Jump to content

Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest


webfact

Recommended Posts

"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?

A close up signed photograph of Abhisit with a gun in the vic's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You are right Jayboy the truth is slowly emerging.

As I posted way back :

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.

All the deaths RESULTED FROM, got that?

And who started the political violence that led to all these deaths?

Hay, love the way you manage to get in an insult or few with every post.

Clearly there is a larger picture and your interpretation is evident through a long if unconvincing series of posts.But the thread is about something much more specific, namely the killing by the army of an Italian journalist.I can see why you don't wish to address the matter of the court's findings.However as I advised another member don't be afraid of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From other news sources:

"A Thailand representative for Human Rights Watch, Sunai Pasuk, said the

finding (in the OP) highlighted the need to hold the military to account for the 2010

deaths, not just the politicians.

"According to Human Rights Watch's research, there was no order given to

shoot unarmed civilians, so the commanders and soldiers on the ground should be

held accountable," Mr Sunai said.""

Now remember that the red shirts usually hold HRW in high regard. In it's eagerness to hold the soldiers on the ground responsible, the HRW just confirmed that no order was given to shoot unarmed civilians, implying the soldiers decided on their own and should therefore be prosecuted. If no such order was given, then how can AV and ST be convicted of murder? They could of course have given an order to shoot armed "civilians", and perhaps be prosecuted for murdering those, but according to the red shirts themselves, none of the dead or wounded were armed (except for the dead soldiers), which rules out prosecuting AV and ST for murdering armed "civilians" as well. The only option left is to charge AV and ST for ordering the army to kill fellow soldiers, but somehow I doubt even the red shirts will try to charge them with that :-)

I think someone just scored an own goal here :-)

Indeed. You think there is a piece of paper signed by abhisit ordering the army to shoot unarmed people who posed no threat to the soldiers?

The army patently ignored the terms of engagement, but no one is ever going to check each action of each commander and soldier to find out if the rules were clearly explained and adhered to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

There are armed police walking the streets everyday in Thailand who have the right to shoot you under specific circumstances.

The army should have to prove that they adhered to the rules of engagement as given by abhisit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Stupidity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her lawyer said that he would file a criminal complaint with the Justice Ministry's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) against Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was prime minister at the time.

"Now we have the official ruling from the court, I, as a legal advisor and lawyer of the Polenghi family, will go to the DSI to file a complaint against former prime minister Abhisit," said the lawyer, Karom Pornpolklang.

Just curious...if this Thai lawyer has any red or Thaksin affiliations???

That aside, the OP article says... mostly unarmed protesters???

Perhaps that might be true if you talk about the entire group. But clearly, there were MANY protesters who were armed with all variety of weapons -- guns, spears, knives, grenades, rocks...etc etc..

And even if the victim was in fact killed by a soldier's bullet, the soldiers were there conducting a lawful exercise to combat a huge illegal and armed gathering.

As long as the soldiers were given official permission to use their weapons, and unless the soldier clearly violated orders, there shouldn't be any legal culpability there.

As usual, it's a lot of politics... Unfortunately, an apparent innocent got caught in the crossfire. Such is the danger of covering armed civil disturbances...and reporters and photographers in those situations know they're putting themselves at risk. That danger is part of the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was rouge soldiers with weapons who just wanted to shoot at anyone. He was running from them why the hell did they shoot at him. They were firing wildly down the street not caring who was in the way of the bullets.

of course you can substantiate this claim - like most other off-the-top-of-the-head statements which always get floated by "experts" in case such as this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Wouldn't that be similar to those reporters traveling with the US forces in the invasion of Iraq. One of them gets killed and GW is charged with his murder?

Or Saddam is charged with his murder? And like another poster said on this topic, there were footage of other gunmen in the area, firing at the army. Who can really say who fired the shot? In the US and other nations, you can tell the difference between military rounds and civilian rounds, but here, me thinks everything comes from the military, legal or not. coffee1.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

How should a government deal with armed protesters?

I would hardly call waiting for 2 months before shutting down the protests "panicking".

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

How should a government deal with armed protesters?

I would hardly call waiting for 2 months before shutting down the protests "panicking".

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

You might find the difference was a functioning police force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

How should a government deal with armed protesters?

I would hardly call waiting for 2 months before shutting down the protests "panicking".

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

The reds wanted the confrontation. What was required was for the army to be exceedingly disciplined, but on a day like that, bad things happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

Occupy Wall Street were a couple of thousand people, they were unarmed, and they didn't storm any buildings, or use molotov cocktails.

The red shirts started out as a peaceful demonstration and the government controlled it with peaceful measures, but the protesters increased the stakes by taking over a shopping and business district, storming government house, and storming Thaicom, including using molotov cocktails. After the storming of government house and Thaicom, when the government did decide to stop the protest, the protesters brought out their armed militia and blew up an army colonel with a grenade.

You don't think that they would have used armed police in the US or UK if protesters had started shooting at them?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government that turns its military against a civillian population with live ammunition, has failed. Abhisit made the wrong decision on the day & should be held accountable for it. I am in no way condoning the actions of the "red shirts" or for that matter the "yellow shirts" & their earlier illegal occupation of the airports under Thaksin's watch. Two foreign journalists died doing their job along with 90 other soles & all could have been avoided had Abhisit not panicked.

I do not understand how the military have failed to identify who the shooter was? Surely they know which unit was in that location at the time. Which personnel were in that unit & a comparison of the round against the weapons signed out from the armory during that action would have identified the individual. Not a witch hunt against the soldier who fired the shot, if indeed it was a soldier that fired it..? He's only a pawn in a bigger game, at least it would go someway to getting closer to the truth for the family.

Put your hand in fire & you'll get burned, journalists/photographers take unnecessary risks everyday, to get that story/picture that will earn. Unfortunately, this earned khun Fabio an early exit.

What remnants of democracy remained at that period in Thailand, died with Abhisit's decision to send in an armed military. And before anyone starts, I know that Thailand & democracy is an oxymoron...

How should a government deal with armed protesters?

I would hardly call waiting for 2 months before shutting down the protests "panicking".

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

You might find the difference was a functioning police force[/quote

I would tend to agree on that point, however the majority of the police force were tied up outside Bangkok on the main arteries manning checkpoints to prevent further protestors adding to the problem as I remember, (took me long enough to get through them). Checkpoints should have been passed over to the military to contend with, freeing more officers up to contain civil unrest in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her lawyer said that he would file a criminal complaint with the Justice Ministry's Department of Special Investigation (DSI) against Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was prime minister at the time.

"Now we have the official ruling from the court, I, as a legal advisor and lawyer of the Polenghi family, will go to the DSI to file a complaint against former prime minister Abhisit," said the lawyer, Karom Pornpolklang.

Just curious...if this Thai lawyer has any red or Thaksin affiliations???

WOW!!! My lucky day... I guessed right, and get to answer my own question. Look who the lawyer is...

In making the announcement, the MPs were joined by “Karom Pornpolklang, a lawyer for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).”

http://politicalprisonersofthailand.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/amnesty-staggering-to-parliament/

I thought his "now we'll go after Abhisit" rhetoric sounded a bit too familiar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

How many other guys have access to "high velocity bullets and weapons' to shoot with? Being a soldier means you're trained to kill before somebody else's killing you. The poor photographer was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Those guys should know that bullets go their own way, doesn't matter who'd fired them. Who else would go between two groups using guns?-.wai.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

Occupy Wall Street were a couple of thousand people, they were unarmed, and they didn't storm any buildings, or use molotov cocktails.

The red shirts started out as a peaceful demonstration and the government controlled it with peaceful measures, but the protesters increased the stakes by taking over a shopping and business district, storming government house, and storming Thaicom, including using molotov cocktails. After the storming of government house and Thaicom, when the government did decide to stop the protest, the protesters brought out their armed militia and blew up an army colonel with a grenade.

You don't think that they would have used armed police in the US or UK if protesters had started shooting at them?

Certainly, under very strict rules of engagement at a clearly identified armed target, however, who fired first? Protestors must have been using the 6000 rifles allegedly stolen from the raid on the Engineer barracks... Perhaps it was the MIB who fired first..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how people on this page will do anything to avoid the obvious answer, which the court found. He was killed with an army bullet, fired from the area where the army were using live rounds and as a result killed many other people. Of course it is possible that a Red Shirt had stolen the munitions, hidden amongst the soldiers and then killed him. Possible but also ridiculous.

The army shot the guy, as they shot many other people that day. If you want you can argue that they were justified in doing so - but you can't pretend it didn't happen. I am not supporting the Red Shirts and especially not Thaksin. The former are naive and easily manipulated, the latter a rather shady character - but deal with the facts. The journalist was shot by the army because he was doing what he felt was his job - to be reporting from the heart of the action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was doing what he felt was his job - to be reporting from the heart of the action.

Isn't that the problem? There were shots from both sides, this guy ended up (or put himself?) in the middle of it. So is it just one side's fault? Maybe his own fault?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited by pmugghc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think too many posters here try to apply western values and logic to this situation.

There have been a couple of excellent articles in the "other" newspaper the last few Sundays by Voranai. Some quotes:

"Democracy cannot be had, because we value tribal victory over the principles that ought to be the foundation of a nation."

"We don't seek the truth. We seek to blame."

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How should a government deal with armed protesters?

I would hardly call waiting for 2 months before shutting down the protests "panicking".

I would call it "panicked"... He feared that if he didn't resolve it by any means that his own tenure would be threatened, hence he panicked and called in armed troops against a civillian population.

Attrition, would have been the sensible approach, combined with more passive measures. A somewhat differing comparison, but lunatics occupied the area around St. Paul's in London for 221 days, no troops called in to shoot them. Occupy Wall Street, 3 months & I'm sure I didn't see the national guard opening fire on Fox News...

Again, the boy panicked & made a bad decision, resulting in the unnecessary loss of life.

Did any of the occupations you mention fire grenade launchers at the subway stations killing people? Did they raid hospitals? Did they display large stockpiles of stolen military weapons and ammunition on their stages? Did they stop and search the general populace against their will? Did they block all traffic and business in the center of the capital? Did they kill defenceless police or soldiers they had captured? Did their leaders urge everyone to burn down and loot the capital? Did they subsequently burn down and loot the capital?

Mr. Abhisit already offered an election prior to the crackdown, so obviously he wasn't worried about threats to his tenure! :-)

Edited by monkeycountry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If you insist on quoting then at least copy and paste and do not make it up to suit your own argument. Bradley's quote, "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," you then selectively quote the part following my quote totally distorting the truth.

"If you insist on quoting then at least copy and paste and do not make it up to suit your own argument".

I really do not appreciate being called a liar on this forum. If you had bothered to read my post #34,

( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/642782-thai-troops-likely-shot-italian-journalist-fabio-polenghi-inquest/page-2#entry6451437 )

the post that gl555 had remarked upon, therefore prompting my second post ( quoted above ), you would have found the complete quote from the witness including a link to the page from which it was taken.

Why don't you have a look at the link, you may learn something and then you could apologize but I won't hold my breath on either account.

Edited by amore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the young nurse who was shot and killed by the army.

And you're going on about believing propaganda! rolleyes.gif

I don't think the murder of civilians in Wat Pathum has come to trial yet but the view the army was guilty of abuse is very far from propaganda.I appreciate you are rattled by today's court finding but it is always better to embrace the truth.

I have never seen anything like the truth from your posts. Proto Fascists was a real gem.

No court has ruled on the deaths in the Wat but you pre-judge it as murder.

I accept the court's findings, vague as they are. What is sickening is to see the grieving Polengi relatives being used by the red shirts as sort of guinea pigs to add to the DSI's targeting of the opposition..

You may want to read the open letter that Elisabeth Polenghi wrote to Yingluck on the occasion of PTP winning the Election before you start making assumptions about "the grieving Polengi relatives being used by the red shirts".

Suffice it to say she is no fan of the Democrat Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I closed the office for a week - but when the protest dragged on we re-opened it.

One day there was the sound of gunfire (or firecrackers) this was about 4pm.

I closed the office & on the walk from Silom Complex to the MRT, there were a series of loud bangs. It was surreal, everyone hit the deck. I could see the MRT entrance 50 meters away with a bunch or soldiers taking shelter there (they seemed to think it was gunfire).

I decided to sprint to the entrance, thinking that if grenades came again lying/crouching on the floor like everyone else would be dangerous.

As I jumped up the steps, the soldiers grabbed me and pulled me in with smiles & pats on the back.

I closed the office again the next day.

Peaceful indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to read the open letter that Elisabeth Polenghi wrote to Yingluck on the occasion of PTP winning the Election before you start making assumptions about "the grieving Polengi relatives being used by the red shirts".

Suffice it to say she is no fan of the Democrat Party.

So what?

Was she here at the time?

She lost her son, she wants closure, she is obviously very upset.

But that does not make her right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...