Five “Men in Black” plead not guilty before the court

BANGKOK: -- Five “Men in Black” who were allegedly involved in the use of firearms against security forces and civilians during the red-shirt movement’s protest against the Abhisit government in 2010 pleaded not guilty to all the charges filed against them by the public prosecutors on Monday.

Formally indicted by the public prosecutors were Kittisak Somsri of Bangkok, Preecha Yuyen of Chiang Mai, Ronnarith Sureecha of Ubon Ratchathani, Chamnan Pakeechai and Mrs Puneeka Chusri, both Bangkok residents.

They were charged with having in possession war weapons and carrying the weapons in public places namely KokWua intersection, Tanao and Democracy roads and PhraNakorn district. They were arrested on September11 about four years after the protest.

The first hearing of the case was scheduled on February 16.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/five-men-black-plead-not-guilty-court

-- Thai PBS 2014-12-07

But they look so guilty. They're even wearing the same arm bands as they did then.

Er, There's only four and where are the other 496 terrorists as alleged by the then Pm and his deputies ???

Strange that 3 years after, nobody bought to book other than 4 "no marks"........

Given that they are handcuffed, constrained, contrite and rather seriously out numbered, is there any real need for the masked storm troopers, other than photo opportunity to try and make a "statement"

"They dressed me up like that!"

will be interesting to see the evidence and then the follow up of the other MIB people. Considering Tarit never even tried to find them or accuse them of killing during the ptp reign is it any wonder that there are not more of them. This lot were picked up quickly after the ptp were tossed out because the general actually started looking for the criminals that were doing all the killing, something the ptp/tarit never attempted because they were doing it for their/the reds benefit.

Judging by the 'ready to fire' weapons being pointed, these four prisioners are fully armed and liable to open fire at any time, thank god for the protection.

Must be bloody cold or dangerous in that room, possibly both.

BTW did the men in black actually run around with red sashes tied to their arms ? I dont recall any action pics of the MIB at the time with that little detail.

Such a typically typically Thai picture.

Perhaps the 5th one is on the floor craving forgiveness?

Off topic post removed. Please do not post material in an obvious attempt to de-rail the topic at hand.

Must be bloody cold or dangerous in that room, possibly both.

BTW did the men in black actually run around with red sashes tied to their arms ? I dont recall any action pics of the MIB at the time with that little detail.

Must be bloody cold or dangerous in that room, possibly both.

BTW did the men in black actually run around with red sashes tied to their arms ? I dont recall any action pics of the MIB at the time with that little detail.

Thats not the MIB im thinking of, but thanks anyway.

Pesky, pesky facts....

will be interesting to see the evidence and then the follow up of the other MIB people. Considering Tarit never even tried to find them or accuse them of killing during the ptp reign is it any wonder that there are not more of them. This lot were picked up quickly after the ptp were tossed out because the general actually started looking for the criminals that were doing all the killing, something the ptp/tarit never attempted because they were doing it for their/the reds benefit.

And yet the courts a long time ago identified the killers of the nurse in the temple as members of the Queen's Guard unit, and yet these people have not seen the inside of a courtroom, and I suspect are unlikely to do so.

Guilty.

They must be jail for life for receiving money from Dubai.

Must be bloody cold or dangerous in that room, possibly both.

BTW did the men in black actually run around with red sashes tied to their arms ? I dont recall any action pics of the MIB at the time with that little detail.

Thats not the MIB im thinking of, but thanks anyway.

No your man in back are far more highthech. But i thought this was a Thai forum not a movie one.

Edited December 9, 201411 yr by robblok

Must be bloody cold or dangerous in that room, possibly both.

BTW did the men in black actually run around with red sashes tied to their arms ? I dont recall any action pics of the MIB at the time with that little detail.

How id you get these pictures. I thought it was impossible to take pictures of things that don't exist. At least so many people here that support the PTP said they did not exist that the army had no reason to use life rounds.

Though i remember seeing them on TV too, but these guys and the lack of prosecution by the PTP of these guys made me think it was all a figment of my imagination.

Thank you.. I was so worried I was loosing my mind

will be interesting to see the evidence and then the follow up of the other MIB people. Considering Tarit never even tried to find them or accuse them of killing during the ptp reign is it any wonder that there are not more of them. This lot were picked up quickly after the ptp were tossed out because the general actually started looking for the criminals that were doing all the killing, something the ptp/tarit never attempted because they were doing it for their/the reds benefit.

I feel confident this will all be cleared up with the real men in black being prosecuted to the full extent of the law once the summons are delivered to Chalrem along with Pracha and they testify.

'Men in black' are policemen, Chalerm claims:

The Nation December 13, 2011 1:00 am

"I would like to reiterate here that they are policemen," Chalerm said.

"Please stop," he warned. "I am trying to catch you because you are trying to do a bad thing." He added that the mastermind behind these groups was now suffering from Parkinson's disease.

Asked whether he had evidence to back up his claim, Chalerm said: "If I weren't ready, I wouldn't say it."

According to Chalerm, this group of policemen joined with some politicians, some of whom have since lost power, and "regular movement" groups in staging the incident.

Pheu Thai MP Pracha Prasopdee said he knew the initials of the person with Parkinson's disease Chalerm talked about. "I once received a complaint that this man also encroached on a public area of a housing estate," he said.

At least so many people here that support the PTP said they did not exist that the army had no reason to use life rounds.

Though i remember seeing them on TV too, but these guys and the lack of prosecution by the PTP of these guys made me think it was all a figment of my imagination.

Thank you.. I was so worried I was loosing my mind

Yes, this picture is the ultimate proof that the army was justified to shoot women and unarmed people (on temple grounds) with sniper rifles.

So, Police never saw their faces ? and released them ?

At least so many people here that support the PTP said they did not exist that the army had no reason to use life rounds.

Though i remember seeing them on TV too, but these guys and the lack of prosecution by the PTP of these guys made me think it was all a figment of my imagination.

Thank you.. I was so worried I was loosing my mind

Yes, this picture is the ultimate proof that the army was justified to shoot women and unarmed people (on temple grounds) with sniper rifles.

If the reds had not fired from there the army would not have started shooting. Still its a bad thing what has happened, but without the armed reds it would never have happened. Kinda like when the former government tried to retake with force a protest site and both sides started firing on each other (and people died). I don't see YL being charged for murder there ? I also don't see much indignation from the reds about that.

http://www.dw.de/deaths-in-thailand-as-police-try-to-retake-government-offices/a-17439189

In my opinion its the people who take guns to protests that are to be blamed. When protests are peaceful the army or police don't have to use firearms on them.

Edited December 9, 201411 yr by robblok

At least so many people here that support the PTP said they did not exist that the army had no reason to use life rounds.

Though i remember seeing them on TV too, but these guys and the lack of prosecution by the PTP of these guys made me think it was all a figment of my imagination.

Thank you.. I was so worried I was loosing my mind

Yes, this picture is the ultimate proof that the army was justified to shoot women and unarmed people (on temple grounds) with sniper rifles.

Funny how Bob wasn't objecting to the killings under Thaksin? Odd.

Funny how Bob wasn't objecting to the killings under Thaksin? Odd.

Maybe you confuse me with a Bob you know, who you have been around for years, and who you talk to regularly.

But this Bob objects every killing happening without direct orders from a court (death penalty is something i do not support but i can live with if the law allows it) or for protecting ones own live.

But what is your opinion on it?

You think it is fine for soldiers to shoot citizens that oppose no threat to them at the certain point of time?

At least so many people here that support the PTP said they did not exist that the army had no reason to use life rounds.

Though i remember seeing them on TV too, but these guys and the lack of prosecution by the PTP of these guys made me think it was all a figment of my imagination.

Thank you.. I was so worried I was loosing my mind

Yes, this picture is the ultimate proof that the army was justified to shoot women and unarmed people (on temple grounds) with sniper rifles.

No, it is proof that the MiB mingled withing the Red Shirt protesters to carry out their attacks, in my opinion with the purpose of creating a situation were casualties would ensue; in other words, they wanted to create "martyrs" to push their agenda by placing Red Shirts in the line of fire.

No, it is proof that the MiB mingled withing the Red Shirt protesters to carry out their attacks, in my opinion with the purpose of creating a situation were casualties would ensue; in other words, they wanted to create "martyrs" to push their agenda by placing Red Shirts in the line of fire.

Absolutely despicable.

But i agree with your analysis/opinion.

You think it is fine for soldiers to shoot citizens that oppose no threat to them at the certain point of time?

It's really cute how how you skirt the question.

Can you point me to the threads were you equally condemn the red shirts looting and killing people? The threads were you equally condemn Thaksin's killing sprees? I must have missed those - but im sure you know where those can be found.

No, it is proof that the MiB mingled withing the Red Shirt protesters to carry out their attacks, in my opinion with the purpose of creating a situation were casualties would ensue; in other words, they wanted to create "martyrs" to push their agenda by placing Red Shirts in the line of fire.

Absolutely despicable.

But i agree with your analysis/opinion.

So, now that we have this on record, what is your opinion when the army is forced to fire back when they are being fired upon by hostile provocateurs?

You think it is fine for soldiers to shoot citizens that oppose no threat to them at the certain point of time?

It's really cute how how you skirt the question.

Can you point me to the threads were you equally condemn the red shirts looting and killing people? The threads were you equally condemn Thaksin's killing sprees? I must have missed those - but im sure you know where those can be found.

Really cute how i skirt which question exactly?

You said: "Funny how Bob wasn't objecting to the killings under Thaksin? Odd. "

Even though there is a question mark in the sentence, i do not spot a question in there. You make a statement and don't ask me anything.

Not sure why i need to point you to threads where I condemn the red shirts. Do you maybe apply the "guilty till proven innocent" principle? Maybe you can first show me where I said that red shirts looting and killing people is fine? After that I can try to defend myself.

And you might have missed me condemning Thaksins killing sprees simply because that took place before I became active on Thaivisa. Simple explanation that probably did not come up in your mind, right?

But just to confuse you a bit, here are some links to threads where I am "condemning" Thaksin, or at least not approving of his actions:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/753521-ncpos-road-to-real-reform-could-get-bumpy-thai-opinion/

"I would not count myself as a red shirt thaksin supporter. Mostly because i think Taksin should be banned from politics and should serve his jail time."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/760915-loved-and-hated-former-pm-thaksin-is-erased-from-textbook/page-2

"He (thaksin) should be in the history books to educate kids what corruption could lead to and how one person can (mis-) use a system for his own profit"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/761324-taxing-the-rich-its-tough-thats-why-it-must-be-done/

"I can agree on many ways that Taksin was bad, but his tax evading would not be in my top 3"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/760915-loved-and-hated-former-pm-thaksin-is-erased-from-textbook/

"I am well aware of his criminal history and i surely dont approve of it (nor of him or many of his ill conceived policies)."

Talking about being cute and skirting questions... You missed the question I asked you (probably by accident):

"But what is your opinion on it?

You think it is fine for soldiers to shoot citizens that oppose no threat to them at the certain point of time?"

No, it is proof that the MiB mingled withing the Red Shirt protesters to carry out their attacks, in my opinion with the purpose of creating a situation were casualties would ensue; in other words, they wanted to create "martyrs" to push their agenda by placing Red Shirts in the line of fire.

Absolutely despicable.

But i agree with your analysis/opinion.

So, now that we have this on record, what is your opinion when the army is forced to fire back when they are being fired upon by hostile provocateurs?

Not sure what we exactly have "on record" and what "record" that is. Maybe you can explain a bit further about your secret organization that is taking records about stuff like this...

My opinion about soldiers returning fire when fired upon: they have the right to protect themselves and the duty to protect the people there. So killing the provocateurs would be preferable to make sure no soldiers or innocent bystanders are being hit.

And what is your opinion about the army firing at its own countrymen without being put under any threat by the people they are firing upon?

Not sure what we exactly have "on record" and what "record" that is. Maybe you can explain a bit further about your secret organization that is taking records about stuff like this...

My opinion about soldiers returning fire when fired upon: they have the right to protect themselves and the duty to protect the people there. So killing the provocateurs would be preferable to make sure no soldiers or innocent bystanders are being hit.

And what is your opinion about the army firing at its own countrymen without being put under any threat by the people they are firing upon?

Since we have established that there WAS a direct threat to the Army boys, when they were firing back, your question is invalid.

.... Thanks for further illustrating this whole 'skirting the questions' stuff - this should be very educational to most readers. The 'playing dumb' part is particularly enlightening.

Not sure what we exactly have "on record" and what "record" that is. Maybe you can explain a bit further about your secret organization that is taking records about stuff like this...

My opinion about soldiers returning fire when fired upon: they have the right to protect themselves and the duty to protect the people there. So killing the provocateurs would be preferable to make sure no soldiers or innocent bystanders are being hit.

And what is your opinion about the army firing at its own countrymen without being put under any threat by the people they are firing upon?

Since we have established that there WAS a direct threat to the Army boys, when they were firing back, your question is invalid.

.... Thanks for further illustrating this whole 'skirting the questions' stuff - this should be very educational to most readers. The 'playing dumb' part is particularly enlightening.

You start to crack me up, because you do not seem to make much sense anymore at this point. Who is exactly skirting questions? I answered all your questions, you answered none of mine.

So did we establish that the army was under a direct threat, and they were firing back? Yes, in some occasions, absolutely!

Was this true under every occasion they fired? No, absolutely not. So my question is not "invalid" at all. You can maybe better describe it as "inconvenient for you".

How about what another member here mentioned: "And yet the courts a long time ago identified the killers of the nurse in the temple as members of the Queen's Guard unit, and yet these people have not seen the inside of a courtroom, and I suspect are unlikely to do so."

Did the nurse also shoot at the soldier first? And how about the clips you can find on youtube where you see unarmed people lying on the ground, posing no threat to anyone, and still one has a gaping hole in his head from a sniper bullet? Was the sniper actually firing back? Then where are the weapons?

Maybe you can start answering some of these questions, or you keep on "playing dumb" by only asking questions, giving your own opinion, and never answering what people are asking you?

Edited December 9, 201411 yr by Bob12345