Thai Court accepts murder trial of Yingluck and five top officials

[ginjag]

Perhaps if there was more accountability there would be far fewer conflicts in the World

Tony Blair and George Bush jnr immediately spring to mind as two leaders who should be made accountable for the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths that occurred in Iraq

'Accountability'? - Blair is now a peace envoy! You couldn't make it up

I blame the deaths in the political protests we are witnessing on Suthep alone. His bellicose rantings have drawn in a herd of impressionable followers who lost sight that they were protesting against a government that was comprehensively and democratically elected in free and fair elections

Of course governments make errors while in office, some quite serious, but, as in the US where Obama ousted Bush in elections, the Thai populace have been given a further opportunity to depose Pheu Thai through the ballot box and have failed to do so

In short the political protests were completely without merit and the responsibility for the unfortunate deaths that occurred lies solely with Suthep and his band of outlaws

Nothing to have stopped the P.M. from stepping down, Maggie Thatcher did and her party carried on, but not for that much longer.

Maggie didn't say, "oh but we must be democratic and have elections if you want me out vote me out" Maggie had had her innings and she knew it. UNLIKE Yingluck who has to play the big time stakes and look at this mess, she must have known she was going to face this music, so why give everyone the pain.

Suppose it runs in the family. if they can't get their way they will destruct.

[thaimonkey]

Q: Where can one find kangaroos in Thailand?

A: In the Thai courts (of injustice, skewed justice, janudiced "justice", "non-justice")

[whatsupdoc]

Q: Where can one find kangaroos in Thailand?

A: In the Thai courts (of injustice, skewed justice, janudiced "justice", "non-justice")

In the Thai Visa forum?? Well, not sure about kangaroos, but we do have monkeys and trolls.

[Fat Haggis]

This country is so sick. So much time is wasted with this kind of childish gameplay over the heads of all the Thai. You blame me then I blame you, then you blame me and I blame you. Grow up Thai get adult responsible politicians and leave this childish behaviour behind you. There are more important issues that need to be dealt with. Sad, sad, sad, something is very wrong in this country!!!

If you don't blame Yingluck, who get to be blamed?

Protesters will into the bullets themselves?

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

[kikoman]

These were completely different situations that will come out in any court proceedings,(1) Yingluck instructed the security forces to not use force in the dispersal of the demonstrators, (2)The riot police tasks with dispersing the protesters were not armed with firearms, (3) the police were attacked with live fire and grenades, with shots coming from all direction (Friendly fire) (4) the CNN video clearly documents the rank and file riot police were unarmed and during the attack were trying to hide behind their riot shields for safety, not firing any weapons, Yingluck gave orders to preserve lives!

Suthep issued orders to the Army to end the protest by all means necessary including deadly force, his orders endangered lives.

Great difference!

Cheers

[ginjag]

These were completely different situations that will come out in any court proceedings,(1) Yingluck instructed the security forces to not use force in the dispersal of the demonstrators, (2)The riot police tasks with dispersing the protesters were not armed with firearms, (3) the police were attacked with live fire and grenades, with shots coming from all direction (Friendly fire) (4) the CNN video clearly documents the rank and file riot police were unarmed and during the attack were trying to hide behind their riot shields for safety, not firing any weapons, Yingluck gave orders to preserve lives!

Suthep issued orders to the Army to end the protest by all means necessary including deadly force, his orders endangered lives.

Great difference!

Cheers

But of course kikoman the government are not responsible for anything, no force was ever used, always unharmed, anyone killed was from his own side, or self inflicted, and also no pro government admirers were ever near the protesters. Sutheps fault all along, he should never have mobilized a protest the government were running the country efficiently and transparent. NOT

[Mackie]

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

I completely disagree. In 2010 Thai government had to deal with an open armed insurrection. Unlike in 2014 where the majority of killed protesters if not all were completely unarmed.

Any state in the world would act according to their own constitution and laws. The carnage in 2010 started by red militants ambushing the legitimate representatives of Thai army. Try ambushing U.S soldiers in Washington D.C or British soldiers in London the same way the red shirt terrorists did and see what happens. Both Abhisit and even Suthep acted within law. No one forced red shirt militants to pick up the arms against Thai soldiers and their own state.

[Robby nz]

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

I completely disagree. In 2010 Thai government had to deal with an open armed insurrection. Unlike in 2014 where the majority of killed protesters if not all were completely unarmed.

Any state in the world would act according to their own constitution and laws. The carnage in 2010 started by red militants ambushing the legitimate representatives of Thai army. Try ambushing U.S soldiers in Washington D.C or British soldiers in London the same way the red shirt terrorists did and see what happens. Both Abhisit and even Suthep acted within law. No one forced red shirt militants to pick up the arms against Thai soldiers and their own state.

No one forced red shirt militants to pick up the arms against Thai soldiers and their own state.

However it is certain that someone paid them to.

[smovi57]

This country is so sick. So much time is wasted with this kind of childish gameplay over the heads of all the Thai. You blame me then I blame you, then you blame me and I blame you. Grow up Thai get adult responsible politicians and leave this childish behaviour behind you. There are more important issues that need to be dealt with. Sad, sad, sad, something is very wrong in this country!!!

If you don't blame Yingluck, who get to be blamed?

Protesters will into the bullets themselves?

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

her brother gave the orders, but she is responcible. And i think she will be found guilty, we all know she deserves the death penalty, along with her brother. Those young childern deserved to have a life. Dont you think?

[Fat Haggis]

This country is so sick. So much time is wasted with this kind of childish gameplay over the heads of all the Thai. You blame me then I blame you, then you blame me and I blame you. Grow up Thai get adult responsible politicians and leave this childish behaviour behind you. There are more important issues that need to be dealt with. Sad, sad, sad, something is very wrong in this country!!!

If you don't blame Yingluck, who get to be blamed?

Protesters will into the bullets themselves?

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

her brother gave the orders, but she is responcible. And i think she will be found guilty, we all know she deserves the death penalty, along with her brother. Those young childern deserved to have a life. Dont you think?

As much as most people would like to believe that, that's not how it works, first of all you have to submit evidence he was responsible for giving an order, I'm also pretty sure that she went public and said there was no harm to be done, so again, you have to prove, through evidence, not based on what you or I think, but evidence, not verbal, that's inadmissable, you need solid hard facts with her signature stating that she authorised the use of deadly Force, I honestly don't believe that you'll ever get that.

Now as to the Children, you're right, they deserve better, but they were not killed in a confrontation between the Police, they were killed by unknown assailants, again, you can speculate they were radical/extremeist PTP hardcore members, but it's impossible for her to control how other people think, or do, your mother when you were young may have told you something like "don't touch that, it will burn you", but you touched it anyway, your fault or your mothers? She will be held accountable for her actions just like her predeccessors, whether she will be found guilty, well that's down to the courts to decide, and for the lawyers to put their cases forward.

She's no less accountable for the red shirt thugs who suspected of being behind the violence (again playing devils advocate you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, supporting this with evidence) than Suthep is accountable for the protestors involoved in alleged acts of violence

I also think you're emotions are a major factor, the death penalty?

[3NUMBAS]

blame the mystery black shirts ,nobody on either side knows who they are ,bizarre .but they killed more red shirts than yellow shirts ,so that tells you something

[Thait Spot]

Given the government pushing the same charges on Abhisit and Suthep, they can't really argue against this.

Indeed not

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[3NUMBAS]

This country is so sick. So much time is wasted with this kind of childish gameplay over the heads of all the Thai. You blame me then I blame you, then you blame me and I blame you. Grow up Thai get adult responsible politicians and leave this childish behaviour behind you. There are more important issues that need to be dealt with. Sad, sad, sad, something is very wrong in this country!!!

If you don't blame Yingluck, who get to be blamed?

Protesters will into the bullets themselves?

I think you will find that the arguments, through lawyers (are there any criminal lawyers here on TV?) will argue in the case against Yingluck is very different to the argument for 2010.

Yingluck did not dispatch the Police with orders of shoot to kill, she has maintained she's acted within the Law, now I'm not defending her actions here, so please don't assume I am, I'd being devils advocate and IF I was a defence lawyer, I'd be asking things like

Was there an order given to open fire on the protestors who resisted the efforts of the Police actions?

Where are the written Orders for the days Operation, and who signed off of them, and who was present when they were signed off, as in witnesses, as I don't believe for one minute she'd have said to Chalerm "shoot them, shot them all down" she can hardly run a bath, never mind make such decisions.

I'd also be asking about the rules of engagement given to the Police, in the event they were on the receiving end of hostilities, who was the Commander on the Ground at the time, to make the decision to go from using plastic bullets, to live ammo?

I'd be asking about the actions of the protestors as well, in that where in the law does it state they can carry loaded weapons and ten use them against the police ? Doesn't really matter who fired the first round, very easy to be hyped up and when the Police are seen using shotguns, how are you supposed to know if it's real or plastic bullets?? You don't, but the less well trained of the guards who returned fire using live ammo would not have thought about that, and by then, it's too late, you start a two way range where people sadly lost their lives

Now, onto the case against Suthep and Abhisit, they did give orders to use live ammunition and set up fire zones, with instructions to do whatever was neccessary to those inside these zones, again, young soldier being put on the spot is morer than likely how things got out of hand, so again, all of the same questions that are asked about Yinglucks case, will be asked about in the 2010 case.

Yingluck's case, in my opinion is a weaker one in which to prosecute for murder, as there wasn't the intent to kill anyone who was in a particular area/zone..and remember, you have to prove beyond reasonable doub there was Intent, and then be able to convict.

Just my 2 cents worth

her brother gave the orders, but she is responcible. And i think she will be found guilty, we all know she deserves the death penalty, along with her brother. Those young childern deserved to have a life. Dont you think?

propaganda without any proof or foundations ,nothing but myths about Thaksin and family spewed out by sutheps disciples

[mrtoad]

...now a fully-fledged farce..

I will assume that you agree that s also the case with the charges filed regarding the 2010 incidents as well?

[northernjohn]

Why don't they drop charges against Abhsit, Suthep, Yingluck & co because none of them are going to be convicted and everyone is just wasting the courts time.

Don't think Abhist would agree to that. He is willing to face the charges and keep the pressure on the PTP.

As one poster said what is good for the goose is good for the Gander.

Just out of curiosity if they were all tried and found guilty where would they do their time.

Some thing tells me it would be some place most of us couldn't afford on a one month holiday.

[northernjohn]

...now a fully-fledged farce..

Curtsey of your friendly neighborhood corrupt PTP and his armed support the red shirts.

[penwithcris]

Glad to see that the ManofReason has corrected the nonsense someone has written about Maggie Thatcher 'standing down'

Her own party gave her the boot

I really can't see Pheu Thai instigating a no confidence vote against their leader Yingluck

A few less (or maybe more) beers along Soi8 required by that particular poster I think

[darren84310]

Why don't they drop charges against Abhsit, Suthep, Yingluck & co because none of them are going to be convicted and everyone is just wasting the courts time.

Yes, none of them are guilty.... The only one who should be charged with murder is Thaksin and no one has filed charges on him... Just shows how they don't have a clue what they are doing.

Why didn't the anti Thaksin brigade encourage people to take him to court over his atrocities???

[Gil]

Why don't they drop charges against Abhsit, Suthep, Yingluck & co because none of them are going to be convicted and everyone is just wasting the courts time.

wasting the courts time ...and farmers' money!

[Gil]

One good thing here though:

"Trials are far less harmful than civil wars."

I personally think that they can fight their ass off in court, as long as I still can relax watching the girls and peacefully enjoy my coffee.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Gil

[whybother]

Given the government pushing the same charges on Abhisit and Suthep, they can't really argue against this.

I think you are wrong, so Yingluck and Abhisit caused deaths by shutting up parts of Bangkok? The protesters made a lot of enemies by ruining peoples livelihood to try and get rid of an elected government. They tried to kill a taxi driver trying to earn his livelihood. It is assumed that it was the red shirts who killed the protesters and these poor children. If it was red shirts, then may they rot in hell. but we don't know.

May I make it plain that I am not a red shirt supporter, I do not support anyone, but I say Suthep and his cronies should be put in jail at the first opportunity.

I wasn't talking about Suthep's actions during this protest. The Yingluck government pushed for Suthep and Abhisit to be charged with murder in regards to the 2010 deaths. The government can't really complain about charges of murder for deaths by police in this protest.

[chooka]

Ashibit and Suthep's trials will be held 1st and will determine Yingluk and CO's fate. Very similar although Yingluk did take a more softly, softly approach and was praised by the international community for her approach to the demonstrations. Not that international opinions will have much bearing in a Thai court.

[virtualtraveller]

These should go to trial so that the judge can dismiss them all, on the grounds that a head of govt is responsible for ordering maintenance of order and if reasonable action was taken to resolve the situation peacefully and protestors who are armed among their group continue to hold a city hostage, then the police or army has the obligation to clear them out according to acceptable procedure. If you do not follow this line of logic then conversely any group can seize a part of the city and hold it hostage in order force the resignation of a PM they don't like. The PM has two choices, quit or spill blood and go to jail as a murderer.

[sscsamui]

Send them to Hell…. 555

[ginjag]

Perhaps if there was more accountability there would be far fewer conflicts in the World

Tony Blair and George Bush jnr immediately spring to mind as two leaders who should be made accountable for the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths that occurred in Iraq

'Accountability'? - Blair is now a peace envoy! You couldn't make it up

I blame the deaths in the political protests we are witnessing on Suthep alone. His bellicose rantings have drawn in a herd of impressionable followers who lost sight that they were protesting against a government that was comprehensively and democratically elected in free and fair elections

Of course governments make errors while in office, some quite serious, but, as in the US where Obama ousted Bush in elections, the Thai populace have been given a further opportunity to depose Pheu Thai through the ballot box and have failed to do so

In short the political protests were completely without merit and the responsibility for the unfortunate deaths that occurred lies solely with Suthep and his band of outlaws

Nothing to have stopped the P.M. from stepping down, Maggie Thatcher did and her party carried on, but not for that much longer.

Maggie didn't say, "oh but we must be democratic and have elections if you want me out vote me out" Maggie had had her innings and she knew it. UNLIKE Yingluck who has to play the big time stakes and look at this mess, she must have known she was going to face this music, so why give everyone the pain.

Suppose it runs in the family. if they can't get their way they will destruct.

<deleted>?

Maggie Thatcher did not step down voluntarily.

She got tossed out by her own party!

She left Downing Street in tears and regarded her ousting as a betrayal

John Major was then Prime Minister for nearly 7 years before the Tories lost power (not that much longer?)

Your post could not be more inaccurate.

What planet are you on?

Pity the PTP couldn't pressure the PM the same. (stepping down).

I did NOT say Maggie did it voluntarily DID I ??? You added that with your picking, instead of addressing the point made---your silly trick to divert the post.

I admit I didn't do the maths too well, but that was not the posts point and well YOU KNOW IT.

My post was NOT to argue about Maggie but to point out what Yingluck could have done to save MONEY--LIVES-FACE--Thai heartache.

You are only posting your diversion type post to evade the actual point.---normal for you as you cannot see the light,

[Thaddeus]

Why didn't the anti Thaksin brigade encourage people to take him to court over his atrocities???

I expect they would dearly love to, but under Thai law he has to be physically present to accept the charges laid against him.

And like almost every other Thai 'of influence' that has run the risk of being taken to court, ran away instead.

[Fat Haggis]

All Army's ultimately take their orders from civilians unless they're run by the Military.

The POTUS is a civilian, and tells the US Military what to do

Vladamir Putin is a civilian and tells the Russian Military what to do

Tony Bliar, George W Bush, et all were civilians and told their militaries what to do..

[Nickymaster]

They already caught one of the 'police' gunmen.

He's this man (sitting at the table in police uniform)

Seen here with his guns and shotgun cartridges

Seen here with a famous actress at the protests

His id card even, an actual real person

An obvious question springs to mind. Would you dress up as a policeman to shoot police or army? I think clearly not. So who did he intend to shoot at with those guns, dressed as a policeman?

We have seen images of REAL police officers firing at protestors. It is confirmed that they did shoot. Therefor the case has grounds.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Nickymaster

[SICHONSTEVE]

Given the government pushing the same charges on Abhisit and Suthep, they can't really argue against this.

Yes, yes, yes!!!!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

Why don't they drop charges against Abhsit, Suthep, Yingluck & co because none of them are going to be convicted and everyone is just wasting the courts time.

Considering that Yingluck is scared sh****** of the courts, that is exactly what will happen. I would just love it if Abhisit said NO!!! let all of the court cases proceed (as was the case with the amnesty bill) when he didn't play ball.