body of men and women, who are passing laws that do not apply to the given circumstance

Blocking access to a ministry would be considered peaceful if they are just sitting there blocking access. Shutting down busy intersections would be considered peaceful. Preaching on a stage would be considered peaceful. They stop being peaceful when there is violence from the protesters. There has been no violence at the protesters main stages, so they would be considered peaceful.

Now, before you jump up and down with "But, but, but ...", I am not saying I agree with them blocking intersections or ministries, but the act of blocking them doesn't mean they are being violent.

[harrry]

Actually there is a point to this. The actions taken by the police breached the citizens rights to protest as ordered by the court. The police were acting outside their rights and it could be held that the demonstraters had every right to resist them. Police can only act within the law.

Edited February 20, 2014 by harrry

[rickirs]

The State of Emergency (SOE) gives the government the power to implement curfews, censor the news media, disperse gatherings, detain suspects without charge, prevent political groupings of five or more people, and use military force to "secure order. The Civil Court UPHELD the SOE. So love it or not, the SOE is constitutional. Democrats used the SOE in 2010 that left 80 dead and thousands injured to bring a violent end to months of anti-government protests in Bangkok. Now that Democrats are no longer in control of the government they condemn the SOE. This is ironic when in 2010 Suthep as Deputy Prime Minister oversaw a SPECIAL SECURITY FORCE that has been impicated in those deaths and injuries, and now faces indictment for murder charges.

Judges ruled against the government for using the SOE as a pretext to use force against anti-government demonstrators. However, the government has a responsibility to maintain some sense of LAW AND ORDER. The Court did not define what demonstrator actions were "peaceful" and what were not. Some examples from the Court would have proven a useful guide for both the government and the protest leaders on how to direct protester behavior without more deaths and injuries. The Court appears to rule contrary to its own decision to uphold the SOE to negate the government's constitutional right under a SOE to disperse gatherings. The Court didn't address the level of force as one sees in Western democracies such as "excessive", "measured", or "appropriate." The Court's blanket ruling of forbidding "force" without condition may be unconstitutional and should be appealed.

Seriously, if protesters ignored pleas to disperse occupation of government and public facilities under the SOE, how is that done without force especially when ARMED PROTESTER GUARDS are present in the demonstrations? When police are attacked by protester mobs because they are only monitoring the crowds for possible criminal acts; how are the police not allowed to use "measured and appropriate" force to protect themselves and peacefully withdraw; how can law and order prevail without the use of "measured and appropriate" force when parliament candidates and voters are shoved aside and pushed against by protesters blocking voting registrations and polls? At this moment Thailand law and order is more like the Wild West of America in the 1880's and as a nation it will stand isolated from the international community.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Yet no footage of any of those voters shooting back at him exists. They weren't pro-government, they were trying to free the ballot boxes and Pheu Thai don't dominate in that part of town, Chewit was the favorite and he's an independant.

So no, your popcorn guy shot voters, and they're not allowed to arrest him because!?

Amazing Afghanistan!

Edited February 20, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[binjalin]

The court has basically taken the ability to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, away from the civilian government. It sets a precedent and effectively undermines the authority of the government. I believe that upon appeal the judgement would have to be reversed. The fundamental right of protest would remain, but a legally elected government must have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. The alternative is anarchy, which is perhaps what these judges want.

When we agree with a court's ruling it's good, when we don't agree it's bad and wrong and a judicial coup.

Can't you guys make up your mind about this ?

my post #152 you have not answered my dear rubl

[whybother]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Yet no footage of any of those voters shooting back at him exists. They weren't pro-government, they were trying to free the ballot boxes and Pheu Thai don't dominate in that part of town, Chewit was the favorite and he's an independant.

So no, your popcorn guy shot voters, and they're not allowed to arrest him because!

Amazing Afghanistan!

Are you suggesting that no one was shooting at the anti-government protesters? There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, including journalists, army and police personnel taking cover from people shooting at them.

[bunuel]

BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court on Wednesday ruled the state of emergency cannot be used as a reason for clamping down on the anti-government demonstrators.

whose demonstrations have so far been conducted peacefully.

BUT, what about the peoples rights of freedom to travel and work in some areas. This was and has been STOPPED by the anti-government demonstrators.

What about the freedom to travel and to VOTE in some areas, this was also STOPPED by the anti-government demonstrators.

You, The Civil Court are the Joke of the Year 2014. and do not know anything about the RULE OF CIVIL LAW. Do you? As we all have the Civil right of movement etc......this was also STOPPED by the anti-government demonstrators.

What you, The Civil Court should have mentioned was the Civil disobedience by the anti-government demonstrators taking over and ransacking government offices, and to leave right now all government properties and park your demonstrators in the DEEP SOUTH of Thailand where they came from.

The only good thing came out was, the street food vendors are making funds for their families which helps the poor folks.

I rest my case, me lord/s.

Win

Very opaque ruling indeed! Please note ruling refers to " non-violent protesters" and not " any protesters",

The issue then becomes a definition of " violence" reminiscent of Bill Clinton's definition of "sex",

The problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who are not interested in such semantic

nuances, and who will take the law into their own hands if they see their democratically elected

government further undermined.

Let us hope cooler heads prevail.

Sai tam ya, nah..

[belg]

rules rules rules, but how many people actually inforce or follow them?

[LomSak27]

No No No No

Don't think you can shoot the Protestors like the Dems shot the Reds in 2010. We forbid it !

Of course if Unelected Councils are formed and they decide to shoot angry Reds fighting for the government they elected, This will be OK. After all some protestors are more important than other protestors.

Just another court decision speeding along "reconciliation

[Emster23]

This article is confusing: part says "no force against protestors" and other says same but "peaceful protestors". So which is it? Seems ban was against "peaceful protestors" would still leave government able to enforce laws, if they could talk police and military into believing that might be a good idea.... taking over buildings, trashing them, blocking elections, shooting, killing, throwing grenades, etc don't fall into category of "peaceful protest", at least in my book. Maybe I need a Thai definition of what that means.

[BlueNoseCodger]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Yet no footage of any of those voters shooting back at him exists. They weren't pro-government, they were trying to free the ballot boxes and Pheu Thai don't dominate in that part of town, Chewit was the favorite and he's an independant.

So no, your popcorn guy shot voters, and they're not allowed to arrest him because!

Amazing Afghanistan!

Are you suggesting that no one was shooting at the anti-government protesters? There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, including journalists, army and police personnel taking cover from people shooting at them.

Show me the footage!, show me the photos!, this is 2014, everyone has cameras and video phones and youtube is free! You don't get to repeat political hacks lying heresay anymore and pretend it's evidence.

Prayuth's explanation to this 'was well more journalists were at the PDRC protestors side which is why all the footage is of PDRC shooters'!

Others point to a more simple explanation:

So no, they can't arrest popcorn shooter because the elite have made it legal for your warlord to have a militia on the streets of Bangkok.

Visit Bangkok in Amazing Afghanistan!

Edited February 20, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[Mr Yim]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Absolute BS and you know it.

[hgma]

Conspiracy nutters take note: The court did not support the democrat-led petition to lift the state of emergency. This is obviously further evidence of a judicial coup.

nutty dreads.....

Does anyone cares in this country what a ruling is all about?

Coup?

Nutty dreads!!

[whybother]

Dear world, remember the popcorn shooter? You saw him on your TV on every news channel shooting voters? Well our police are not allowed to arrest him, and not allowed to arrest the warlord who sent him.

Amazing Afghanistan

He wasn't shooting voters. He was shooting at pro-government protesters that were shooting at anti-government protesters.

Absolute BS and you know it.

That's not BS.

http://www.mcot.net/site/content?id=52ecda3abe0470cf968b46c9

Six wounded in clash between anti- and pro-government groups

Both sides reportedly exchanged gunfire and sporadic gunshots and gun-like sounds continued.

[BlueNoseCodger]

That's not BS.

http://www.mcot.net/site/content?id=52ecda3abe0470cf968b46c9

Six wounded in clash between anti- and pro-government groups

Both sides reportedly exchanged gunfire and sporadic gunshots and gun-like sounds continued.

Oh but you forget, we have video of that, you can see the bombs come from above on the bridge, and there's a man in black with gun raised towards people running in front of IT square.

See those people in front of IT square running? They just wanted to vote in elections!

Thank god popcorn man protects us from these terrible voters!

[whybother]

That's not BS.

http://www.mcot.net/site/content?id=52ecda3abe0470cf968b46c9

Six wounded in clash between anti- and pro-government groups

Both sides reportedly exchanged gunfire and sporadic gunshots and gun-like sounds continued.

Oh but you forget, we have video of that, you can see the bombs come from above on the bridge, and there's a man in black with gun raised towards people running in front of IT square.

See those people in front of IT square running? They just wanted to vote in elections!

Thank god popcorn man protects us from these terrible voters!

Why is everyone around the popcorn shooter taking cover? Because they are being shot at by the pro-government protesters.

[geriatrickid]

The court has basically taken the ability to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, away from the civilian government. It sets a precedent and effectively undermines the authority of the government. I believe that upon appeal the judgement would have to be reversed. The fundamental right of protest would remain, but a legally elected government must have the ability to ensure that laws are enforced. The alternative is anarchy, which is perhaps what these judges want.

they are not the "legally elected govt", they stepped down from that position last year and as yet the elections have not been finalized so they are infact simply a stand in mob while we wait for the verdict. Basically this means what you wrote does not compute and is simply not acceptable as any kind of truth, just another load of red garbage.

It is still the legal government. Are you now claiming that the government is an illegal entity?

As a government yes. As a Caretaker Government no. Most of its members lost their seats with the disolution. The Cabinet retains them but in a strictly limited capacity.

In law, the "caretaker" government is still the government and retains the obligations and duties to enforce the existing laws. In plain English, the current government has an obligation to maintain civil order and it is empowered by all of the existing laws to do just that.

[bkksteviejai]

Pretty much all you need to know. Military ordanance used against the police just a couple of days ago......and this ruling comes out. Incredible. Something must be about to happen.

Sent from my GT-S7562 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[northernjohn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Good. No more idiotic pushes to disband the protestors. Now that the court has ruled against using violence, they can't legally disband the protestors. If they try and someone dies, Chalerm and his band of official thugs can be held liable.

With the fact that Suthep and Abhist led the breaking up of an attempted coup against armed protestors and got charged with murder would Yingluck and Chalerm now be liable for murder charges?

So the emergency decree remains, but violence to disperse protesters is out. This can only be good news for the people on the streets as well as the country at large, because the underlying principle is that protests are a legal form of dissent in a free society. Chalerm wanted to do away with that. In terms of the emergency decree itself, the administration remains on constitutional thin ice, as an appeal to the Constitutional Court on the legality of its imposition will certainly be forthcoming at some point. For Chalerm, this has been a very bad week. His push yesterday to retake five protest areas ended in none of them being retaken, and with the tragic loss of life - four civilians and one policeman, as well as many dozens of injured. This ruling puts a stop to the carnage. And it places the administration in an ever tighter corner, as impeachment investigations continue, as the rice scandal continues to overwhelm them, and as a parliament sits idle with no quorum. The mechanisms of this administration's defeat are in motion, from a variety of angles, headed towards their day in court.

In view of the 2010 event would Yingluck and Chalerm not be charged with murder? I agree constitutionally they are on very thin ice. The protestors were not violent and did no harm to people. . That all came about after the Thaksin led government tried to shut them down. They in no way urged violence from their rally platforms such as the red shirts did with there burn Bangkok down. The only harm they did was when the red shirts tried to intimidate them with their typical type of intimidation. It back fired on them and they are now reluctant to try it

In my opinion Thaksin is trying to create a police state with him as the leader dictator. There has been so much corruption and lying brought to light here that if there was a legal way to impeach the Government it should start right now.

The audacity or in this case stupidity to stand in front of a national televised audience and with a straight face say the government can not pay the 130 billion baht owed to the farmers since long before the protestors came on the scene is the fault of the protestors. Alone that should be grounds for impeachment. This is one of the parts of the constitution that needs changing it should not be legal to tell an out and out lie to cover up your ineptness or to make people feel good.

Edited February 20, 2014 by northernjohn