Bangkok 'Popcorn gunman' denies weapons charges

[webfact]

'Popcorn gunman' denies weapons charges
The Nation


Wiwat

BANGKOK: -- The so-called "Popcorn gunman" who had earlier confessed to firing at Lak Si intersection on the eve of the February 2 general election denied the charges in court yesterday.

Wiwat "Top" Yodprasit, 24, had been charged with attempted murder, illegally possessing guns and ammunition, carrying guns and ammunition to public places without permission and carrying a weapon to areas where a state of emergency had been imposed.

The lawsuit said Wiwat shot into the IT Square shopping mall in Bangkok's Lak Si district and seriously wounded four people.

The suspect, who is being detained at Bangkok Remand Prison, was taken to court yesterday, where he denied all charges and submitted written testimony. His lawyer later requested permission to defer evidence examination, citing the need for more time. The next hearing is scheduled for October 13.

Wiwat was arrested in Surat Thani on March 19. An arrest warrant was issued for him after an assailant fired a M16 gun wrapped in a popcorn bag during a clash between People's Democratic Reform Committee protesters and red-shirt supporters at Lak Si intersection on February 1

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Popcorn-gunman-denies-weapons-charges-30241784.html


-- The Nation 2014-08-26

[Ricardo]

Good that he's in court.

This gives the lie, to anyone who would try to claim, that nobody from the yellow side has been caught or is being charged, that is revealed as political propaganda, no more.

No Double-Standards !

[citizen33]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

Edited August 26, 2014 by citizen33

[smedly]

Ricardo what is yellow side - I think you got that wrong

Red shirt terrorist activists were routinely attacking innocent peaceful ordinary Thai people protesting against the sitting corrupt Thaksin PTP Red government for very legitimate reasons as has been well established since - there was nothing yellow about it - they were all very brave and determined people who eventually had to provide their own protection because the authorities refused - go figure

I also believe the redshirts were attacking with weapons on the day in question in the OP article - not saying I agree with this so called popcorn gunman but there are two sides to that day and only one is ever mentioned or in the news

Edited August 26, 2014 by smedly

[citizen33]

The mention of the yellows is a response to Ricardo's post. It seems that you see no difference between a protest and blocking access to ballot boxes with an automatic rifle. That is why some of us cannot really take the arguments here very seriously.

Edited August 26, 2014 by citizen33

[smedly]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

The PDRC were very obviously under attack, there is plenty of video footage supporting this - so you are wrong

and again I'm not saying I approve in any way of what happened, but since the PDRC had to provide their own protection it is no surprise some of them were armed for defence only - I assume you understand the difference between defence and offence - being attacked and doing the attacking - passive and aggressive ......right ?

[smedly]

The mention of the yellows is a response to Ricardo's post. It seems that you see no difference between a protest and blocking access to ballot boxes with an automatic rifle. That is why some of us cannot really take the arguments here very seriously.

Now there's a post that really is hard to follow

[thesetat2013]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

Maybe you should reread the article. I believe that he is denying the charges. Not acknowledging them. You have taken all out of context and changed it to suit your needs which is typical of some who don't look at all the facts or only want to see what they have been brainwashed to see. Im not sayin you are thinking like someone who is brainwashed. Only that you twisted this article to make your point of view correct.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[MikeENZ]

Narrowly missed getting caught up on this while on the train back from Ayuthaya that day. I hope the scumbag rots in Jail.

It disgusts me to see hiso Thais make a hero out of this attempted murderer.

[chotthee]

The guy is not a real yellow shirt.

He may be a red shirt dress in yellow shirt to discredit the yellow shirt.

Check the money trail, to see if there is any wire in from Dubai, Chiang mai, Udon or Khon Khen.

[JeremyBowskill]

I had high for this article when I saw the title "popcorn Gunman", was expecting someone dressed like Ronald Macdonald in big shoes running around firing popcorn. Imagine my disappointment!!!

[Patje]

If he is " man " enough to fire guns at people , he should be " man" enough to admit it !!

[Tatsujin]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

Maybe you should reread the article. I believe that he is denying the charges. Not acknowledging them. You have taken all out of context and changed it to suit your needs which is typical of some who don't look at all the facts or only want to see what they have been brainwashed to see. Im not sayin you are thinking like someone who is brainwashed. Only that you twisted this article to make your point of view correct.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Whatever his "defense" might ultimately be, he was supposedly on the side of the anti-Thaksin group, so there's no rewriting of history there and does indeed show that there are at least "some" from that group being arrested and charged.

[Tatsujin]

If he is " man " enough to fire guns at people , he should be " man" enough to admit it !!

A Thai take responsibility for something/anything? lol ... now that would be a first!

[StealthEnergiser]

I thank him for defending Mr Suthep and his group when the police would do absolutely nothing and now we all know how much the Thaksin supporters wanted to create havoc and acts of terrorism .

He should be given an award for bravery for helping to save lives.

[Boxclever]

Just like Sondhi, he will be out on bail shortly and justice will never be done.

These are show trials only. We will never see justice for the scores of atrocities these yellow shirts have inflicted.

Sickening!

[SOTIRIOS]

......there is a lot more to the story....

[DrLom]

I thank him for defending Mr Suthep and his group when the police would do absolutely nothing and now we all know how much the Thaksin supporters wanted to create havoc and acts of terrorism .

He should be given an award for bravery for helping to save lives.

Firing a machine gun into a shopping mall is despicable, no matter what side one is on! Children with family, shopping innocently.......

.......I believe that's simple enough to explain why this man should go down.

[sweatalot]

I thank him for defending Mr Suthep and his group when the police would do absolutely nothing and now we all know how much the Thaksin supporters wanted to create havoc and acts of terrorism .

He should be given an award for bravery for helping to save lives.

Firing a machine gun into a shopping mall is despicable, no matter what side one is on! Children with family, shopping innocently.......

.......I believe that's simple enough to explain why this man should go down.

Is there proof that it was him firing the machine gun?

[Boxclever]

@ Sweatalot

Urmm...several video images from different angles showing him firing an assault weapon into a shopping Centre plus dozens of eye witnesses and members of the international press?

Would that be proof enough to charge him?

[seajae]

the video of what happened actually show that this person started shooting after the red shirts started the shooting and his spotter was pointing out armed targets for him to shoot at/stop from shooting. How many did he actually kill again, none I believe, only injured red shooters. The video also showed the police standing next to armed reds that were firing indiscriminately at the protesters and doing nothing to stop it, this popcorn gunmen stopped a lot of other injuries/deaths by aiming at the red shooters.

Saying this I still do not approve of any armed people at any demonstration, if the police had done their job this would not have happened at all but when the reds go armed with approval of the police then people do need to be protected by someone, by the way, how many reds were arrested for the shootings on this day seeing the police were standing right next to them, none again I believe, why is that.......

[DrLom]

the video of what happened actually show that this person started shooting after the red shirts started the shooting and his spotter was pointing out armed targets for him to shoot at/stop from shooting. How many did he actually kill again, none I believe, only injured red shooters. The video also showed the police standing next to armed reds that were firing indiscriminately at the protesters and doing nothing to stop it, this popcorn gunmen stopped a lot of other injuries/deaths by aiming at the red shooters.

Saying this I still do not approve of any armed people at any demonstration, if the police had done their job this would not have happened at all but when the reds go armed with approval of the police then people do need to be protected by someone, by the way, how many reds were arrested for the shootings on this day seeing the police were standing right next to them, none again I believe, why is that.......

SAME SAME. If you weren't here driving your car you farang, the accident would not have happened... 2,000 baht pls.

[AleG]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

[Bob12345]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

Your argument reads like: "but they started it", to which my mum would always say: "but you are responsible for how you react to it".

That is what i was told when i was about 10 years old, and it still applies today.

[AleG]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

Your argument reads like: "but they started it", to which my mum would always say: "but you are responsible for how you react to it".

That is what i was told when i was about 10 years old, and it still applies today.

The PDRC started it? they started assembling bands of armed thugs to seek out and murder political rivals?

Did your mother teach you the meaning of intellectual honesty too?

[NeilSA1]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

Your argument reads like: "but they started it", to which my mum would always say: "but you are responsible for how you react to it".

That is what i was told when i was about 10 years old, and it still applies today.

What........ you are still 10 years old?

[Ricardo]

the video of what happened actually show that this person started shooting after the red shirts started the shooting and his spotter was pointing out armed targets for him to shoot at/stop from shooting. How many did he actually kill again, none I believe, only injured red shooters. The video also showed the police standing next to armed reds that were firing indiscriminately at the protesters and doing nothing to stop it, this popcorn gunmen stopped a lot of other injuries/deaths by aiming at the red shooters.

Saying this I still do not approve of any armed people at any demonstration, if the police had done their job this would not have happened at all but when the reds go armed with approval of the police then people do need to be protected by someone, by the way, how many reds were arrested for the shootings on this day seeing the police were standing right next to them, none again I believe, why is that.......

"this person started shooting after the red shirts started the shooting"

I think that's a fair description of what happened that day, in which case he can probably argue self-defence to some extent, it certainly won't hurt to highlight the passive one-sided policing or CAPO's totally one-sided role throughout the protests.

"I still do not approve of any armed people at any demonstration"

I agree, except perhaps for personal-bodyguards, another grey area ?

Tatsujin in Post #13, says "Whatever his "defense" might ultimately be, he was supposedly on the side of the anti-Thaksin group, so there's no rewriting of history there and does indeed show that there are at least "some" from that group being arrested and charged." (my highlighting) and he is spot-on !

We were yesterday, in another thread (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/754213-thailand-indicts-26-on-terrorism-arms-charges/) being told that "WHERE ARE THESE ARRESTS? They are, and will be -- no where, EVER.", and I wished in Post #2 to point out that the OP is proof that this was very wrong.

There should be No Double Standards, people should be accountable for their actions, on both sides.

[Rimmer]

One post that has altered quotes has been reported and has now been removed:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[Bob12345]

Your argument reads like: "but they started it", to which my mum would always say: "but you are responsible for how you react to it".

That is what i was told when i was about 10 years old, and it still applies today.

The PDRC started it? they started assembling bands of armed thugs to seek out and murder political rivals?

Did your mother teach you the meaning of intellectual honesty too?

It seems you did not understand my argument, so let me spell it out:

It does not matter who started it. If the other party starts it and you react by shooting a rifle into a crowd of people then you should be convicted for that. Or you disagree? You think this sort of action is normal in a civilized society?

And this is a conflict that is going on longer than this one incident. It is therefore very difficult to indicate who exactly started, how it started, and when it started. It has been escalating for decades already (as the PDRC represent the old elite) so simply saying "they started it" is quite useless.

[fab4]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

For those non partisan TVF members, or even partisan ones who will at least allow themselves to consider sources other than PDRC websites and without resorting to inflammatory language such as "murderous thugs", perhaps this report from someone who was there will shed some light on what actually happened. Yes, I know it was written by Nick Nostitz but the people who immediately brand him and his articles as biased or red propaganda will not read it anyway - this link is for the other, more open minded members of TVF

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/