Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest

[webfact]

Court: Military's Bullet Kills Italian Photographer Fabio Polenghi

BANGKOK: -- In a crucial ruling, the Criminal Court confirms that the Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi was killed by military-issued ammunition which was fired from direction of the security forces during their operation to end the Redshirts mass protests on 19 May 2010 - but stopped short of pinpointing who is responsible for the killing.

Mr. Polenghi is one of more than 90 deaths that resulted from the political violence in April-May 2010, when the Redshirts occupied central Bangkok to demand a parliamentary dissolution and new election, but were met with military operation directed by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva.

The case of Mr. Polenghi had been particularly followed by many civil rights groups, because the Italian was operating as member of the press at the time of his death. A Japanese journalist was also killed during the clash between the military and the Redshirts on 10 April 2010.

Earlier today, crowds of reporters waited at the steps of South Bangkok Criminal Court, where the ruling was scheduled. Ms. Elizabeth Polenghi, sister of Fabio, arrived at the court around 08.50 with her sister Ms. Ariana Polenghi and her mother Mrs. Laura Chiorri. Elizabeth was accompanied by Ms. Suda Ranggupa, leader of the Redshirt′s progressive wing.

Also present at the court were Mr. Bradley Cox, an American photographer who saw Fabio shot and later testified in the court hearings; Mr. Mike Bach, a German photographer who met Mr. Polenghi 2 decades ago when they started their career in Paris; and Mr. Shawn Crispin, a representative from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNMk9UZ3hOamt4TUE9PQ

-- Khaosod Online 2013-05-29

[BrianCR]

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

A verdict based on the facts put before the inquest.

I can't quite work this out yet, perhaps you can help. First of all during the Abhisit period a number of posters on this forum had the opinion that all Judges were whiter than white and could no wrong especially if they found against a member of the UDD or PTP.3 Years later, the Judges still can do no wrong when in the recent inquests they couldn't really tell if the Army were responsible for killing someone and say so in their verdict.

Yet the minute they find that the Army is responsible for the death of an civilian all kinds of excuses are dragged out as to how these very same Judges are suddenly mistaken in their verdicts.

Any thoughts?

Yes, it's the way some TV posters like to change things to help them prove (sic) what really happened. A good example is that this Westerner was killed "doing his job". So, they don't post that all journalists are reckless in their behavior just RIP and that the court is wrong! A Thai bus driver is killed "doing his job" according to some posters ALL Thai bus drivers are complete idiots and should be shot.... and that is before it even gets to a court

[Thai at Heart]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

I agree, it is a very sad event.

However, I just saw pictures of the incident in the other paper, and he was wearing a black t-shirt, carrying a black rucksack, and wearing a light blue motorcycle helmet with "press" written on the front and back of it. Along with that he had a facemask on, and goggles, presumably to protect from tear gas.In another picture he appears to be wearing green cargo pants. I would suggest that this is hardly high visibility gear to identify yourself as a member of the press.

I do not know the in's and outs of the exact details of how far he was away from the troops, but wearing that combination at even 30 metres would not make him readily identifiable as either a foreigner or a member of the press, I am sad to say.

All very sad, and yes, it's pretty likely that he was killed by a bullet from the army, but intent is a very difficult thing to prove in this situation.

It is the responsibility of any authorities carrying deadly weapons with life amunition to identify if you pose a threat or not and the measures they take have to be in relation to that threat. Shooting unarmed opponents (civilians and soldiers) is a crime.It does not matter what you wear!

In any civilized country with responsible acting armed forces - you as a soldier and you alone are responsible if you murder an unarmed civilian. The "I was just following orders" excuse has no value anymore since 1945 - the end of the Nazi regime where those responsible for mass murder tried to use the very same excuse to justify their horific crimes.

During our basic training in the armed forces we where instructed by army laywers that if any superior should give us an order which is against the law the order can be refused and the the superior officer will be held responsible in a court of law.

The law applies to all. Just because some people think their government gives them tax payers money to waste, puts them into a uniform and hands them deadly weapons they are above the law - well they need to think again.

We have to asume the court reviewed all evidence and heard Thai and foreign witnesses - the ruling now opens the door to bring those responsible of ordering the deadly crackdown to justice. This should not only include the responsible politicians but military leaders.

Of course this is Thailand and the only thing this ruling will be used for is as a bargaining tool by politicians. If anybody would take the law serious in this country - all laws passed by the coup leaders - including an amnesty for themselves - would be declared void by the highest civilian court and they would rot in prison by now for high treason.

But we all know nothing is going to happen!

In which country can you get away with murdering unarmed civilians by stacking them onto an army truck suffocating them and not a single person has ever been held accountable!

I don't disagree with you. The entire "crackdown" process was horribly messy and there has been no accountability for how so many came to be killed, and the chain of command. The only person's on the hook are Abhisit and Suthep for issuing orders to clear the streets using live ammo. How these orders came to be put into rules of engagement and how these rules of engagement were enforced no one knows.

That all said, the army was shooting, and these guys got stuck between two lines, and made a run for it. I have little doubt that it is likely the army shot them, but as we all know, NO ONE gets to really investigate what the army does. They are a law unto themselves. So the tragedy is, that the army, fired a lot of bullets at some armed people and an awful lot of bullets at people who weren't armed at all. We can't deny that the reds did have weapons in there, but the vast majority of people at the protest weren't armed.

So this poor guy, got caught up in a highly charged, highly dangerous situation, and the tragedy occured. I was just pointing out from seeing pictures how unfortunately, his dress that day could easily have caused him to be mistaken for a protestor.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[amore]

..they assume the army is responsible because the bullet was the same spec as used by the army....

Knowing that the Reds have taken hundreds of weapons from the (trigger happy... ) army, they still assume that these bullets are ONLY used by the army.

This is what puzzles people.... (I believe)

As I thought here come the excuses, lets try some eye witness accounts

"The inquest today at the Criminal Court into the killing of Italian journalist Fabio came to a controversial decision, rejecting two out of the three main witnesses considered to be very important in establishing who actually shot Fabio.

The judges said “that their testimony was considered redundant to the trial”

Despite claims by the then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban that Fabio was killed by a grenade launched from what he called a terrorist position and that Fabio died side-by-side with a soldier, the inquest revealed that Fabio was in fact killed by a high-velocity bullet possibly from an M16 as used by the Thai army.

Witnesses, photographs and video evidence have all proved that Suthep Thaugsuban version of how Fabio died was just pure fabrication.

Numerous reports, including one by the the CPJ all noted that Fabio was shot. The autopsy results showed that Fabio died from a high-velocity bullet that entered the heart, and caused damage to his lungs and liver.

An important and valuable statement was made by the American freelance documentary film maker Bradley Cox, he told the court “that he did not see or hear any single gunshot from where the red shirt protesters were, but clearly heard shots from the Lumpini and Sala Daeng sides, where military were zeroing in.” Bradly added, that earlier on the morning of May 19, troops fired sporadically from behind a barricade into areas 200 meters away that were controlled by red-shirted protesters for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD.

Bradley, said both he and Fabio had taken footage of a protester shot in the leg around 10:45 a.m. About 15 minutes later, Bradley said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Bradley said Fabio followed a few steps behind. While they both ran down the road, Bradley said he felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing a minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Fabio sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.

Fabio was wearing a blue helmet with the word “Press” written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

“My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same gun,” said Bradley, adding that he didn’t hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Fabio. “I don’t know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. …Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody.”

A taxi motorcyclist by the name of Kwanchai Sowapas had also told the court “that it was army soldiers who shot Polenghi, because he saw them on that side, some 70 metres away from him and some 30 to 40 metres from the Italian photo-journalist.”

The last witness German journalist Michel Maas who was also shot by the military told the Criminal Court judges today that the bullets all came from the direction of the military side."

http://www.fabiopolenghi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2&limitstart=7

But then again it could have been the UDD with a stolen M16, yeah, right

[gl555]

..they assume the army is responsible because the bullet was the same spec as used by the army....

Knowing that the Reds have taken hundreds of weapons from the (trigger happy... ) army, they still assume that these bullets are ONLY used by the army.

This is what puzzles people.... (I believe)

As I thought here come the excuses, lets try some eye witness accounts

"The inquest today at the Criminal Court into the killing of Italian journalist Fabio came to a controversial decision, rejecting two out of the three main witnesses considered to be very important in establishing who actually shot Fabio.

The judges said “that their testimony was considered redundant to the trial”

Despite claims by the then Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban that Fabio was killed by a grenade launched from what he called a terrorist position and that Fabio died side-by-side with a soldier, the inquest revealed that Fabio was in fact killed by a high-velocity bullet possibly from an M16 as used by the Thai army.

Witnesses, photographs and video evidence have all proved that Suthep Thaugsuban version of how Fabio died was just pure fabrication.

Numerous reports, including one by the the CPJ all noted that Fabio was shot. The autopsy results showed that Fabio died from a high-velocity bullet that entered the heart, and caused damage to his lungs and liver.

An important and valuable statement was made by the American freelance documentary film maker Bradley Cox, he told the court “that he did not see or hear any single gunshot from where the red shirt protesters were, but clearly heard shots from the Lumpini and Sala Daeng sides, where military were zeroing in.” Bradly added, that earlier on the morning of May 19, troops fired sporadically from behind a barricade into areas 200 meters away that were controlled by red-shirted protesters for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD.

Bradley, said both he and Fabio had taken footage of a protester shot in the leg around 10:45 a.m. About 15 minutes later, Bradley said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Bradley said Fabio followed a few steps behind. While they both ran down the road, Bradley said he felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing a minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Fabio sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.

Fabio was wearing a blue helmet with the word “Press” written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

“My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same gun,” said Bradley, adding that he didn’t hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Fabio. “I don’t know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. …Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody.”

A taxi motorcyclist by the name of Kwanchai Sowapas had also told the court “that it was army soldiers who shot Polenghi, because he saw them on that side, some 70 metres away from him and some 30 to 40 metres from the Italian photo-journalist.”

The last witness German journalist Michel Maas who was also shot by the military told the Criminal Court judges today that the bullets all came from the direction of the military side."

http://www.fabiopolenghi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=2&limitstart=7

But then again it could have been the UDD with a stolen M16, yeah, right

Like I said before, he was in a free fire zone with 2 sides trying to kill each other. With bullets flying from all over the place and him being right in the center, there was a high chance of him getting shot with a 50/50 chance he'd get hit by either side.

I feel bad for him family that he died but he was in a warzone by his own choice.

[Robby nz]

Mr. Polenghi is one of more than 90 deaths that resulted from the political violence in April-May 2010, when the Redshirts occupied central Bangkok to demand a parliamentary dissolution and new election, but were met with military operation directed by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva.

So there we have it the truth at last.

All the deaths resulted from the red shirt riots sponsored by who?

That being the case the one who sponsored the riots is in fact the one responsible for all the deaths and of course the injuries and damage as well.

In the case of the unfortunate Mr. Polenghi ; I understand he was wearing black surely something that would from a distance have identified him with the armed wing of the red shirts, the men in black.

He was carrying a camera which from a distance could have been mistaken for a weapon, (and oh yes the camera along with his wallet was stolen from his body by the caring humanitarian reds who went to his aid)

Given these two things alone it is hardly surprising he could have been a target for the army.

However there is in fact nothing proven that it was the army who shot him.

Only that the round he was hit with was of the type the army used, but then it was also the type that the reds used.

And that the shot came from the direction of the army.

Hardly conclusive evidence of murder.

Me must not forget that all this went on under a state of emergency which tends to change the law somewhat.

Add to that the present PM"s recent statement that "The law must be obeyed"

And who was breaking the law, the army the Govt of the reds?

[amore]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

I agree, it is a very sad event.

However, I just saw pictures of the incident in the other paper, and he was wearing a black t-shirt, carrying a black rucksack, and wearing a light blue motorcycle helmet with "press" written on the front and back of it. Along with that he had a facemask on, and goggles, presumably to protect from tear gas.In another picture he appears to be wearing green cargo pants. I would suggest that this is hardly high visibility gear to identify yourself as a member of the press.

I do not know the in's and outs of the exact details of how far he was away from the troops, but wearing that combination at even 30 metres would not make him readily identifiable as either a foreigner or a member of the press, I am sad to say.

All very sad, and yes, it's pretty likely that he was killed by a bullet from the army, but intent is a very difficult thing to prove in this situation.

It is the responsibility of any authorities carrying deadly weapons with life amunition to identify if you pose a threat or not and the measures they take have to be in relation to that threat. Shooting unarmed opponents (civilians and soldiers) is a crime.It does not matter what you wear!

In any civilized country with responsible acting armed forces - you as a soldier and you alone are responsible if you murder an unarmed civilian. The "I was just following orders" excuse has no value anymore since 1945 - the end of the Nazi regime where those responsible for mass murder tried to use the very same excuse to justify their horific crimes.

During our basic training in the armed forces we where instructed by army laywers that if any superior should give us an order which is against the law the order can be refused and the the superior officer will be held responsible in a court of law.

The law applies to all. Just because some people think their government gives them tax payers money to waste, puts them into a uniform and hands them deadly weapons they are above the law - well they need to think again.

We have to asume the court reviewed all evidence and heard Thai and foreign witnesses - the ruling now opens the door to bring those responsible of ordering the deadly crackdown to justice. This should not only include the responsible politicians but military leaders.

Of course this is Thailand and the only thing this ruling will be used for is as a bargaining tool by politicians. If anybody would take the law serious in this country - all laws passed by the coup leaders - including an amnesty for themselves - would be declared void by the highest civilian court and they would rot in prison by now for high treason.

But we all know nothing is going to happen!

In which country can you get away with murdering unarmed civilians by stacking them onto an army truck suffocating them and not a single person has ever been held accountable!

I don't disagree with you. The entire "crackdown" process was horribly messy and there has been no accountability for how so many came to be killed, and the chain of command. The only person's on the hook are Abhisit and Suthep for issuing orders to clear the streets using live ammo. How these orders came to be put into rules of engagement and how these rules of engagement were enforced no one knows.

That all said, the army was shooting, and these guys got stuck between two lines, and made a run for it. I have little doubt that it is likely the army shot them, but as we all know, NO ONE gets to really investigate what the army does. They are a law unto themselves. So the tragedy is, that the army, fired a lot of bullets at some armed people and an awful lot of bullets at people who weren't armed at all. We can't deny that the reds did have weapons in there, but the vast majority of people at the protest weren't armed.

So this poor guy, got caught up in a highly charged, highly dangerous situation, and the tragedy occured. I was just pointing out from seeing pictures how unfortunately, his dress that day could easily have caused him to be mistaken for a protestor.

Mistaken for a protester? Oh thats alright then fire away...............

Blue Helmet, PRESS emblazoned front and back, wearing a green PRESS armband from 30-40 metres away. I woudn't let those soldiers anywhere near a weapon if thats the limit of their scoping abilities. Please spare me the fog of war lectures. Read the eyewitness accounts, soldiers advancing "firing at anything and anybody".

[chainarong]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

A Very reasonable reply and one that reporters everywhere understand.

[amore]

Like I said before, he was in a free fire zone with 2 sides trying to kill each other. With bullets flying from all over the place and him being right in the center, there was a high chance of him getting shot with a 50/50 chance he'd get hit by either side.

I feel bad for him family that he died but he was in a warzone by his own choice.

What part of this do you not understand?

Documentary Film Maker Bradley Fox:

“that he did not see or hear any single gunshot from where the red shirt protesters were, but clearly heard shots from the Lumpini and Sala Daeng sides, where military were zeroing in.”

if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. …Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody.”

[chainarong]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

"The court ruled that Fabio Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot which came from the direction where security forces were working to regain control of the area but could not identify the shooter," she added.

"there was no evidence of any other group in the area"- No evidence doesn't prove that there wasn't someone else with an M-16 in the area, such as a non military gunman or concealed sniper?

So without any doubt we can ASSUME that it was the army. Thailand's equivalent of CSI has taken a huge leap of faith in making that determination. Wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in any real legal system.

The proper conclusion that would have drawn in a country with a real legal system is that it is impossible to determine who or even what group fired the shot, based on the evidence available.

You will never get to the bottom of the real story, in this instance, to do so was a a waste of time and resources.

Edited May 29, 2013 by chainarong

[amore]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

A Very reasonable reply and one that reporters everywhere understand.

Well they would have understood it , if it had happened. Unfortunately witnesses on the spot specifically say the firing was one way only, from the military.

[webfact]

2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Bullet that killed Italian came from near govt troops: court
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The high-velocity bullet which killed Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on redshirt protesters came from the side of the Army, the Criminal Court said Wednesday. However, the court said it was unclear who killed Polenghi.

It is believed that the bullet which killed the deceased came from the direction of [army] officers who were moving to take control [of Ratchaprasong Intersection] from Sala Daeng area [of Silom] … but it's unclear as to who did it," part of the inquest finding stated.

The court said the bullet was most likely a .223 highvelocity bullet used by soldiers from the Second Calvary Unit stationed in Sala Daeng as troops were authorised to also use live bullets that included .223 bullets on that day, the judges said.

The bullet shattered Polenghi's liver and lung, said the judges, who added that there was no evidence that anyone but the army had such weapons in the area on that day.

Elisabetta Polenghi, sister of the slain photojournalist, said after the inquest that there was no "closure" for the tragedy yet since no one had been held responsible. She said that while she did not want the killer or the person who ordered the use of live ammunition to be sentenced to death or even to prison, she wanted some form of accountability.


-- The Nation 2013-05-29

[amore]

Mr. Polenghi is one of more than 90 deaths that resulted from the political violence in April-May 2010, when the Redshirts occupied central Bangkok to demand a parliamentary dissolution and new election, but were met with military operation directed by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva.

So there we have it the truth at last.

All the deaths resulted from the red shirt riots sponsored by who?

That being the case the one who sponsored the riots is in fact the one responsible for all the deaths and of course the injuries and damage as well.

In the case of the unfortunate Mr. Polenghi ; I understand he was wearing black surely something that would from a distance have identified him with the armed wing of the red shirts, the men in black.

He was carrying a camera which from a distance could have been mistaken for a weapon, (and oh yes the camera along with his wallet was stolen from his body by the caring humanitarian reds who went to his aid)

Given these two things alone it is hardly surprising he could have been a target for the army.

However there is in fact nothing proven that it was the army who shot him.

Only that the round he was hit with was of the type the army used, but then it was also the type that the reds used.

And that the shot came from the direction of the army.

Hardly conclusive evidence of murder.

Me must not forget that all this went on under a state of emergency which tends to change the law somewhat.

Add to that the present PM"s recent statement that "The law must be obeyed"

And who was breaking the law, the army the Govt of the reds?

"In the case of the unfortunate Mr. Polenghi ; I understand he was wearing black surely something that would from a distance have identified him with the armed wing of the red shirts, the men in black.

He was carrying a camera which from a distance could have been mistaken for a weapon, (and oh yes the camera along with his wallet was stolen from his body by the caring humanitarian reds who went to his aid)

Given these two things alone it is hardly surprising he could have been a target for the army.

However there is in fact nothing proven that it was the army who shot him."

What complete and utter nonsense. A visit to the Polenghi website might be of use to you, but I doubt it.

[whybother]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

Links to back up your claim?

Reporter injured by a grenade:

[Thai at Heart]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

I agree, it is a very sad event.

However, I just saw pictures of the incident in the other paper, and he was wearing a black t-shirt, carrying a black rucksack, and wearing a light blue motorcycle helmet with "press" written on the front and back of it. Along with that he had a facemask on, and goggles, presumably to protect from tear gas.In another picture he appears to be wearing green cargo pants. I would suggest that this is hardly high visibility gear to identify yourself as a member of the press.

I do not know the in's and outs of the exact details of how far he was away from the troops, but wearing that combination at even 30 metres would not make him readily identifiable as either a foreigner or a member of the press, I am sad to say.

All very sad, and yes, it's pretty likely that he was killed by a bullet from the army, but intent is a very difficult thing to prove in this situation.

It is the responsibility of any authorities carrying deadly weapons with life amunition to identify if you pose a threat or not and the measures they take have to be in relation to that threat. Shooting unarmed opponents (civilians and soldiers) is a crime.It does not matter what you wear!

In any civilized country with responsible acting armed forces - you as a soldier and you alone are responsible if you murder an unarmed civilian. The "I was just following orders" excuse has no value anymore since 1945 - the end of the Nazi regime where those responsible for mass murder tried to use the very same excuse to justify their horific crimes.

During our basic training in the armed forces we where instructed by army laywers that if any superior should give us an order which is against the law the order can be refused and the the superior officer will be held responsible in a court of law.

The law applies to all. Just because some people think their government gives them tax payers money to waste, puts them into a uniform and hands them deadly weapons they are above the law - well they need to think again.

We have to asume the court reviewed all evidence and heard Thai and foreign witnesses - the ruling now opens the door to bring those responsible of ordering the deadly crackdown to justice. This should not only include the responsible politicians but military leaders.

Of course this is Thailand and the only thing this ruling will be used for is as a bargaining tool by politicians. If anybody would take the law serious in this country - all laws passed by the coup leaders - including an amnesty for themselves - would be declared void by the highest civilian court and they would rot in prison by now for high treason.

But we all know nothing is going to happen!

In which country can you get away with murdering unarmed civilians by stacking them onto an army truck suffocating them and not a single person has ever been held accountable!

I don't disagree with you. The entire "crackdown" process was horribly messy and there has been no accountability for how so many came to be killed, and the chain of command. The only person's on the hook are Abhisit and Suthep for issuing orders to clear the streets using live ammo. How these orders came to be put into rules of engagement and how these rules of engagement were enforced no one knows.

That all said, the army was shooting, and these guys got stuck between two lines, and made a run for it. I have little doubt that it is likely the army shot them, but as we all know, NO ONE gets to really investigate what the army does. They are a law unto themselves. So the tragedy is, that the army, fired a lot of bullets at some armed people and an awful lot of bullets at people who weren't armed at all. We can't deny that the reds did have weapons in there, but the vast majority of people at the protest weren't armed.

So this poor guy, got caught up in a highly charged, highly dangerous situation, and the tragedy occured. I was just pointing out from seeing pictures how unfortunately, his dress that day could easily have caused him to be mistaken for a protestor.

Mistaken for a protester? Oh thats alright then fire away...............

Blue Helmet, PRESS emblazoned front and back, wearing a green PRESS armband from 30-40 metres away. I woudn't let those soldiers anywhere near a weapon if thats the limit of their scoping abilities. Please spare me the fog of war lectures. Read the eyewitness accounts, soldiers advancing "firing at anything and anybody".

Go look at the pictures of what he was wearing, bearing mind many of the protestors were wearing bike helmets just like his.

The word press on the front of his helmet was on the visor which was raised. No pictures I found showed his armband. I don't know if they were using teargas but, he had swimming goggles and a mask on.

He could easily have been mistaken for a protestor, some of whom were armed, the vast majority not. Someone pulled the trigger as these guys were reportedly running towards the reds.

This is why normally you send police to do this job, but in Thailand the coppers are useless. Note this happened early on the first day.

Is anyone even sure that the army knew what standard clothing for journalists actually is, in this situation? It's tragic, but I can completely understand how this happened.

[DiamondKing]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

JESUS GIVE IT UP ALREADY a court of law has made its verdict and has said the bullet came from the Government, END OF

Not that we did not know already and this is now multiple court judgments which clearly now shows the government was shooting innocent people.

You guys just dont give up with your anti red shirt and anti thaksin retoric

EVIDENCE IS IN BOYS ACCEPT IT.

Edited May 29, 2013 by DiamondKing

[brfsa2]

It just shows how lame the justice system of Thailand is...

[jayboy]

It's just you.

Is it just me or is it a happy coincidence that Khunying Porntip was pushed aside one week before this ruling was made?

[skippybangkok]

Reminds me of the McDonalds coffee spill law suit.

If you go into a known crisis area where there have been M79 grenades thrown around, people with guns, your taking a risk.

To expect to put a press badge on, or a blue helmut and now expect all bullets to magically by-pass you is just utter stupidity.

He lost the bet. Simple

Edited May 29, 2013 by skippybangkok

[Rich teacher]

Court 1;

Find TS guilty in the Ratchada land case even though Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF...

TV frothers' response; Court is righteous and just

Court 2;

"experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area"

TV frothers' response; Court is biased!

Edited May 29, 2013 by Rich teacher

[Ianatlarge]

From watching tv crime shows I believe it is possible to trace a bullet to a single firearm. Can this not be done?

[ratcatcher]

From watching tv crime shows I believe it is possible to trace a bullet to a single firearm. Can this not be done?

The rifle that killed the journalist is probably sleeping in the mud at the bottom of a river or lake by now.

[kimamey]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

JESUS GIVE IT UP ALREADY a court of law has made its verdict and has said the bullet came from the Government, END OF

Not that we did not know already and this is now multiple court judgments which clearly now shows the government was shooting innocent people.

You guys just dont give up with your anti red shirt and anti thaksin retoric

EVIDENCE IS IN BOYS ACCEPT IT.

How do you work out the government was shooting innocent people? Surely this verdict states it was the military.

The government may well command the military despite the 'Abhisit was a puppet of the military' claim but I very much doubt that the order was to go out and shoot anything you like or even go out and shoot red shirts. If anyone knows what the orders were I'd be interested to know. I would guess it was something along the lines of shoot only if needed to protect yourself whilst clearing the protesters who would at that time be breaking the law. Of course this is open to interpretation and it's quite possible that some soldiers overstepped their orders either intentionally or otherwise.

Assuming that was the general thrust of the orders then the soldier who fired the shot either thought he was in danger in which case he would have to back that up if he could be found or he was acting outside his orders. From the accounts we've heard, many of which seem to suggest the troops were firing at anything and everything they would seem not be acting within their orders which would at the very least ease the pressure on the government of the time.

[Baerboxer]

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

A Very reasonable reply and one that reporters everywhere understand.

Well they would have understood it , if it had happened. Unfortunately witnesses on the spot specifically say the firing was one way only, from the military.

"However, the court said it was unclear who killed Polenghi."

Obviusly the courts do not think all the evidence presented enables them to say who actually fired the fatal shots and whether that person was an on duty soldier or gunman from either side.

You are a new poster here, perhaps replacing some of the previous avatars who supported the government and red shirts. Politicising this unfortunate death is not helpful. Lives were lost. If the protestors had dispersed or behaved peacfully, or the police actually carried out their sworn duties then maybe the actions of the soldiers would not have been necessary. I feel sorry for the families of all those killed, but this family are now allowing themselves to be openly manipulated by having red shirt escorts and being advised by a certain lawyer. Why hasn't a charge been laid against the red shirt leaders for inciting riots that led to deaths? Particularly as the courts say it is unclear who killed Snr Polenghi.

[Baerboxer]

"During the inquest, experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area," according to a criminal court judge.

He was shot on May 19 2010 near Lumpini Park. Where there was footage caught by BBC of gunmen shooting at soldiers, and where reporters and soldiers were injured by grenades thrown by "protesters".

What evidence do they need to show that another group was in the area?

JESUS GIVE IT UP ALREADY a court of law has made its verdict and has said the bullet came from the Government, END OF

Not that we did not know already and this is now multiple court judgments which clearly now shows the government was shooting innocent people.

You guys just dont give up with your anti red shirt and anti thaksin retoric

EVIDENCE IS IN BOYS ACCEPT IT.

Read what the court said properly. Not what the red propagandists are trying to twist it into.

[kimamey]

Court 1;

Find TS guilty in the Ratchada land case even though Section 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF...

TV frothers' response; Court is righteous and just

Court 2;

"experts testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in the area"

TV frothers' response; Court is biased!

A valid point there which also works when looked at from the other side. I suppose that means your post is unbiased.

[kimamey]

That may be what you call it but from a legal standpoint it will depend on the specific country. This being Thailand it won't be called murder of course and I've no idea what the definition of murder or it's Thai language equivalent is.

Murder is usually intentional, unlawful killing. Whether this was unlawful will depend on the emergency regulations in place and their legality and whether they were adhered to. The intent part is a problem as the person responsible isn't known so I would assume that maybe video evidence if there is any might be needed. It could just have been bad luck which is always possible when in a situation like this. Being a journalist in these types of situations is dangerous and it's always a tragedy when someone trying to bring us the facts loses their life.

It may have been murder or not but it will undoubtedly be difficult to sort out the facts.

OP "Abhisit and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban face murder charges in

connection with the deadly crackdown, officials announced in December.

No military officials have been prosecuted."

Assuming I'm reading your quote only reply correctly yes it says they face murder charges but that doesn't mean that a court will find that it is murder. As for the fact no military officials have been prosecuted I would think that if a court finds that Abhisit and Suthep aren't guilty of murder on the grounds that the actions of the military were outside their rules of engagement then the next obvious step would be to charge whoever fired the shot, if they can be found. I seem to remember seeing that military personnel can't be subject to court action but I don't know if that's true.

Edited May 29, 2013 by kimamey

[Robby nz]

JESUS GIVE IT UP ALREADY a court of law has made its verdict and has said the bullet came from the Government, END OF

Not that we did not know already and this is now multiple court judgments which clearly now shows the government was shooting innocent people.

You guys just dont give up with your anti red shirt and anti thaksin retoric

EVIDENCE IS IN BOYS ACCEPT IT.

The evidence said:

"The court ruled that Fabio

Polenghi died from a wound from a gunshot which came from the direction where

security forces were working to regain control of the area but could not

identify the shooter," she added.

From the direction of. Right? yet you have stated that it was the government that killed him, another red shirt conclusion.

I don't see anyone here including myself saying that there is not a good chance that it was a bullet from the army that killed him but the court did not say that.

You also like to get in the bit about killing innocent people but of course the whole shooting war started by the reds killing innocent people with a grenade, then there was the innocent lady who was killed in the attack on the sky train station etc etc.

"During the inquest, experts

testified that the victim died of a wound from a high velocity bullet like

those used by security forces and there was no evidence of any other group in

the area," according to a criminal court judge.

So the judge is saying that he was alone in the area with the other jurno who was injured, not even red shirts around?.

But there is evidence from the wounded one that there was red shirt 'groups' there.

Considering what he was wearing and what he was doing, running away, he could easily have been mistaken for one of the men in black who had been shooting at the army.

Therefore it is likely he was shot by the army but not proven.

[Thereisnoif]

Well except for Prayuth and Mark, who else dares deny the obvious truth ?

[yourauntbob]

no matter what evidence comes out people are going to believe what they already believe. if video evidence came out showing the actual solider shooting the bullet, and it showed in slow motion the bullet travel from the gun into the reporter there would still be TV members saying "that evidence doesnt mean anything because........."

give it up already