2010 unrest: Thai Court says military gunfire kills protester

[rametindallas]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Sheer speculation. Which part is speculation?

If your theory holds water, There is no theory; only logic, which seems to escape you using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us: Seems you're the emotional one.

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

Facts and Data, PLEASE!! Where are YOUR facts?

All your comment is speculation. But, since you are the one making the speculation that your "logic" is tantamount to data, why not answer the specific questions I asked?

So... according to your logic, all the deaths and casualties are irrelevant because it does not suit your comment. Capricious and not logical.

You asserted (NOT ME) that if the army had used live ammo the casualties would be in the hundreds.

Then my questions are relevant: how many casualties including deaths? How many hundreds????

It's OK, I know that data and facts are like anathema.

Altogether, there were 89 deaths during all the different incidents of Spring 2010. This number included protesters, soldiers, press, bystanders (lady at BTS was killed by m-80 grenade fired from Red camp at Lumpini). and police. If your Red propaganda lies about the military using live rounds were true, there would have been many times that many protesters dead. One soldier, with his training and modern weapon, could probably get twenty kills per 30 round magazine if ordered to fire on a mob. Multiply that one soldier times the number of troops you say were using live ammunition and then ask yourself why the casualty rate was as low as it was. The soldiers couldn't shoot straight? I contend they had blanks as the officers in charge have testified. But again, I'm using logic; something you wouldn't understand. You let emotion rule your life.

BTW, it's not MY logic, it's just plain, regular logic that normal people, who are not blinded by daily hate speech and propaganda, use. Instead of dismissing my whole post as speculation, why don't you go through it, line by line, and point out where my logic is wrong or there is speculation? If you can't carry on an intelligent discussion, I won't respond to you anymore.

[rametindallas]

It is the duty of the State, ie., the Army, to act reasonably even when others do not. It is not reasonable for Army soldiers to shoot into crowds of mostly unarmed protesters.

I agree with you, but I would point out that it is also not reasonable for 'men in black' to be firing at both sides trying to start a civil war for Dr. Thaksin. The whole operation was designed, funded, and implemented by him in an attempt to stage a 'people's' coup d'etat.

[Baerboxer]

According to principles of British Common Law to this egregious instance of abuse of power, the Principal (PM and his DPM) are responsible for the actions of their agents: the Army.

The Thai court (not truly consistently neutral in cases involving Reds and/or Yellows) had no other alternative than to conclude that the unarmed civilians (whether protesters or not, as in the case of the Italian journalist) were killed by soldiers of the Royal Army UNDER ORDERS of the DPM in charge of CRES. That finding means only one thing: those who ordered the army to repress the protestors are guilty of the crimes committed by their agent: the army.

In a true democracy that is one of the checks and balances to limit the power of civilians in government.

Then again, TIT and this is TV, where laws, principles and precedents are but a suggestion, same as traffic laws and ordinances.

Ok....that makes sense...thanks

His comments about law are incorrect Chris, He doesn't even understand that there is no such thing as British law.

...And your point is? To highlight mistakes and/or errors and no solutions or enlightenment?

Your ad hominem reply has not added light to the subject. Only criticism without a true correction. Which I will provide since you seem unable to grasp it:

English Law: "in the context of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, generally means the legal system of England and Wales.^" SOURCES:

• Slapper, Gary; David Kelly (2008-07-15). The English Legal System. London: Routledge-Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-415-45954-9.
• Barnett, Hilaire (2008-07-21). Constitutional & Administrative Law. London: Routledge-Cavendish. ISBN 978-0-415-45829-0.

From a Semantic point of view I should have typed: English Law. However, in informal dialog to use British and/or English, is acceptable and in no way is demeaning of other nationalities withing the British Commonwealth.

The English Common Law is based on the principle of Res Publica.

My point was you were using something that doesn't exist to support a statement. Sometimes called make belief. Your legal qualifications are?

First you go on about British law - doesn't exist. The use of "Britsh" instead of "English" is not acceptable or true when referring to the law even informally.

I am very well aware that in the United Kingdom there are 3 legal systems, two of which are common law systems and one isn't. Why you then go on to introduce a reference to the British Commonwealth, who knows.

The origins and structure of the law of England and Wales are easily referenced - you might want to to a bit more research into the origins and principles.

Thai Law is also easily researched as to its origins and influences. You might want to research this too. Especially as we are in Thailand and judgments will be based on Thai law.

How would you, from a legal perspective, compare the Blood Sunday killings in Nothern Ireland with the killings in Thailand in 2010?

My point is Thai law is the law of Thailand. Not the law of England and Wales, or any other foreign country. Referring the them, particularly incorrectly is of no consequence.

[transam]

In the photo the soldiers are all looking upwards - as if looking for a sniper.

Or were the protesters shot all giants?

And who is "commanding" these guys, all bunched up , a spray would take them all out.........................

[pisico]

It is the duty of the State, ie., the Army, to act reasonably even when others do not. It is not reasonable for Army soldiers to shoot into crowds of mostly unarmed protesters.

I agree with you, but I would point out that it is also not reasonable for 'men in black' to be firing at both sides trying to start a civil war for Dr. Thaksin. The whole operation was designed, funded, and implemented by him in an attempt to stage a 'people's' coup d'etat.

I also agree that the PDRC of which Suthep is the self-appointed boss...QUOTE: " The whole operation was designed, funded, and implemented by him in an attempt to stage a 'people's' coup d'etat."

Your words, only the name of the selfish fraudster has been changed.

Whatever your anti-Thaksinista feelings are, Jawnie's words still apply, no matter who is the one leading a mob, Red then, and now the Bangkok Yellow plus the students (future doctors and engineers of Thailand?) and "academics"?.

A mob is a mob is a mob... regardless of the color shirt they wear.

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

They were permitted to use live round under certain circumstances. Thus is hardly ground breaking. Civilians are permitted to use live rounds for protection.

Either the use was within the terms of engagement so it's legal. Or they weren't, so it's the soldier that broke the law, not abhisut or Suthep.

[seajae]

where in the judges decision does it say the army killed anyone, it says they were shot with army weapons/calibre bullets from the direction of the soldiers, it does not say they were shot by the army. We all know the reds and blackshirts had army weapons that were stolen/taken from soldiers so they were also armed with army weapons/calibre bullets and we also know that the black shirts were firing from near the army positions so this judgement has to include these people as well. We also know that the soldiers were armed only to defend themselves(as per the authority issued to them) when they where shot at and there wqere declared live fire areas so anyone that was shot in these areas were responsible for being there. The fact that reds near the ones shot were shooting at the soldiers also makes it hard to say that soldiers were not simply returning fire and that the bullets that kiled others were strays or even fired by the men in black.

Arguing your own biased sides innocence proves nothing, what is need is a full investigation(not by a biased tarit and co) with all relevant information accesible, they need to specify who had what weapons(video and pics will show this), what the ballistic results showed(as compared to the weapons used by soldiers) as this is the only way they can decisively show that the bullets were from the soldiers rifles(or reds,mib) otherwise it can never be ruled as certain, it is only based on guesswork meaning no one can be charges with any certainty if at all. Once this goes to court lawyers will pick it to pieces without definitive proof, the old "he said, she said" crap will simply not hold up at all.

Edited March 26, 2014 by seajae

[Jawnie]

It is the duty of the State, ie., the Army, to act reasonably even when others do not. It is not reasonable for Army soldiers to shoot into crowds of mostly unarmed protesters.

I agree with you, but I would point out that it is also not reasonable for 'men in black' to be firing at both sides trying to start a civil war for Dr. Thaksin. The whole operation was designed, funded, and implemented by him in an attempt to stage a 'people's' coup d'etat.

The so-called "men in black" were not acting on behalf of the State in any official capacity so there is no related duty to act reasonably. Their duty was to obey the law which, of course, they did not.

[Fryslan boppe]

I have lost count of the court inquests that have indicated that the Army is responsible for the deaths of several red shirt protesters in 2010. Certainly, as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to indict any Army commander for ordering his troops to shoot down protesters.

Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have been charged, but the Army brass just walks free. Army boss and loud mouth General Prayuth Chan-ocha blasts red shirts as criminals and has no shame in doing this even when he was commanding murderous troops.

Prayuth and his predecessor General Anupong Paojinda should be held responsible for these murderous acts. Why should the Army continue to enjoy impunity?

[ggold]

IMO, I doubt if any of this would have even got as far as it has if it were not for Thaksin's attempt to tarnish Abhisit and Suthep with these murders. Regardless of who did the shooting, the fact that AV and ST have been charged with premeditated murder shows the lie that PTP have tried to spread.

The court is doing its duty as best they can, This doesn't make AV or ST any more guilty, and proves nothing. The fact that the court says that military weapons were used to kill people may well be a pre cursor to the charges being dropped!

A reference was made about bloody Sunday (Northern Ireland) a bystander was shot while trying to protect his son by British troops, He was not armed and was crouching in a doorway with his son. No threat to anyone, But was still shot! Did the british PM get charged with murder? NO. AV and ST are protected as PM and Deputy PM from these charges ( whence the attempt of charging them as citizens not politicians (if I'm not mistaken)

The real victims are the dead and their families who are being used as pawns in a cynical attempt by Thaksin to have his amnesty passed so he can return to Thailand...

[rubl]

I have lost count of the court inquests that have indicated that the Army is responsible for the deaths of several red shirt protesters in 2010. Certainly, as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to indict any Army commander for ordering his troops to shoot down protesters.

Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have been charged, but the Army brass just walks free. Army boss and loud mouth General Prayuth Chan-ocha blasts red shirts as criminals and has no shame in doing this even when he was commanding murderous troops.

Prayuth and his predecessor General Anupong Paojinda should be held responsible for these murderous acts. Why should the Army continue to enjoy impunity?

Till now less than ten I think. Mind you, DSI Tarit said the DSI would concentrate on the easy cases. Somehow that means all those where one can easily say "most likely the army did this" and therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep.

As the army was following orders and under the CRES command, the DSI has deemed to charge Abhisit/Suthep and not the generals. If you think the generals should also be charged, please inform Tarit.

[Cricketnut]

This case is based completely on circumstantial evidence.

What they are all forgetting is the Reds were armed with the same weapons that the army use thanks to the nefarious preparations for battle made by Seh Dairng and his minions who were busily removing munitions from army supply.

Maybe a full inventory of missing weapons from army barracks would be a good start.

Appears to me that closure is/was the order of the day here, and so a speculative judgement was handed down blaming the easiest target.

Your answer is based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

Obviously you havn't seen the footage of the reds in 2010.....

Well I certainly did and both parties are to blame. In this particular case, the same courts who have impeached the current caretaker government on numerous counts have now it appears to have done likewise to Abhisits government. Nothing really to squabble over except the facts.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

Altogether, there were 89 deaths during all the different incidents of Spring 2010. This number included protesters, soldiers, press, bystanders (lady at BTS was killed by m-80 grenade fired from Red camp at Lumpini). and police. If your Red propaganda lies about the military using live rounds were true, there would have been many times that many protesters dead. One soldier, with his training and modern weapon, could probably get twenty kills per 30 round magazine if ordered to fire on a mob. Multiply that one soldier times the number of troops you say were using live ammunition and then ask yourself why the casualty rate was as low as it was. The soldiers couldn't shoot straight? I contend they had blanks as the officers in charge have testified. But again, I'm using logic; something you wouldn't understand. You let emotion rule your life.

BTW, it's not MY logic, it's just plain, regular logic that normal people, who are not blinded by daily hate speech and propaganda, use. Instead of dismissing my whole post as speculation, why don't you go through it, line by line, and point out where my logic is wrong or there is speculation? If you can't carry on an intelligent discussion, I won't respond to you anymore.

" I contend they had blanks as the officers in charge have testified"

Christ on a bike , you weren't joking. Beyond belief, and you had people liking your post meaning they agree with you. Wow.

[Cricketnut]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your membership date matches your arrival date; after 2010. Sheesh, just look at loads of videos on youtube, notice who killed soldiers, stole ammunition, received graft payments, eye witness accounts documented of red/black shirts firing in and around the temple and burned 37 buildings for crying out loud.

Can't be this daft are you? Those are the facts, just look with your own eyes at the video footage. Those of us in the 'bamboo camp zone' around Sukhumvit who had trouble going in and out remember the violence and havoc of the red buffalo savages like it was yesterday. Think how ludicrous it is that all that went on along Sukhumvit! The only question that lurks in my mind is why the democratic party were so patient, whereas anywhere around the globe, there were have been loads more casualties and repercussions.

membership date has no validity as to when a person has entered or lived in Thailand. Thus the post null and void and no further comment needed. Except judging perhaps. Everyone here on TV has the right to post. No matter their stay or living position or ideology, or opinion on a matter. Look up myself, I decided to become a member only last year despite having lived here for many a year... Food for thought.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fab4]

I have lost count of the court inquests that have indicated that the Army is responsible for the deaths of several red shirt protesters in 2010. Certainly, as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to indict any Army commander for ordering his troops to shoot down protesters.

Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have been charged, but the Army brass just walks free. Army boss and loud mouth General Prayuth Chan-ocha blasts red shirts as criminals and has no shame in doing this even when he was commanding murderous troops.

Prayuth and his predecessor General Anupong Paojinda should be held responsible for these murderous acts. Why should the Army continue to enjoy impunity?

Till now less than ten I think. Mind you, DSI Tarit said the DSI would concentrate on the easy cases. Somehow that means all those where one can easily say "most likely the army did this" and therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep.

As the army was following orders and under the CRES command, the DSI has deemed to charge Abhisit/Suthep and not the generals. If you think the generals should also be charged, please inform Tarit.

Till now less than ten I think

You know why that is rubl? It's because that is roughly the number of inquests that have been held and results made known. I think there has been one, maybe two inquests where the courts couldn't plainly state that the army troops had killed the civilians, but there have been no inquests where red shirts have been implicated in any deaths. Their role so far has been as victims.

As far as the Army is concerned, they have not been charged as they are covered by Section 70 of the Criminal Code according to Tharit (http://pattayatoday.net/news/thailand-news/dsi-opts-to-charge-abhisit-and-suthep-case-by-case/)

Section 70 Any person does an act done in accordance with the order of an official, even though such order is unlawful, if such doer has the duty or believes in good faith that having the duty to comply with such order, that person shall not punished, unless that person Knows that such order is unlawful.

Edited March 26, 2014 by fab4

[Mackie]

I have lost count of the court inquests that have indicated that the Army is responsible for the deaths of several red shirt protesters in 2010. Certainly, as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to indict any Army commander for ordering his troops to shoot down protesters.

Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have been charged, but the Army brass just walks free. Army boss and loud mouth General Prayuth Chan-ocha blasts red shirts as criminals and has no shame in doing this even when he was commanding murderous troops.

Prayuth and his predecessor General Anupong Paojinda should be held responsible for these murderous acts. Why should the Army continue to enjoy impunity?

Why should army generals be held responsible? Or government officials? They were only doing their duty. They were following the law of the land. There is nothing illegal about their actions. The army faced an armed insurrection led by a renegade general. Get a grip. Any army in the world would've behaved the same. As a matter of fact, U.S army would've probably killed few hundreds easily under the same circumstances. No one forced those muppets in 2010 to take up arms against their own army.

Come to think of it, Thai army should actually be praised for keeping the number of dead really low considering the circumstances and the urban warfare which is extremely difficult to conduct as many civilians are around. The death toll was low.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Mackie

[BlueNoseCodger]

What was the Red Shirt doing at the time he was shot? Was he firing at the soldiers? Was he about to throw a grenade? This is relevant information. The Red Shirts who were killed were, I feel sure, not just standing around with a beer and having a chat about the weather.

Reds were unarmed, the video footage is quite extensive and the gunmen on the sky train walkway above the temple were army snipers, they were videod. You raised a very interesting point about the hand grenade because there are parallels to the current PDRC disruption.

As to who authorized the shooting, the court said has spoken on that matter.

Abhisit and Suthep would be charged with collaborating in ordering troops to kill and injure members of the public "with foreseeable outcomes of their orders", Tarit said. Suthep and Abhisit will be summoned to meet DSI investigators on June 26, so that they can be handed over to public prosecutors for arraignment.

The troops involved will not be charged, as they were carrying out orders, he added.

Edited March 26, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[473geo]

This thread really does highlight the excellent non confrontational approach of the current government regarding the arrival of 6 million Suthep supporters into Bangkok, the sproradic violence to be expected, but all in all keeping the military and police in the background appears to have been beneficial. A refreshingly peaceful and well considered approach from the Yingluck Team.

Edited March 26, 2014 by 473geo

[BlueNoseCodger]

This thread really does highlight the excellent non confrontational approach of the current government regarding the arrival of 6 million Suthep supporters into Bangkok, the sproradic violence to be expected, but all in all keeping the military and police in the background appears to have been beneficial. A refreshingly peaceful and well considered approach from the Yingluck Team.

6 million??? It was at best 350k prior to Suthep creating his PDRC (not my estimate), and post PDRC creation the number peaked at 60k-100k I estimated. Not bad for a protest march, but hardly the sort of numbers you need to seize power from a democracy.

Edited March 26, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[rametindallas]

It is the duty of the State, ie., the Army, to act reasonably even when others do not. It is not reasonable for Army soldiers to shoot into crowds of mostly unarmed protesters.

I agree with you, but I would point out that it is also not reasonable for 'men in black' to be firing at both sides trying to start a civil war for Dr. Thaksin. The whole operation was designed, funded, and implemented by him in an attempt to stage a 'people's' coup d'etat.

The so-called "men in black" were not acting on behalf of the State in any official capacity so there is no related duty to act reasonably. Their duty was to obey the law which, of course, they did not.

I agree that the MiB were not acting on behalf of the State as represented by the PM Abhisit. In fact they were acting to overthrow the State. Thai culture is all about personal loyalty. the MiB were acting as their employer, Thaksin, paid them to act.

[473geo]

This thread really does highlight the excellent non confrontational approach of the current government regarding the arrival of 6 million Suthep supporters into Bangkok, the sproradic violence to be expected, but all in all keeping the military and police in the background appears to have been beneficial. A refreshingly peaceful and well considered approach from the Yingluck Team.

6 million??? It was at best 350k prior to Suthep creating his PDRC (not my estimate), and post PDRC creation the number peaked at 60k-100k I estimated. Not bad for a protest march, but hardly the sort of numbers you need to seize power from a democracy.

The six million was a little poetic license using Sutheps exageration to enhance the compliment on performance by the Yingluck team

[visionchaser45]

This case is based completely on circumstantial evidence.

What they are all forgetting is the Reds were armed with the same weapons that the army use thanks to the nefarious preparations for battle made by Seh Dairng and his minions who were busily removing munitions from army supply.

Maybe a full inventory of missing weapons from army barracks would be a good start.

Appears to me that closure is/was the order of the day here, and so a speculative judgement was handed down blaming the easiest target.

Yeah, and the circumstances are pretty clear. The military fired live rounds into the crowd and some of those rounds actually hit some people. Spin that any way you like.

[citizen33]

Yeah, and the circumstances are pretty clear. The military fired live rounds into the crowd and some of those rounds actually hit some people. Spin that any way you like.

I fear that logic and evidence will not carry the day on TVF. As we are constantly being told, all the educated people line up on Khun Suthep's side..

[whybother]

Yeah, and the circumstances are pretty clear. The military fired live rounds into the crowd and some of those rounds actually hit some people. Spin that any way you like.

I fear that logic and evidence will not carry the day on TVF. As we are constantly being told, all the educated people line up on Khun Suthep's side..

The logic is that the military are at fault, unless there is evidence that Abhisit and Suthep ordered the military to kill unarmed people.

Sent from my phone...

[thaiguzzi]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your membership date matches your arrival date; after 2010. Sheesh, just look at loads of videos on youtube, notice who killed soldiers, stole ammunition, received graft payments, eye witness accounts documented of red/black shirts firing in and around the temple and burned 37 buildings for crying out loud.

Can't be this daft are you? Those are the facts, just look with your own eyes at the video footage. Those of us in the 'bamboo camp zone' around Sukhumvit who had trouble going in and out remember the violence and havoc of the red buffalo savages like it was yesterday. Think how ludicrous it is that all that went on along Sukhumvit! The only question that lurks in my mind is why the democratic party were so patient, whereas anywhere around the globe, there were have been loads more casualties and repercussions.

"red buffalo savages" - keep 'em coming condo dweller.

[fab4]

Yeah, and the circumstances are pretty clear. The military fired live rounds into the crowd and some of those rounds actually hit some people. Spin that any way you like.

I fear that logic and evidence will not carry the day on TVF. As we are constantly being told, all the educated people line up on Khun Suthep's side..

The logic is that the military are at fault, unless there is evidence that Abhisit and Suthep ordered the military to kill unarmed people.

Sent from my phone...

According to Tharit and the police the reason the army are not being charged with murder is Section 70 of the Criminal Code - basically "they were just following orders".........

[rubl]

I have lost count of the court inquests that have indicated that the Army is responsible for the deaths of several red shirt protesters in 2010. Certainly, as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to indict any Army commander for ordering his troops to shoot down protesters.

Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban have been charged, but the Army brass just walks free. Army boss and loud mouth General Prayuth Chan-ocha blasts red shirts as criminals and has no shame in doing this even when he was commanding murderous troops.

Prayuth and his predecessor General Anupong Paojinda should be held responsible for these murderous acts. Why should the Army continue to enjoy impunity?

Till now less than ten I think. Mind you, DSI Tarit said the DSI would concentrate on the easy cases. Somehow that means all those where one can easily say "most likely the army did this" and therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep.

As the army was following orders and under the CRES command, the DSI has deemed to charge Abhisit/Suthep and not the generals. If you think the generals should also be charged, please inform Tarit.

Till now less than ten I think

You know why that is rubl? It's because that is roughly the number of inquests that have been held and results made known. I think there has been one, maybe two inquests where the courts couldn't plainly state that the army troops had killed the civilians, but there have been no inquests where red shirts have been implicated in any deaths. Their role so far has been as victims.

As far as the Army is concerned, they have not been charged as they are covered by Section 70 of the Criminal Code according to Tharit (http://pattayatoday.net/news/thailand-news/dsi-opts-to-charge-abhisit-and-suthep-case-by-case/)

Section 70 Any person does an act done in accordance with the order of an official, even though such order is unlawful, if such doer has the duty or believes in good faith that having the duty to comply with such order, that person shall not punished, unless that person Knows that such order is unlawful.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

Yes, I do know why that is. I replied to a question on how many inquests till now you know. That's also why I wrote:

"therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep."

as that seems to increase at the same rate.

[whybother]

According to Tharit and the police the reason the army are not being charged with murder is Section 70 of the Criminal Code - basically "they were just following orders".........

I suppose that there must have been direct orders to shoot unarmed protesters then.

[fab4]

Till now less than ten I think. Mind you, DSI Tarit said the DSI would concentrate on the easy cases. Somehow that means all those where one can easily say "most likely the army did this" and therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep.

As the army was following orders and under the CRES command, the DSI has deemed to charge Abhisit/Suthep and not the generals. If you think the generals should also be charged, please inform Tarit.

Till now less than ten I think

You know why that is rubl? It's because that is roughly the number of inquests that have been held and results made known. I think there has been one, maybe two inquests where the courts couldn't plainly state that the army troops had killed the civilians, but there have been no inquests where red shirts have been implicated in any deaths. Their role so far has been as victims.

As far as the Army is concerned, they have not been charged as they are covered by Section 70 of the Criminal Code according to Tharit (http://pattayatoday.net/news/thailand-news/dsi-opts-to-charge-abhisit-and-suthep-case-by-case/)

Section 70 Any person does an act done in accordance with the order of an official, even though such order is unlawful, if such doer has the duty or believes in good faith that having the duty to comply with such order, that person shall not punished, unless that person Knows that such order is unlawful.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

Yes, I do know why that is. I replied to a question on how many inquests till now you know. That's also why I wrote:

"therefor we have yet another 'premeditated murder' charge against Abhisit/Suthep."

as that seems to increase at the same rate.

Yes, I read posts before replying, but your posts normally have some kind of implication associated,- you say one thing but mean another. I've told you this before, say what you mean, it would make them easier to understand if you were transparent about your bias.

The premeditated murder charges against suthep/abhisit will rise at the same rate as the inquests every time that the army is found responsible for more deaths. That is for one very good reason. It was stated in October 2013 that the DSI will add charges to the original premeditated murder charges as the inquests are carried out.

The Department of Special Investigation has decided to indict former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban on a case-by-case basis for each of the charges they face, DSI chief Tarit Pengdith said. http://www.pattayaone.net/national/107312/abhisit-suthep-charged-case-by-case/

[aussieinthailand]

When u use the military, people die. Simple as that. They ate not security guards,or police. Just sayin

Yeah, good thing they're not cannibals who 'ate' anyone.

Military personnel were victims firstly, which led to rubber bullets, which led to fire zones.

Your need to research is as great as your need to spell & communicate.

coming from a master heckler, ever heard the word Hypocrite?