Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest

[amore]

"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?-.

How many times does it need to be said - there were not two groups using guns. The military were the only ones firing as stated by 4 witnesses who were there at the time and accepted by the inquest. (although two of the foreign witnesses didn't give evidence as the Court decided they already had enough to record a verdict.)

Edited May 29, 2013 by amore

[amore]

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.

I think you'll find that she has done a lot more investigation into this incident then the armchair warriors here - there is a great documentary covering part of her work in trying to unravel what happened, makes interesting viewing if you have an open mind.

But then again I think the subtlety went over your head. Read the letter, then read khunkens assumption that she and her family have been used by the UDD and make your own mind up, but it looks like you've already done that as did khunken.

[Soi Sauce]

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?

Murder

So the army and protestors where murdering each other?

Or do you mean that the army was murdering the protestors and the protestors fired back in self-defense?

Why would they do that?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Soi Sauce

[pedro01]

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.

I think you'll find that she has done a lot more investigation into this incident then the armchair warriors here - there is a great documentary covering part of her work in trying to unravel what happened, makes interesting viewing if you have an open mind.

But then again I think the subtlety went over your head. Read the letter, then read khunkens assumption that she and her family have been used by the UDD and make your own mind up, but it looks like you've already done that as did khunken.

I made my own mind up a long time ago.

Back in 2010 in fact. When I was working a few hundred meters from the protest site. My office overlooks it in fact, birds eye view.

My own personal experiences at the time led me and many, many other people to believe that the crackdown was the right thing to do.

The protesters crossed too many lines too many times. I was very happy the day the army went in. My heart went out to the volunteers caught in the crossfire and the people that lost their jobs because of the burnings & lootings. My heart also went out to the poor people that went expecting payment, were not allowed to leave and in the end got nothing but misery.

I still remember vividly one old man crying on the bus to go home.He got interviewed on TV. He was scared, they'd taken his id card. His words were to the effect "I never wanted all this, I just wanted the money, I wanted to go home weeks ago but they wouldn't let me. I didn't even get paid"

Probably a fake red...

[pedro01]

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?

Murder

So the army and protestors where murdering each other?

Or do you mean that the army was murdering the protestors and the protestors fired back in self-defense?

Why would they do that?

+1

Why would they shoot back in self defense?

Why not just go home?

Whey did they even have guns in the first place?

I remember the videos of protesters firing fireworks at the army. Perhaps one of the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[yoshiwara]

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.

As far as I am aware the Occupy crowd weren't armed, weren't called upon to burn London/New York and just looked a bit scruffy so the comparison a poor one. Have another go.

[hellodolly]

The Government in power at the time of the occupation displayed gross incompetence in the handling of the prolonged demonstration. To let ANY group occupy the center of your capitol city for two months before taking action, and then to do so in such a violent, extreme manner...words fail me. In any civilized country, this thing would have been allowed for a very limited time (one week max), and then cleared away by any means necessary.

The politics in this country is a sickening mess. Red vs Yellow, Hi-so vs No-so, it all makes Thailand a mockery.

That dosen't make sense first you say the Thai Government did it in a violent and extreme manor and say that was wrong.

Then you say in any civilized country they would not have been allowed more than one week and then cleared away by any means necessary.

That is what Thailand did.

I agree with you that it should never have lasted that long.

[FDog]

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.

I think you'll find that she has done a lot more investigation into this incident then the armchair warriors here - there is a great documentary covering part of her work in trying to unravel what happened, makes interesting viewing if you have an open mind.

But then again I think the subtlety went over your head. Read the letter, then read khunkens assumption that she and her family have been used by the UDD and make your own mind up, but it looks like you've already done that as did khunken.

I made my own mind up a long time ago.

Back in 2010 in fact. When I was working a few hundred meters from the protest site. My office overlooks it in fact, birds eye view.

My own personal experiences at the time led me and many, many other people to believe that the crackdown was the right thing to do.

The protesters crossed too many lines too many times. I was very happy the day the army went in. My heart went out to the volunteers caught in the crossfire and the people that lost their jobs because of the burnings & lootings. My heart also went out to the poor people that went expecting payment, were not allowed to leave and in the end got nothing but misery.

I still remember vividly one old man crying on the bus to go home.He got interviewed on TV. He was scared, they'd taken his id card. His words were to the effect "I never wanted all this, I just wanted the money, I wanted to go home weeks ago but they wouldn't let me. I didn't even get paid"

Probably a fake red...

Perhaps your own experience could have been told to the court if you wanted it considered. But then again, there were others that did give their version of events and the court considered what was put before it and gave a verdict.

Many people give their opinion on things but your view doesn't mean it was correct.

[philw]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

[monkeycountry]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

Has the army denied shooting him? Do they have to? Is the army being charged with anything?

[yoshiwara]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

[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.

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?-.

How many times does it need to be said - there were not two groups using guns. The military were the only ones firing as stated by 4 witnesses who were there at the time and accepted by the inquest. (although two of the foreign witnesses didn't give evidence as the Court decided they already had enough to record a verdict.)

That's the strange part. There was evidence, videos and news reports, of red shirts shooting at the army as the army moved up Ratchadamri. The didn't only shoot guns, but grenades as well, as evidenced by the reporter and soldiers being injured / killed.

[nakhonandy]

"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?-.

How many times does it need to be said - there were not two groups using guns. The military were the only ones firing as stated by 4 witnesses who were there at the time and accepted by the inquest. (although two of the foreign witnesses didn't give evidence as the Court decided they already had enough to record a verdict.)

That's the strange part. There was evidence, videos and news reports, of red shirts shooting at the army as the army moved up Ratchadamri. The didn't only shoot guns, but grenades as well, as evidenced by the reporter and soldiers being injured / killed.

True but from all the statements there were no armed Red shirts around where this happened, only civilians.

This happens when the army is used to do what is in fact a policing matter, the army are not trained for this.

Unfortunately the police are not either.

[whybother]

That's the strange part. There was evidence, videos and news reports, of red shirts shooting at the army as the army moved up Ratchadamri. The didn't only shoot guns, but grenades as well, as evidenced by the reporter and soldiers being injured / killed.

True but from all the statements there were no armed Red shirts around where this happened, only civilians.

This happens when the army is used to do what is in fact a policing matter, the army are not trained for this.

Unfortunately the police are not either.

There may not have been red shirts immediately around these guys, but there was plenty of evidence that there were red shirts shooting at the army as they were moving up Ratchadamri.

[jayboy]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

He's baaaaack! Arisman again.

[jayboy]

That's the strange part. There was evidence, videos and news reports, of red shirts shooting at the army as the army moved up Ratchadamri. The didn't only shoot guns, but grenades as well, as evidenced by the reporter and soldiers being injured / killed.

True but from all the statements there were no armed Red shirts around where this happened, only civilians.

This happens when the army is used to do what is in fact a policing matter, the army are not trained for this.

Unfortunately the police are not either.

There may not have been red shirts immediately around these guys, but there was plenty of evidence that there were red shirts shooting at the army as they were moving up Ratchadamri.

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

[belg]

so bullet forensics is unexistent in thailand

a miracle a day

[whybother]

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

.

No. I'm not trying to justify it.

I am just questioning their statements that there was no one around, when so many reports say there was.

[jayboy]

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

.

No. I'm not trying to justify it.

I am just questioning their statements that there was no one around, when so many reports say there was.

If you have genuine information that contradicts all reliable evidence you should probably bring it to the attention of the authorities.

The court, on the best information available at the time, concluded that the shot was fired from an area occupied by the Thai army.Furthermore it was possible to identify the army unit concerned but not the individual shooter.

Frankly if you are going to dispute the clear evidence that the Italian journalist was murdered by the army, you will presumably also dispute that other unarmed civilians were similarly murdered - where the evidence is not so clear.

It's not that distant from your position from that of the usual nutjobs who come out with lines like:

1.The reds smuggled in assasins to the army positions.

2.Journalists had it coming to them - shouldn't have been there

3.What about Arisman? (my favourite)

4.The reds murdered themselves (and a few journalists to boot)

5.I was there and I saw it all (probably the silliest)

[monkeycountry]

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

.

No. I'm not trying to justify it.

I am just questioning their statements that there was no one around, when so many reports say there was.

If you have genuine information that contradicts all reliable evidence you should probably bring it to the attention of the authorities.

The court, on the best information available at the time, concluded that the shot was fired from an area occupied by the Thai army.Furthermore it was possible to identify the army unit concerned but not the individual shooter.

Frankly if you are going to dispute the clear evidence that the Italian journalist was murdered by the army, you will presumably also dispute that other unarmed civilians were similarly murdered - where the evidence is not so clear.

It's not that distant from your position from that of the usual nutjobs who come out with lines like:

1.The reds smuggled in assasins to the army positions.

2.Journalists had it coming to them - shouldn't have been there

3.What about Arisman? (my favourite)

4.The reds murdered themselves (and a few journalists to boot)

5.I was there and I saw it all (probably the silliest)

Why is it necessary to bring evidence to defend the army? Has the army even denied shooting this journalist and/or others? Is the army or any individual soldier being charged with a crime by any court?

[jaidam]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

He's baaaaack! Arisman again.

Arisman's name must be mentioned often, together with his infamous "burn list" because so many posters dishonestly try to either deny the existance of his incitement to terrorism, or flat out claim not to have heard/seen his incitement. Ironically, I remember you being one of them.

[PREM-R]

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.

More likely back in its rack at the army barracks, waiting for the next "call to action"

[jayboy]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

He's baaaaack! Arisman again.

Arisman's name must be mentioned often, together with his infamous "burn list" because so many posters dishonestly try to either deny the existance of his incitement to terrorism, or flat out claim not to have heard/seen his incitement. Ironically, I remember you being one of them.

Whether posters have heard of him or not (and actually I hadn't until he was brought to my attention) there is a ludicrous aspect to his constant invocation by those who wish to justify repression.There will always be rabble rousers around.

[philw]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

Yoshiwara, please cite a post from me justifying your above comment or apologise for your mistaken statement.

[DRONGOH]

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?

Friendly fire?

[DRONGOH]

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?

Murder

Whoever pulled the trigger, that's pretty much the only label you could put on it!! 'Collateral damage'? Is that how you'd see it if it were someone close to YOU lying dead in the street???

He might have been in possession of chicken sauce.

[tominbkk]

Dangerous place to be taking snaps. It's a risk that's part of the game...

[smedly]

The simple truth is that unless they have the actual weapon - the actual person in charge of the weapon and can - match it all up - this amounts to no more than an opinion and even if they had all that the guy was in a fire zone taking risks to get a photo, I believe that's what they do - right and the army were enforcing the law against armed terrorists

I feel sorry for the guy but all these court judgments are complete nonsense

[whybother]

Desparate to justify the army's killing but I'm afraid the evidence is against him.For those more interested in the truth, Reuters has a useful report.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/thai-court-rules-troops-responsible-italian-reporters-death-061814316.html

.

No. I'm not trying to justify it.

I am just questioning their statements that there was no one around, when so many reports say there was.

If you have genuine information that contradicts all reliable evidence you should probably bring it to the attention of the authorities.

The court, on the best information available at the time, concluded that the shot was fired from an area occupied by the Thai army.Furthermore it was possible to identify the army unit concerned but not the individual shooter.

Frankly if you are going to dispute the clear evidence that the Italian journalist was murdered by the army, you will presumably also dispute that other unarmed civilians were similarly murdered - where the evidence is not so clear.

It's not that distant from your position from that of the usual nutjobs who come out with lines like:

1.The reds smuggled in assasins to the army positions.

2.Journalists had it coming to them - shouldn't have been there

3.What about Arisman? (my favourite)

4.The reds murdered themselves (and a few journalists to boot)

5.I was there and I saw it all (probably the silliest)

.

Where have I denied that the army shot by the army? Why do you keep stating that I have said things that I haven't said? You just make things up!

I have clearly stated that I am questioning the "evidence" that no one else was around, when there are reports and videos saying that there was.

[philw]

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

Yoshiwara, please cite a post from me justifying your above comment or apologise for your mistaken statement.

Guess you are not man enough to do either..................