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

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.

The reds were offered concession after concession and there response was to ask for more, invade hospitals, kill civilians through random grenade attacks, threaten (and later attempt) to burn Bangkok, occupy the centre of Bangkok creating chaos and putting many people out work. They refused to accept anything except their own agenda and would not compromise. I am still amazed the govt waited as long as they did to act.

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?

These are inquests and are in effect under common law conditions. They investigate the cause of death. Criminal prosecutions may follow.

As far as I can work out, In the first case it was decided that the death of the taxi driver was due to the army shooting him but it was not the responsibility of the individual soldiers as in theory they were doing their duty. However that duty was given them (and more importantly the use of live ammunition) by CRES, i.e Abhisit and Suthep - hence they ARE liable in a criminal case of that and subsequent deaths that are found to be due to the security forces. Presumably there may be cases when security forces are liable for deaths which can be pinned down to individuals. The two army snipers come to mind.

As for the whinging about why have no security forces inquests taken place - the Attorney General, not the DSI decided which inquests would take place first - there are 19 taking place in this phase. The Attorney General is the same person now as it was during the Abhisit years.

Also bear in mind that seeing as there are 91 deaths to be investigated, this could run and run. Expect weekly bleats as each new inquest result is published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

It is very clear that the soldiers shot civilians on they day.. But at the time was the issue of live ammo order from the authorities illegal?

Governments run on procedures and those procedures spell out the sequence of legal options or escalations for situations - such as public order, natural disasters etc. So two quick questions.

1) Was Abhisit following the legal procedure under the SoE for legal escalations to resort public order? If he wasn't and was acting issuing orders which have no legal framework or point of reference in Thai law then he is guilty and culpable.

2) If he was following the procedure then, since the riot, and the assuming of the position of government have PTP/UDD MPs sought to amended those procedures so that no current or future PM will be allowed to issue a live fire order on unarmed Thai protesters? Which wold be fantastic for Thailand democracy Or do they realize that as Thailand is a dangerous place and they feel more comfortable keeping that procedure and escalations as it is.

There seems to be a inherent contradictions here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this going to become like the nuremburg trials?

I expect the amount of legal thought that will have to be undertaken by judges to contribute to global warming.

Were the orders lawful or not? Sticky problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we need the courts to confirm that the army killed protesters that day. I think everyone agrees on that. We need the courts to decide if doing so was legal or illegal.

I wonder what would happen if:

A group of people robbed a bank. Half the group had guns, the other half didn't.

The police (or army) now surrounds the bank and a prolonged standoff takes place. Unfortunately things escalate and the group in the bank manage to kill a few bank employees.

The mayor, through the commanding police officer orders the police to end things by attacking the bank using only shields and batons. The policemen start laughing, and ask if the commanding officers seriously thinks any of them are going to attack men with guns using a baton?

The commanding officers gets the point, calls the mayor, who then orders first another warning to the bank robbers, and if they don't come out, then an attack using live fire.

The attack takes place, everyone is shooting left and right, policemen die, armed robbers die and unarmed robbers die (a taxi driver who thought it would be a good idea to join the action by running into the bank as well as a nosy cameraman who got too close die too). Most of the bank employees are saved though.

Afterwards the family of the robbers complain that the police have killed some of the unarmed robbers.

The above scenario, or something very similar, has happened plenty of times in many countries. Can anyone recall that it ever ended with the mayor being charged with murder?

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?

Not going to happen with Thaksin or his clone at the controls.sad.png

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.

You have to be incredibly naive to put that trash out. If they had been anti coup they would have been out on the streets 4 years earlier. This was the third legally elected Government since the Coup. Defiantly an anti Government movement financed by people with a private agenda that had nothing to do with Thailand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six to twelve months ago it was said that the DSI would concentrate on the 16 or so 'easy' cases first. We now see the results of those investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we need the courts to confirm that the army killed protesters that day. I think everyone agrees on that. We need the courts to decide if doing so was legal or illegal.

I wonder what would happen if:

A group of people robbed a bank. Half the group had guns, the other half didn't.

The police (or army) now surrounds the bank and a prolonged standoff takes place. Unfortunately things escalate and the group in the bank manage to kill a few bank employees.

The mayor, through the commanding police officer orders the police to end things by attacking the bank using only shields and batons. The policemen start laughing, and ask if the commanding officers seriously thinks any of them are going to attack men with guns using a baton?

The commanding officers gets the point, calls the mayor, who then orders first another warning to the bank robbers, and if they don't come out, then an attack using live fire.

The attack takes place, everyone is shooting left and right, policemen die, armed robbers die and unarmed robbers die (a taxi driver who thought it would be a good idea to join the action by running into the bank as well as a nosy cameraman who got too close die too). Most of the bank employees are saved though.

Afterwards the family of the robbers complain that the police have killed some of the unarmed robbers.

The above scenario, or something very similar, has happened plenty of times in many countries. Can anyone recall that it ever ended with the mayor being charged with murder?

In the above scenario I don't believe security forces would be ordered to indiscriminately shoot at bank robbers if lives of civilians were at risk so the comparison really is mute.

This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six to twelve months ago it was said that the DSI would concentrate on the 16 or so 'easy' cases first. We now see the results of those investigations.

Well 3 down 13 to go I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess bombs made from Red Bull bottles, burning of the World Trade Center and road blocks are ok then if you are wearing a red shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a policeman shoots someone in the course of doing their job, is the PM liable?

As coppers here have guns, surely Yingluk is therefore liable for murder for anyone killed by police since she came to power.

Chalerm, with his law Phd, can answer this? Or can he?

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.

Actually they demanded an election because they didn't like the result of the one that occurred after the coup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the above scenario I don't believe security forces would be ordered to indiscriminately shoot at bank robbers if lives of civilians were at risk so the comparison really is mute.

This wasn't a one off event but happened over a period of time and orders could have been changed if too many civilians were being killed.

But they weren't.

Indiscriminate shooting? And they only manage to kill one person?

The other paper describes the scenario as a group of people approaching the soldiers lines in the dark letting off fire crackers. I never quite understood why the red shirts went out and attacked the soldiers well outside their fuel soaked barricades, but given that there were people shooting at the soldiers, it not surprising that a protester was shot in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 21 August 2018 23:33
Sponsors
×