Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

Bangkok Court Rules Authorities Killed Taxi Driver In 2010 Violence

Recommended Posts

Court rules authorities killed taxi driver victim in 2010 violence

By Digital Media

ta.jpeg

BANGKOK, Dec 17 – The Bangkok South District Court ruled today that a taxi driver from Surin who joined an anti-government rally in the 2010 political riot in Bangkok was shot dead by the authorities.

Chatchai Chalao, 25, a native of Surin province, was the third Red Shirt protester whom the court pinpointed as victim of shooting by state authorities. The court did not give a specific identity of the shooter.

Mr Chatchai, a member of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) which led the months-long demonstration in 2010, was shot dead on Rama IV Road, opposite Lumpini Park on May 13, 2010.

It was the first ruling by the Bangkok South District Court in relation to the 2010 political upheaval. The Criminal Court earlier announced that two other victims, Pan Khamkong, a taxi driver and Charnnarong Polsrila were shot dead by soldiers under the command of the now-defunct Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Decree (CRES).

The CRES was specially set up by the then Abhisit Vejjajiva government to deal with the political demonstrations and accompanying violence which had spread widely in the capital during the time the Emergency Decree was in force.

The Attorney General has submitted 19 similar cases relating to the 2010 crisis to the Criminal Court and Bangkok South District Court. The fourth case, involving the fatal shooting of a 14-year-old boy on Rachaprarob Road, is pending the Criminal Court’s ruling on Thursday.

Ninety-one persons were killed during the Red Shirt (UDD) organised demonstrations. (MCOT online news)

tnalogo.jpg

-- TNA 2012-12-17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering, has any individual or group been convicted of killing security personal in relation to the 2010 violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any court rulings coming up on the soldiers killed or is this going to be all one sided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DId they found the bullet who killed him or how could they come to the conclusion that he was killed by state authorities? Kangaroo courts!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know who 'digital media" is, but they were fuzzy on some historical details.... To speak of political upheavals in generalized terms and then to erroneously suggest they were anti-Govt., does not characterize them correctly. They were not anti-government, but anti-coup..... Their principle demand affirms that.... Their demands were for an election, not the elimination of a Govt. or Prime Minister...... This is not by accident...... Some political elements wish to characterize the demonstrators as being anarchic, with no Democratic redeeming values. References to coups and such, gives these demonstrators too much validity from an Electoral democracy Point-of-view, for their liking........ One only needs to 'walk in the moccasins' of those affected by the deaths of 91 family members to fully appreciate the judicial initiatives described in this article....... A non-involved, calculated political perspective ignoring this reality, and seeking to characterize a trained and well-armed military in a favorable light with respect to the obvious vast preponderance of these deaths resulting from it, must be very troubling for these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit like I tell my 3 year old son, nothing is impossible and you can do what you like in TV cartoons and movies, seems there isn't much difference in the Thai legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any court rulings coming up on the soldiers killed or is this going to be all one sided?

No and yes.

Black shirts don't exist don't you know? History has been rewritten.

Prosecutors have been replaced by "others"

The only obstacles to Thaksin's pressured pardon have been indicted on BS charges

Frank Sinatra. AKA "The Voice" "Chairman of the Board" renowned for singing, acting and his links to both organised crime and highly influential politicians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know who 'digital media" is, but they were fuzzy on some historical details.... To speak of political upheavals in generalized terms and then to erroneously suggest they were anti-Govt., does not characterize them correctly. They were not anti-government, but anti-coup..... Their principle demand affirms that.... Their demands were for an election, not the elimination of a Govt. or Prime Minister...... This is not by accident...... Some political elements wish to characterize the demonstrators as being anarchic, with no Democratic redeeming values. References to coups and such, gives these demonstrators too much validity from an Electoral democracy Point-of-view, for their liking........ One only needs to 'walk in the moccasins' of those affected by the deaths of 91 family members to fully appreciate the judicial initiatives described in this article....... A non-involved, calculated political perspective ignoring this reality, must be very troubling for these people.

When are you going to start back with your coopist remarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know who 'digital media" is, but they were fuzzy on some historical details.... To speak of political upheavals in generalized terms and then to erroneously suggest they were anti-Govt., does not characterize them correctly. They were not anti-government, but anti-coup..... Their principle demand affirms that.... Their demands were for an election, not the elimination of a Govt. or Prime Minister...... This is not by accident...... Some political elements wish to characterize the demonstrators as being anarchic, with no Democratic redeeming values. References to coups and such, gives these demonstrators too much validity from an Electoral democracy Point-of-view, for their liking........ One only needs to 'walk in the moccasins' of those affected by the deaths of 91 family members to fully appreciate the judicial initiatives described in this article....... A non-involved, calculated political perspective ignoring this reality, must be very troubling for these people.

So few words. So much nonsense.

The red shirts made Abhisit a personal vendetta before an M79 had been fired at a civilian.

Their speeches were openly anti government, anti monarchy, anti Muslim and antisocial

Frank Sinatra. AKA "The Voice" "Chairman of the Board" renowned for singing, acting and his links to both organised crime and highly influential politicians. Xenophobia in a red shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or will all of these now come down the pipe quicker since AV has been "processed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or will all of these now come down the pipe quicker since AV has been "processed"?

He may have been "processed" but he isn't yet hanged, drawn and quartered as some might wish. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be a bit naive but as far as I understand this article, it has just been announced that the courts have ruled that the authorities at that time did indeed shoot a taxi driver... What are the implications of this? No one person has been accused, no mention of any action taken against "the authorities", no talk of sentencing any individual, but the courts seem to have confirmed what most I think knew... clearly the army were firing at protesters, it's been acknowledged that an order to use live rounds was given and it's a widely known fact that some people died as a result.

Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period?

Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok?

It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier. If that soldier can't actually be pinpointed where does the actual responsibility and with it sentencing power of the court, actually lie? As I understand it the terms of the use of live rounds were "in self-defence"; now if certain elements of the army weren't adhering to this, which there is significant video and witness evidence to attest to, where does the responsibility lie?

I guess my real questions are what does this actually mean in real terms and who does the term "state authorities" actually refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 23 May 2018 06:30
Sponsors
×