Slain Thai activist's family arrested over leaflet protest

[whybother]

That's exactly what I meant. Would these have been news if they were just moved on?

Maybe they were asked to move on, and didn't.

Maybe they wanted to be arrested. Would anyone have known about their leaflet distribution if they weren't?

[tbthailand]

maybe maybe maybe -

folks, anyone who reads this OP has only a small amount of the information available on this case. There are reports which tell you why the police arrested them (not for criticizing the judgement, but for defamation, why the police could not bring charges and needed to release them, and more. You can even find a photo of the leaflets they distributed.

These people were basically arrested because of whom they were protesting against, not for criticizing the judgement.

[whybother]

maybe maybe maybe -

folks, anyone who reads this OP has only a small amount of the information available on this case. There are reports which tell you why the police arrested them (not for criticizing the judgement, but for defamation, why the police could not bring charges and needed to release them, and more. You can even find a photo of the leaflets they distributed.

These people were basically arrested because of whom they were protesting against, not for criticizing the judgement.

It seems they were arrested for criticising the judgement of the courts. Is the OP wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time.)

[Lupatria]

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

I’m missing one:

aren’t there very specific and precisely explained circumstances to rectify a murder charge?

[diehard60]

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Wow are we being just one sided here? How do you know beyond a shadow of a dought that there were armed terrorists in the crowed???????You one of them???

You say it "seems" they did. You dont know. you do not know too much about what happened back then I guess.

[billd766]

AFAIR, at least in the UK and many other countries as well the definition of murder is the that someone was specifically named at the target and was unlawfully killed because of who/what he was.

To believe that Abhisit and/or Suthep specifically named the persons to be killed and no others is bordering on fantasy.

That they ordered the Army to use live ammunition to defend themselves is one thing but to accuse them of murder is wrong, complicity in manslaughter is a stretch at most.

They probably authorised the Army commander to use live ammumtion whuch in turn was passed down the chain of command to the officers in the front line. They have the immediate responsibility for its use.

If Abhisit and Suthep were charged as private citizens, how could they, as private citizens, order the Army to open fire and kill only certain persons. That would have put them into the court that rejected the charges.

If they were charged as the PM and Deputy PM then even accepting the charge of murder would be admitting that only certain persons should be targetted and were.

IMHO the charges were a put up job by Tarit who may actually have been told to do so by a person or persons unnamed. He may also have known that they were unlikely to be accepted and put them into the wrong place deliberately (or not), knowing that when it came down to it the court that they were filed in would reject them at some time.

[billd766]

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Wow are we being just one sided here? How do you know beyond a shadow of a dought that there were armed terrorists in the crowed???????You one of them???

You say it "seems" they did. You dont know. you do not know too much about what happened back then I guess.

Do you know everything that went on at that time? Were you privy to all the decisions by all sides?

I suspect that the truthful answer would be no. I further suspect that NOBODY knows all the details.

[smedly]

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Wow are we being just one sided here? How do you know beyond a shadow of a dought that there were armed terrorists in the crowed???????You one of them???

You say it "seems" they did. You dont know. you do not know too much about what happened back then I guess.

my opinion which I am entitled too, and your contribution is ??? not much it seems

[AleG]

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Wow are we being just one sided here? How do you know beyond a shadow of a dought that there were armed terrorists in the crowed???????You one of them???

You say it "seems" they did. You dont know. you do not know too much about what happened back then I guess.

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Wow are we being just one sided here? How do you know beyond a shadow of a dought that there were armed terrorists in the crowed???????You one of them???

You say it "seems" they did. You dont know. you do not know too much about what happened back then I guess.

Heavily armed Black Shirts mingling freely among Red Shirts the night of May 10th at Democracy monument, five soldiers and several protesters were killed after these people showed up and opened fire through the mass of Red Shirts to the army line:

There are many pictures, videos, testimonies and evidence; why do you reject reality?

[Boxclever]

This is getting worst than China or Myanmar for that matter! Thailand is heading into a totalitarian state

[tigermonkey]

I need to dispute this point. How did they know " what they were doing was "wrong"". Please tell us what law they knew that they were breaking. According to the OP, they were arrested for unlawful assembly/protest which involves 5 or more people. Were there that many at either location distributing leaflets? Why were the others not also arrested if they were there? Sorry, but this looks like a very clumsy attempt to intimidate these people, who are merely seeking answers.

If my daughter had been shot similarly, I would certainly be looking for answers, not the least of which is, why the Criminal Court took 20 months to decide that they had no jurisdiction.

Seriously?? Criticizing a legal judgement about a political issue during martial law??

These people have been heavily involved in these political issues since the deaths in 2010. They have had well paid legal representation since that time.

I'm am not saying anything for or against what they did, but they knew exactly what they were doing. And I am sure they got the result they wanted.

There was no judgement. No one was found guilty or innocent. The Criminal Court merely threw out the case after spending 20 months to deliberate whether or not it was within their jurisdiction. One can not criticize a judgement which does not exist.

I am sure that if a member of your family was dead in similar circumstances, you would not find the death to be "a political issue".

Yes, they knew what they were doing, and they were not breaking any law. Did you notice that they were released.

Edited September 1, 2014 by tigermonkey

[whybother]

I need to dispute this point. How did they know " what they were doing was "wrong"". Please tell us what law they knew that they were breaking. According to the OP, they were arrested for unlawful assembly/protest which involves 5 or more people. Were there that many at either location distributing leaflets? Why were the others not also arrested if they were there? Sorry, but this looks like a very clumsy attempt to intimidate these people, who are merely seeking answers.

If my daughter had been shot similarly, I would certainly be looking for answers, not the least of which is, why the Criminal Court took 20 months to decide that they had no jurisdiction.

Seriously?? Criticizing a legal judgement about a political issue during martial law??

These people have been heavily involved in these political issues since the deaths in 2010. They have had well paid legal representation since that time.

I'm am not saying anything for or against what they did, but they knew exactly what they were doing. And I am sure they got the result they wanted.

There was no judgement. No one was found guilty or innocent. The Criminal Court merely threw out the case after spending 20 months to deliberate whether or not it was within their jurisdiction. One can not criticize a judgement which does not exist.

I am sure that if a member of your family was dead in similar circumstances, you would not find the death to be "a political issue".

Yes, they knew what they were doing, and they were not breaking any law. Did you notice that they were released.

The court made a decision. The people were arrested for criticising the court decision.

It doesn't matter what I think, you think, or these people think, it IS a political issue. It's part of the reason that there was a coup ... that is, the political protests that have been going on since 2010.

If they weren't breaking the law, they were mistakenly arrested, and that should be the end of the story, right?

[tbthailand]

maybe maybe maybe -

folks, anyone who reads this OP has only a small amount of the information available on this case. There are reports which tell you why the police arrested them (not for criticizing the judgement, but for defamation, why the police could not bring charges and needed to release them, and more. You can even find a photo of the leaflets they distributed.

These people were basically arrested because of whom they were protesting against, not for criticizing the judgement.

It seems they were arrested for criticising the judgement of the courts. Is the OP wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time.)

Another article which also shows the leaflet, says that the Police Maj-Gen told the media that the police would charge the three for criminal defamation. The leaflet had Abhisit's and Suthep's names on it, and it also had the 3 general's names on it from the CRES. One of them is the current PM. The police cannot file defamation charges on behalf of another party. For this reason, the 3 were released after paying a fine for littering.

[whybother]

maybe maybe maybe -

folks, anyone who reads this OP has only a small amount of the information available on this case. There are reports which tell you why the police arrested them (not for criticizing the judgement, but for defamation, why the police could not bring charges and needed to release them, and more. You can even find a photo of the leaflets they distributed.

These people were basically arrested because of whom they were protesting against, not for criticizing the judgement.

It seems they were arrested for criticising the judgement of the courts. Is the OP wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time.)

Another article which also shows the leaflet, says that the Police Maj-Gen told the media that the police would charge the three for criminal defamation. The leaflet had Abhisit's and Suthep's names on it, and it also had the 3 general's names on it from the CRES. One of them is the current PM. The police cannot file defamation charges on behalf of another party. For this reason, the 3 were released after paying a fine for littering.

Littering? Were they handing out the leaflets or throwing them away?

... actually, looking at a photo in the BP, littering looks like the correct charge.

[webfact]

Father of 2010 Crackdown Victim Charged With Littering
By Khaosod English

BANGKOK — The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday.

Pansak Srithep, whose son Samapan Srithep was killed in the clashes between soldiers and Redshirt demonstrators in May 2010, distributed leaflets around Mo Chit BTS station yesterday morning.

The leaflets called for the establishment of a "People's Court" to try those responsible for the military crackdown that left over 90 people dead, mostly civilians.

Police detained Mr. Pansak soon after he began casting bundles of flyers around the station. He was later charged with violating the Public Health Act, which carries a fine of 5,000 baht, said Mr. Pansak's lawyer, Winyat Chartmontri.

Payao Akhart and her son Nattapat Akhart were also arrested while they were waiting to stage a protest near the BTS Station. Ms. Payao’s daughter, Kamonkate "Nurse Kate" Akhart, was killed in the May 2010 unrest while she was working as a volunteer medic.

Ms. Payao and Mr. Nattapat have not been charged with any crimes, said Mr. Winyat, who also represented the pair.

"Soldiers only talked with them to adjust their understanding. They did not take any legal action," Mr. Winyat explained.

There was fear that the trio would be charged with violating the military junta's ban on public protests and libel for naming several former politicians and high-ranking military officers as "defendants" in the "People's Court.”

"As of the moment, the individuals [named in the documents] have not pressed any charges," Mr. Winyat said. "The three persons did not intend to stage a political protest. They were merely expressing their feeling that they have not received justice."

Mr. Pansak, Ms. Payao, and Mr. Nattapat were released from police custody six hours after they were arrested.

Ms. Payao told reporters upon her release that she did not stage the activities to criticise the junta's National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

"I only came out to demand justice from the justice system," Ms. Payao said.

The protest followed the Criminal Court's decision to reject criminal proceedings against then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban for their authorisation of the 2010 military crackdown.

The court argued that Mr. Abhisit and Mr. Suthep must be tried by the Supreme Court's Division of Political Office Holders because the two men were in political office when the alleged crimes were committed. The case has now been transferred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1409561576

-- Khaosod English 2014-09-01

[whybother]

By Khaosod English

...

after he distrusted leaflets

Can someone who know's Khaosod's version of English please explain what this means?

[NativeSon360]

Gezz have some compassion, arresting someone for this. Let's drive a wedge between the haves and have nots. This is a bad move and will only divide the country again and not bring it together. They could have been handled more sensitively and not arrested.

The "should(s)" don't count. They never have, nor ever will.You should know that, by now!

Edited September 1, 2014 by NativeSon360

[Artisi]

Policing is not just about going in boots and all arresting people, it is also about maintaining peace and order and preventing offences. Police have a discretional power and should consider the consequences of their actions before they act. Personally I believe the police should have just warned them and moved them on. Arresting them has probably only garnished them support and highlighted their cause and possibly divided some in the community. The action of arresting them has probably inflamed the situation

If your reading skills were a little better, you might realise that is exactly what was done. They were detained for 6 hours to prevent them committing an illegal act, but no charges were laid.

Presumably by then all the press that had been notified of their staged event had got bored and gone home to bed. Just how much more reasonably should they have been treated?

If your reading and comprehension skills were a little better you'd perhaps realize that Chooka is talking about warning them and moving them on without actually arresting them and taking them in. Two different things.

That's exactly what I meant. Would this have been news if they were just moved on?

No, but the objective was to appear in the news.

[Sena Dave]

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

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Disagree , the Army do not have a right to open up indiscriminately into a mass of people because they are being fired upon. Unless of course we are employing Israeli logic

[NativeSon360]

Gezz have some compassion, arresting someone for this. Let's drive a wedge between the haves and have nots. This is a bad move and will only divide the country again and not bring it together. They could have been handled more sensitively and not arrested.

Do you mean they could have been handled more "sensibly"? I have no idea of what the foreigners, on this forum, are expecting from the Thai gov't. You do have your (no hassle to get) visas, allowing you to set-up residence, and remain in this country. Why can't you blokes just enjoy the "broad" parameters of the foreign expat life, and stay OUT of the business of Thai politics? I guess you blokes will not be satisfied, until you totally "piss-off" the Immigration authorities (who constantly monitor this forum). For heaven sake, get a farang life, and then mind your own business, for a change. Whew!

[than]

A people court is a great idea, they can judge Red leaders who used human shield during crackdown too

They can judge red leaders for used forces against innocent citizen, used terrorist method, threaten sick people in hospital, to order looting and arson in Bangkok......

Before judge security officers and personal for restore law and order and protect innocent , justice must punish the the real culprit of these all tragic events : UDD and their terrorist cronies

[zaphod reborn]

Anybody see what's wrong with this article's byline: "The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday."?

Calling it a murder means that there was proof that someone had premeditated intent to kill the teen, and that there is no claim of privilege. I don't think Khaosod has a clue about the actual elements to prove a case for murder. Redshirt journalism at its best. Not material to its story, they could have just used the term "killed" as they do later in the story.

Edited September 1, 2014 by zaphod reborn

[khunken]

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

these unfortunate people got caught up in a situation were there were armed gunmen all around them engaging the army, the sad reality is if they had removed themselves from the area this would never have happened, if they really want justice they need to ask the man in the sand and those on the stages why they placed armed terrorists into the crowd, did they think the army were just going to stand there and be shot at

The questions that should be asked are -

- Did the army have a right to be there ? well of course they did

- Were there armed terrorists amongst the crowd of red protestors ? by all accounts it seems there were

- Did the red leaders give orders to shoot at the authorities ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Did the army have the justification to return fire ? by all accounts it seems they did

- Were people not wanting to be involved given the opportunity to leave the area ? by all accounts it seems they were

- Are these victims still being used as Thaksins pawns ? unfortunately it seems they are

The whole argument around these unfortunate casualties hinges on one thing, were there armed gunmen firing at the police and army amongst the red protestors - if the answer to that question is "yes" then case closed

Disagree , the Army do not have a right to open up indiscriminately into a mass of people because they are being fired upon. Unless of course we are employing Israeli logic

Yes, I agree with that.

The point here is that these people have a valid point about lack of justice. Unfortunately they were 'got at' by the UDD and, apparently, Amsterdam to brainwash them with the lie that Abhisit & Suthep gave orders for the army to shoot innocent bystanders (or medics).

Their target should be the lying Tarit who absolved the army from any blame when it is pretty obvious that some were killed by wanton revenge/negligence/fear/whatever by a few army personnel.

They know that they are breaking some current laws - assembly, littering, defamation - but IMO the police didn't handle them harshly but broke up their demo. Not exactly a big deal.

Edited September 1, 2014 by khunken

[tbthailand]

Anybody see what's wrong with this article's byline: "The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday."?

Calling it a murder means that there was proof that someone had premeditated intent to kill the teen, and that there is no claim of privilege. I don't think Khaosod has a clue about the actual elements to prove a case for murder. Redshirt journalism at its best. Not material to its story, they could have just used the term "killed" as they do later in the story.

the army's actions on that day were planned, premeditated, or what ever you want to call it.

murder is a very good word for the killing of this boy - shot in the head - not to mention the death of the other young woman killed in the Wat.

[whybother]

Anybody see what's wrong with this article's byline: "The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday."?

Calling it a murder means that there was proof that someone had premeditated intent to kill the teen, and that there is no claim of privilege. I don't think Khaosod has a clue about the actual elements to prove a case for murder. Redshirt journalism at its best. Not material to its story, they could have just used the term "killed" as they do later in the story.

the army's actions on that day were planned, premeditated, or what ever you want to call it.

murder is a very good word for the killing of this boy - shot in the head - not to mention the death of the other young woman killed in the Wat.

But was it planned / premeditated by Abhisit and Suthep?

[whybother]

This boy was someone's son.

And?

Edit ... do you want me to find some photos of soldiers being shot or blown up by the red shirt protesters?

Edited September 1, 2014 by whybother

[khunken]

Anybody see what's wrong with this article's byline: "The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday."?

Calling it a murder means that there was proof that someone had premeditated intent to kill the teen, and that there is no claim of privilege. I don't think Khaosod has a clue about the actual elements to prove a case for murder. Redshirt journalism at its best. Not material to its story, they could have just used the term "killed" as they do later in the story.

the army's actions on that day were planned, premeditated, or what ever you want to call it.

murder is a very good word for the killing of this boy - shot in the head - not to mention the death of the other young woman killed in the Wat.

Were you there? If not then you have no idea whether it was planned, accidental or just reacting to mistaken threats. In other words you are making it up based on nothing but bias.

If you are a witness and privy to what the army were doing then, and only then, would your post not be considered just conspiracy creation.

[tbthailand]

Anybody see what's wrong with this article's byline: "The father of a 17-year-old boy who was murdered during the 2010 military crackdown on anti-government protesters has been charged with littering after he distrusted leaflets demanding justice for his son on Sunday."?

Calling it a murder means that there was proof that someone had premeditated intent to kill the teen, and that there is no claim of privilege. I don't think Khaosod has a clue about the actual elements to prove a case for murder. Redshirt journalism at its best. Not material to its story, they could have just used the term "killed" as they do later in the story.

the army's actions on that day were planned, premeditated, or what ever you want to call it.

murder is a very good word for the killing of this boy - shot in the head - not to mention the death of the other young woman killed in the Wat.

Were you there? If not then you have no idea whether it was planned, accidental or just reacting to mistaken threats. In other words you are making it up based on nothing but bias.

If you are a witness and privy to what the army were doing then, and only then, would your post not be considered just conspiracy creation.

thanks for that verdict.

you should get a job on a Thai court

[tbthailand]

This boy was someone's son.

And?

Edit ... do you want me to find some photos of soldiers being shot or blown up by the red shirt protesters?

that is such an obtuse and out of touch statement that it makes me wonder if you and that guy rubl are related.

I haven't seen so many cold-hearted posters on a forum in a long long time. Ok, maybe never.

[whybother]

This boy was someone's son.

And?

Edit ... do you want me to find some photos of soldiers being shot or blown up by the red shirt protesters?

that is such an obtuse and out of touch statement that it makes me wonder if you and that guy rubl are related.

I haven't seen so many cold-hearted posters on a forum in a long long time. Ok, maybe never.

What was the point of showing that photo?

Do you really think a judge would look at and say "oh dear. That's terrible. You must be guilty."

People were killed, on both sides. Just because "he was someone's son" doesn't make any difference to the discussion and is a pretty lame debating tactic.