Thai court dismisses murder charges against former PM Abhisit

[rubl]

..........................."12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.".................................

Can someone remind Fab4 (I think he has blocked me because I had the audacity to say that he is a banned troll) that if Thaksin had not have come up with the evil plan in the first place, to have his paid redshirt murderers invade Bangkok and attack the Army, there would not have been ANY deaths and we would be talking about something else now.

You do him injustice, my dear chap. Fab4 esq. just posted this interesting link

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

which had a few things he liked and this snipped he might not

"Human Rights Watch has also consistently pressed for investigations into alleged crimes by the UDD-linked “Black Shirt” militants. Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the Pheu Thai Party, deny that the UDD had armed elements at the time of the 2010 events."

[billd766]

If you think that ballistic evidence was provided at any of the inquests, you are exceedingly naive. The findings were based on some witnesses and probability. That's not to say they were wrong.

The worst thing is that Tarit totally absolved the army from any possible repercussions and focused on his (PTP-instructed) targets - Abhisit & Suthep. He then compounded his witch hunt by filing charges in the wrong court. Prejudice followed by incompetence.

It's always 'pathetic' when your prejudices fail (others say double-standards) but in this case it is pathetic because of stupidity.

No court can consider charges, no matter how 'serious', that are outside it's jurisdiction. Is that difficult to understand?

As usual shooting off your mouth and thinking without any basis. Autopsy were done on the death and a forensic doctor testified that the death were caused by high velocity bullet fired by war weapons such as M16 and AKA used by the soldiers fired from the direction of the soldiers. The forensic doctor was Air Vice Admiral Dr Wichan, Head Forensic Unit. Is that too difficult for you to understand????

M16s, like these?

But but but isn't that a "man in black" who seems never to have existed in some peoples minds?

[mikemac]

..........................."12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.".................................

Can someone remind Fab4 (I think he has blocked me because I had the audacity to say that he is a banned troll) that if Thaksin had not have come up with the evil plan in the first place, to have his paid redshirt murderers invade Bangkok and attack the Army, there would not have been ANY deaths and we would be talking about something else now.

You do him injustice, my dear chap. Fab4 esq. just posted this interesting link

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

which had a few things he liked and this snipped he might not

"Human Rights Watch has also consistently pressed for investigations into alleged crimes by the UDD-linked “Black Shirt” militants. Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the Pheu Thai Party, deny that the UDD had armed elements at the time of the 2010 events."

Well spotted Uncle.

A few weeks ago he posted one of his famous links and for some reason I clicked on it, which I don't usually do. He must not have read the entire page he posted the link to because towards the bottom of the page was an article attacking Thaksin and his party at the time. Had a good laugh at his expense.

[Eric Loh]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

[halloween]

I can only presume an answer to my post #233 is beyond, or beneath you. Still, at least this reply of yours allows you to spout the usual.

Oh, by the way the "premeditated murder" case has not been thrown out, as in dismissed. The court recognised that abhisit and sutheps actions directly led to deaths and that the dispersal operations did not follow international standards. In addition the prosecutors can appeal the decision not to hear the case, not to mention that as there is evidence of abhisits and sutheps actions having led to deaths the NACC should be duty bound to raise the case in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders - but I won't hold my breath, especially in the current "political" climate.

If a court has admitted it has no jurisdiction, how can it then make comment on matters outside its jurisdiction, without relevant evidence being heard?

[halloween]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Does completely ignoring the political violence being carried out by her supporters equate to tolerance?

Isn't it strange that the violence has now stopped after the coup, carried out by the supposedly bloodthirsty military?

[rubl]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Questions must be raised why member Eric Loh seems so prejudiced in writing this post.

"meekly', 'cowered', 'allowed the military','provocative', 'weak', 'blank cheque', etc., etc.

seems to raise the need to question the accuracy and truthfullness of these statements as well.

BTW tolerance of cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades on anti (Yingluck) government protesters? Abhisit should have shown similar tolerance with cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades but then on any other than the anti (Abhisit) protesters?

[Eric Loh]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Questions must be raised why member Eric Loh seems so prejudiced in writing this post.

"meekly', 'cowered', 'allowed the military','provocative', 'weak', 'blank cheque', etc., etc.

seems to raise the need to question the accuracy and truthfullness of these statements as well.

BTW tolerance of cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades on anti (Yingluck) government protesters? Abhisit should have shown similar tolerance with cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades but then on any other than the anti (Abhisit) protesters?

Accuracy and truthfulness? Let's do a check.

Meek - he is the PM and should be making all the decision but alas he allowed Suthep and his Eastern Tiger military clique to dominate.

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Provocative - why not the 1st Army stationed in Bangkok but they chose the most anti Reds units. Was that the reasons for the big casualties?

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

[kimamey]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Questions must be raised why member Eric Loh seems so prejudiced in writing this post.

"meekly', 'cowered', 'allowed the military','provocative', 'weak', 'blank cheque', etc., etc.

seems to raise the need to question the accuracy and truthfullness of these statements as well.

BTW tolerance of cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades on anti (Yingluck) government protesters? Abhisit should have shown similar tolerance with cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades but then on any other than the anti (Abhisit) protesters?

Accuracy and truthfulness? Let's do a check.

Meek - he is the PM and should be making all the decision but alas he allowed Suthep and his Eastern Tiger military clique to dominate.

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Provocative - why not the 1st Army stationed in Bangkok but they chose the most anti Reds units. Was that the reasons for the big casualties?

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Fairly normal practice and may have been on the advice of the police or army for security reasons. Didn't Yingluck have to change the location of cabinet meetings? What about this as well.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/700141-chalerm-flees-meeting-after-taunting-protesters/

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

No wrong. He gave permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. How appropriate those rules were and whether the army abided by them is another matter but he did not allow them to kill anyone they wanted. If he had the ROE would just have read 'You can use weapons to kill anyone you want to.' In reality they are a bit longer than that

Edited August 30, 2014 by kimamey

[kimamey]

..........................."12 further needless deaths would have been avoided including the 6 in Wat Phatum.".................................

Can someone remind Fab4 (I think he has blocked me because I had the audacity to say that he is a banned troll) that if Thaksin had not have come up with the evil plan in the first place, to have his paid redshirt murderers invade Bangkok and attack the Army, there would not have been ANY deaths and we would be talking about something else now.

You do him injustice, my dear chap. Fab4 esq. just posted this interesting link

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/29/thailand-court-ruling-furthers-impunity

which had a few things he liked and this snipped he might not

"Human Rights Watch has also consistently pressed for investigations into alleged crimes by the UDD-linked “Black Shirt” militants. Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the Pheu Thai Party, deny that the UDD had armed elements at the time of the 2010 events."

Well spotted Uncle.

A few weeks ago he posted one of his famous links and for some reason I clicked on it, which I don't usually do. He must not have read the entire page he posted the link to because towards the bottom of the page was an article attacking Thaksin and his party at the time. Had a good laugh at his expense.

To be fair to him I often wonder if fab4 has some legal background as he often provides links or posts information on a subject rather than just rant about it. Well usually anyway. It's similar to Robert Amsterdam's posts on his website and elsewhere, the information is all there but you have read it all to see the bits he hasn't mentioned.

[Eric Loh]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Questions must be raised why member Eric Loh seems so prejudiced in writing this post.

"meekly', 'cowered', 'allowed the military','provocative', 'weak', 'blank cheque', etc., etc.

seems to raise the need to question the accuracy and truthfullness of these statements as well.

BTW tolerance of cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades on anti (Yingluck) government protesters? Abhisit should have shown similar tolerance with cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades but then on any other than the anti (Abhisit) protesters?

Accuracy and truthfulness? Let's do a check.

Meek - he is the PM and should be making all the decision but alas he allowed Suthep and his Eastern Tiger military clique to dominate.

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Provocative - why not the 1st Army stationed in Bangkok but they chose the most anti Reds units. Was that the reasons for the big casualties?

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Fairly normal practice and may have been on the advice of the police or army for security reasons. Didn't Yingluck have to change the location of cabinet meetings? What about this as well.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/700141-chalerm-flees-meeting-after-taunting-protesters/

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

No wrong. He gave permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. How appropriate those rules were and why whether the army abided by them is another matter but he did not allow them to kill anyone they wanted. If he had the ROE would just have read 'You can use weapons to kill anyone you want to.' In reality they are a bit longer than that

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

[halloween]

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

Would the responsibility be equal to that of those who financed an uprising., and agitated the ignorant into taking violent action? Is there a difference between a political activist who becomes suddenly wealthy, and a mercenary propagandist?

Edited August 30, 2014 by halloween

[Eric Loh]

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

Would the responsibility be equal to that of those who financed an uprising., and agitated the ignorant into taking violent action? Is there a difference between a political activist who becomes suddenly wealthy, and a mercenary propagandist?

If you referring to the PAD in 2005 and 2008, I am with you. I am still trying to decipher who is this political activist who suddenly become wealthy.

[tbthailand]

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

I agree with you here. Abhisit new that he was "placed" in the PM spot and that he had a role to play - he was the pretty face and "legitimate" face of the military who gave him his job. Suthep might have thought himself a real player, but was just a useful pawn - as he has continued to be. In the end, when it came to cleaning out the protesters, I doubt that either man had much of a say in the way it was done. The general-now-PM was anti-UDD then and now, and it was clear that the army took few pains to avoid casualties during those 6 days of urban warfare. The deaths in the Wat are but one example. The killing at the gas station another. It was really a pathetic event.

Edited August 30, 2014 by tbthailand

[kimamey]

Questions must be raised why member Eric Loh seems so prejudiced in writing this post.

"meekly', 'cowered', 'allowed the military','provocative', 'weak', 'blank cheque', etc., etc.

seems to raise the need to question the accuracy and truthfullness of these statements as well.

BTW tolerance of cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades on anti (Yingluck) government protesters? Abhisit should have shown similar tolerance with cowardly night attacks with gunfire and grenades but then on any other than the anti (Abhisit) protesters?

Accuracy and truthfulness? Let's do a check.

Meek - he is the PM and should be making all the decision but alas he allowed Suthep and his Eastern Tiger military clique to dominate.

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Provocative - why not the 1st Army stationed in Bangkok but they chose the most anti Reds units. Was that the reasons for the big casualties?

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

Cowered - too obvious. Didn't he ran to take safety in the army base?

Fairly normal practice and may have been on the advice of the police or army for security reasons. Didn't Yingluck have to change the location of cabinet meetings? What about this as well.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/700141-chalerm-flees-meeting-after-taunting-protesters/

Blank check - he did gave permission to use war weapons and live rounds. Right?

No wrong. He gave permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. How appropriate those rules were and why whether the army abided by them is another matter but he did not allow them to kill anyone they wanted. If he had the ROE would just have read 'You can use weapons to kill anyone you want to.' In reality they are a bit longer than that

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

I think it's your understanding that lacking.

Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

I must admit I don't fully understand the first part. The point is no political leader on either side is going to put themselves in unnecessary danger so they will go to a place of safety. In PTP's case they went to the north east where they have more support. I don't remember seeing Yingluck leading the police during the demonstrations for obvious reasons. Bare in mind Abhisit's car was attacked at one point.

The 'Abhisit was a military puppet' thing stopped some time ago when it was realised it would be difficult trying to accuse him of ordering the army to kill redshirt protesters if he was a military puppet. You really need to try and keep up. He became PM because of the courts rather than the military and I would say he was more under the control of those he had to be in coalition with than the military. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of him being under the influence of the military. If you want that sort of evidence then look at the PTP. They promised justice for the victims in 2010. The UDD leaders did the same. Despite there being doubt about all the details of the deaths what is known from the court investigations so far into the deaths is that the shots were almost certainly fired by the army. There are accusations regarding the ROE and whether they were within international guidelines.

It's quite right that these matters are investigated properly as previously under the Democrats there was justifiable doubt that had happened. What happened is that Tarit who says he just follows government policy decides to only investigate A and S and not the army. That was backed up by Chalerm as well. If the army fired the shots and they did so in outside of their ROE why aren't they being investigated? Is it because the actual puppets are the PTP?

Have you noticed that the UDD haven't complained about the army escaping justice for the killing of those they promised justice for?

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

That's easy the army disobeyed orders. Despite the revision of the ROE allowing live fire under extended conditions being a bit vague I can see nothing that would have enabled them to shoot in those cases under the rules they were given. That brings us back to the question, why weren't the army investigated.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

Yes but if you haven't authorised it then your responsibility is to investigate it and take appropriate action.

In this case where a US soldier killed 16 civilians I don't remember President Obama or anyone in command of him being charged with murders. They were responsible for what happened to him afterwards.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17330205

I'll say it again this all needs to be properly investigated as I suspect there are faults all round but it isn't happening because this isn't about justice for those killed but a campaign against Abhisit and Suthep but probably mainly Abhisit.

[halloween]

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

Would the responsibility be equal to that of those who financed an uprising., and agitated the ignorant into taking violent action? Is there a difference between a political activist who becomes suddenly wealthy, and a mercenary propagandist?

If you referring to the PAD in 2005 and 2008, I am with you. I am still trying to decipher who is this political activist who suddenly become wealthy.

I was referring to the period of the topic, 2010. Several of the "red leaders" of the time have reported a sudden increase in wealth. Surely they and those that paid them, are liable for the consequences of their actions and the resulting deaths?

[halloween]

I agree with you here. Abhisit new that he was "placed" in the PM spot and that he had a role to play - he was the pretty face and "legitimate" face of the military who gave him his job. Suthep might have thought himself a real player, but was just a useful pawn - as he has continued to be. In the end, when it came to cleaning out the protesters, I doubt that either man had much of a say in the way it was done. The general-now-PM was anti-UDD then and now, and it was clear that the army took few pains to avoid casualties during those 6 days of urban warfare. The deaths in the Wat are but one example. The killing at the gas station another. It was really a pathetic event.

How could the general NOT be anti-UDD? A collection of mercenary propagandists in the pay of a criminal, purporting to represent the people of the North and NE, with no input from those it supposedly represents, preaching political violence and thuggery, while ignoring their wishes in favour of Thaksin's orders. The UDD's position on the amnesty showed their true colours to all, the bloody red of the Judas goat.

[Eric Loh]

Your understanding of the 2010 crisis is very shallow and you really don't understand what I post. Just think through this. Yingluck asked for permission to use the military base for the same reason and was rejected. And the coalition parties that broke rank with PPP was brokered by the Generals. Bottom line, he is just a puppet.

You say permission to use weapons in certain circumstances. Well please explain the circumstances behind the death of the Japanese journalist and the Italian photographer.

If you give permission to use live rounds, you are responsible for its consequences.

I agree with you here. Abhisit new that he was "placed" in the PM spot and that he had a role to play - he was the pretty face and "legitimate" face of the military who gave him his job. Suthep might have thought himself a real player, but was just a useful pawn - as he has continued to be. In the end, when it came to cleaning out the protesters, I doubt that either man had much of a say in the way it was done. The general-now-PM was anti-UDD then and now, and it was clear that the army took few pains to avoid casualties during those 6 days of urban warfare. The deaths in the Wat are but one example. The killing at the gas station another. It was really a pathetic event.

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

[rubl]

Well guys (and girls of course), I'll leave the history rehashing to you lot.

I've gone through this in real live working and living in Bangkok and I've gone through it here on TVF more than a dozen times and probably even more frequent. I still remember when a certain poster, who is no longer with us (or no longer under that name ) telling me he saw it with his own eyes meaning he had watched a clip.

Well, the topic is the ruling of the criminal court that the judging of the "premeditated murder case allegedly by two private individuals" is not within their jurisdiction as they were appointed government officials. Still the case was initially accepted upto the point of the suspects had to come to hear the charges and acknowledge them. As such the case seems thrown out and "double jeopardy" might come into play.

Isn't there any legal mind on TVF with sufficient knowledge of Thai Law who can tell how that works in Thailand?

Edited August 30, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

Banharn? I think it was a parties chairman or executive. Banharn was still legally banned from any political involvement.

Anyway, the coercion to form a coalition is something political parties do, even in democracies. Sometimes for money, sometimes for power, almost never out of altruism.

Interesting to read about puppet Abhisit, a term almost always used by opponents only while Ms. Yingluck was named a clone by her own brother.

Well, so much for a court ruling which isn't interesting enough to discuss here it would seem. The nitty-gritty of Law isn't for all I guess.

[Eric Loh]

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

Banharn? I think it was a parties chairman or executive. Banharn was still legally banned from any political involvement.

Anyway, the coercion to form a coalition is something political parties do, even in democracies. Sometimes for money, sometimes for power, almost never out of altruism.

Interesting to read about puppet Abhisit, a term almost always used by opponents only while Ms. Yingluck was named a clone by her own brother.

Well, so much for a court ruling which isn't interesting enough to discuss here it would seem. The nitty-gritty of Law isn't for all I guess.

Not often but I see you agreed with me that there was coercion. Banharn still the defacto leader of CTP and he said coercion through intimidation.

Yes, puppet or crony is not exclusive to the Taksin party.

Really can't see the needs discuss the nitty gritty of law for this topic. Rather straightforward double standard.

[Eric Loh]

when you consider that there are no ballistics tests to link the weapons used to kill people directly to the army and that they have based it all on thew fact "high power" weapons as n the type the army uses you really have to wonder at the mentallity of those pressing the charges. A bullet needs to be linked(ballistics) to a weapon before you can claim that that was the gun used especially when thaksin had his paid killers the blackshirts simply shooting everyone to cause as much mayhem as possible. The blackshirts were in the areas the killing shots were fired from and the army was firing back at those people shooting at them, the fact that the red shirts were using others for cover should reflect on the reds. The govt issued orders to return fire, the reds started the shooting and all the appologists in here expect them to have no blame even though it was all their fault, what a bunch of sorry ars*d losers those defending the reds really are.

Pleases stop being naive and allow others to think for you. You really think that something as important as ballistic tests were not investigated? Inquest at the Bangkok South Criminal Court have sufficient evidences to link the 4 men and 1 woman in the temple were killed by high velocity bullets from the army. The inquest also dismissed these mysterious unidentified men firing at the soldiers.

Previous court ruling also stated that 5 people were killed by guns fired by military personnel and 1 Italian photographer killed by bullets fired from the direction of the soldiers.

These are court rulings not hearsay or information passed around by TVF AV and Sutherp fan club. Now the worst part of this is that all these evidences were passed to the criminal court for prosecution and the sad part is that the court threw this out due to technicality. No consideration of the seriousness of the charges. Simply pathetic.

obviously your brain doesnt function very well does it, high velocity weapons does not link ballistics to the guns used, they need to actually fire the weapons and retrieve the bullets and then compare them to the ones removed from the bodies, unless they do this they cannot link any weaponds to the actual shooting. In this day and age you really must be very juvenile(that means young if the word is too big for you) if you are unaware of this, maybe you should try watching adult programs instead of your thai soapies/fairy tales, you know, the ones that show you what is needed to prove a murder charge. You lot are so pathetic that you are unable to even understand basic laws, when different groups(reds/black shirts and the army) are all using the same sort of weapons then you need to actually link the bullets used to those weapons before you can claim who fired what, this is obviously beyond your mental ability but I am sure when you graduate from pre-school classes you might start to understand.......

Please present your rather basic suggestion to Dr Wichan, Head Of Forensic who concluded that the bullets were from the soldiers. He may need a good laugh.

[halloween]

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

Banharn? I think it was a parties chairman or executive. Banharn was still legally banned from any political involvement.

Anyway, the coercion to form a coalition is something political parties do, even in democracies. Sometimes for money, sometimes for power, almost never out of altruism.

Interesting to read about puppet Abhisit, a term almost always used by opponents only while Ms. Yingluck was named a clone by her own brother.

Well, so much for a court ruling which isn't interesting enough to discuss here it would seem. The nitty-gritty of Law isn't for all I guess.

Not often but I see you agreed with me that there was coercion. Banharn still the defacto leader of CTP and he said coercion through intimidation.

Yes, puppet or crony is not exclusive to the Taksin party.

Really can't see the needs discuss the nitty gritty of law for this topic. Rather straightforward double standard.

My dear sir, you should really refrain from accusations of double standards. You have stated quite clearly that Abhisit was the (puppet) PM, while claiming that the court was wrong in respecting his position, to which he had been duly appointed.

No matter what your thoughts are regarding his appointment, the court decision was the correct one, that they had no jurisdiction. Is that too nitty-gritty for you?

[rubl]

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

Banharn? I think it was a parties chairman or executive. Banharn was still legally banned from any political involvement.

Anyway, the coercion to form a coalition is something political parties do, even in democracies. Sometimes for money, sometimes for power, almost never out of altruism.

Interesting to read about puppet Abhisit, a term almost always used by opponents only while Ms. Yingluck was named a clone by her own brother.

Well, so much for a court ruling which isn't interesting enough to discuss here it would seem. The nitty-gritty of Law isn't for all I guess.

Not often but I see you agreed with me that there was coercion. Banharn still the defacto leader of CTP and he said coercion through intimidation.

Yes, puppet or crony is not exclusive to the Taksin party.

Really can't see the needs discuss the nitty gritty of law for this topic. Rather straightforward double standard.

Come on, Eric, Banharn was chief advisor only, to the newly formed ChartThaiPattana party which consisted mostly of (dissolved) ChartThai party members and MPs. With the conservative background of the party none probably needed much coercion and certainly not intimidation to join another party in a coalition.

As for puppet, as I said "seemingly only opponents here on TVF use the term' where as Thaksin used 'clone' on his one sister and regularly made similar comments. Even in parliament Ms. Yingluck had to stand up and lie that she and only she was in command of her government and cabinet. As far as I know no one ever accused Abhisit in parliament? I'm willing to accept proof I'm wrong on this

Finally the double standards, well if you don't like the law and can't be bothered to read and/or study then I guess anything you don't like must be wrong automatically. I won't ask you to elaborate, as an answer you might want to give could be against forum rule #2

Edited August 30, 2014 by rubl

[Eric Loh]

There was never a doubt starting with the Army Chief asking for the government to resign and the revelation by Banharn that he was intimidated to join the Dem coalition, making them the majority in Parliment. Without the coercion, there will not be a majority and Ahbisit would not be the puppet PM.

Banharn? I think it was a parties chairman or executive. Banharn was still legally banned from any political involvement.

Anyway, the coercion to form a coalition is something political parties do, even in democracies. Sometimes for money, sometimes for power, almost never out of altruism.

Interesting to read about puppet Abhisit, a term almost always used by opponents only while Ms. Yingluck was named a clone by her own brother.

Well, so much for a court ruling which isn't interesting enough to discuss here it would seem. The nitty-gritty of Law isn't for all I guess.

Not often but I see you agreed with me that there was coercion. Banharn still the defacto leader of CTP and he said coercion through intimidation.

Yes, puppet or crony is not exclusive to the Taksin party.

Really can't see the needs discuss the nitty gritty of law for this topic. Rather straightforward double standard.

Come on, Eric, Banharn was chief advisor only, to the newly formed ChartThaiPattana party which consisted mostly of (dissolved) ChartThai party members and MPs. With the conservative background of the party none probably needed much coercion and certainly not intimidation to join another party in a coalition.

As for puppet, as I said "seemingly only opponents here on TVF use the term' where as Thaksin used 'clone' on his one sister and regularly made similar comments. Even in parliament Ms. Yingluck had to stand up and lie that she and only she was in command of her government and cabinet. As far as I know no one ever accused Abhisit in parliament? I'm willing to accept proof I'm wrong on this

Finally the double standards, well if you don't like the law and can't be bothered to read and/or study then I guess anything you don't like must be wrong automatically. I won't ask you to elaborate, as an answer you might want to give could be against forum rule #2

Rubi, I let you be the judge whether there was intimidation. Below statement by Banharn and also his brother Chumpol.

"..he had no other path to take and had been pressure to do so" Banharn.

"it was not that CTP wanted to join the coalition. We would definitely not do so if we were not forced to. We are pressure by a powerful force from which we could not evade" Chumpol.

[metisdead]

Posts with messed up quotes have been removed. Inflammatory posts have been removed as well.

[rubl]

Rubi, I let you be the judge whether there was intimidation. Below statement by Banharn and also his brother Chumpol.

"..he had no other path to take and had been pressure to do so" Banharn.

"it was not that CTP wanted to join the coalition. We would definitely not do so if we were not forced to. We are pressure by a powerful force from which we could not evade" Chumpol.

Pressure probably, intimidation? A party with such conservative background, with so many generals who even served once as PM, intimidated by a powerful force?

BTW "statements" should be accompanied by links since you seem to have taken the sentences from some web page.

Anyway, the topic is about a criminal court dismissing an alleged "premeditated murder by two private persons" charge as having been put at the wrong court. Suthep might be wondering why the police airdropped an arrest warrant to remind him he really needed to go to court to hear and acknowledge the charge.

[Robby nz]

Questions must be raised on why Ahbisit meekly allowed the military to made all the decision when he cowered inside the military safe house. Even the decision to use elements of the Burapha Payak military group 2nd division was provocative. Known for their strong anti UDD stance and given a blank check by the weak Ahbisit, they were shooting on sight resulting in so many deaths. If only he practiced Yingluck tolerance even under extremely dire situation, many lives would have been saved.

Cowering inside the military safe house ????

You obviously have no idea of what actually went on at the time.

There were direct death threats against Abhisit's family which forced him to relocate them to an arm barracks for their safety.

Do you think it would have been better if he had used a pro red army unit, if such a think existed. Possibly you think they would have been more inclined to stand up as targets for the MIB and die for the red cause.

I agree that Abhisit should have let the army loose with full force as soon as the first grenade was fired but I suspect the fact that he didn't was more humanitarian than weak.

Shooting at everything in sight ? Do you really believe that the 40 or 50 that were actually shot by the army were all the red rioters they saw ?

"Yinglucks tolerance", no wont go into that silly diversion.

Something I have noticed is that when it suits the reds they call Abhisit a puppet of the military, now they are telling us all the things he ordered the military to do.

[fab4]

I can only presume an answer to my post #233 is beyond, or beneath you. Still, at least this reply of yours allows you to spout the usual.

Oh, by the way the "premeditated murder" case has not been thrown out, as in dismissed. The court recognised that abhisit and sutheps actions directly led to deaths and that the dispersal operations did not follow international standards. In addition the prosecutors can appeal the decision not to hear the case, not to mention that as there is evidence of abhisits and sutheps actions having led to deaths the NACC should be duty bound to raise the case in the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders - but I won't hold my breath, especially in the current "political" climate.

If a court has admitted it has no jurisdiction, how can it then make comment on matters outside its jurisdiction, without relevant evidence being heard?

As I have explained in another thread to whybother, if you bothered to read the link I provided you'd find out.

[fab4]

Oh come on, Fabby.

The court didn't recognise anything except that this possible case was not theirs to look into.

From the OP:

"A criminal court in the capital ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because Abhisit and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban were holders of public office at the time and acting under an emergency decree.

It said the only court with the authority to consider the allegations was the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions."

ADD: Although the court ruled not to have jurisdiction in this case, Abhisit/Suthep have been charged, have acknowledged charges and a ruling is made. Seems "double jeopardy" can come into play. IMHO.

One day it may occur to you that there are more sources of reference than just the OP of a thread.