Bangkok Court Rules Authorities Killed Taxi Driver In 2010 Violence

[webfact]

Court rules authorities killed taxi driver victim in 2010 violence

By Digital Media

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)

-- TNA 2012-12-17

[Thai at Heart]

Incredible.

[Nickymaster]

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

[Tywais]

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

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

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!!!

[righteous]

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.

Edited December 17, 2012 by righteous

[Artisi]

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.

[Moruya]

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

[Pimay1]

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?

[Moruya]

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.

[Fozfromoz]

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

[Thai at Heart]

The SOE removes this accusation surely?

[ratcatcher]

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. .

[bangkokrick]

The SOE removes this accusation surely?

One would think so.

[Ferangled]

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?

[Bluespunk]

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.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Bluespunk

[muttley]

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.

[jonclark]

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

Edited December 17, 2012 by jonclark

[pedro01]

I presume the DSI will now charge Abhisit and Suthep with this one too.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

[monkeycountry]

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?

[hellodolly]

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.

[hellodolly]

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.

[rubl]

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.

[monkfish]

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.

[monkfish]

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?

[KRS1]

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.

[Soi Sauce]

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?

[OzMick]

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.

[whybother]

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.