Follow the law, Prawit tells yellow shirts

Prawit said there is a public gathering act in place and any public gatherings must follow this law. He said he did not believe they would create disorder like in the past, and that security officers would be deployed to ensure peaceful gatherings.
The PAD said on Thursday that it would meet on Friday to address the issue and chalk out its future moves.
The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Officer Holders on Wednesday acquitted four defendants accused of dereliction of duty and malfeasance by the NACC in 2015 over the police suppression of the PAD-led protest in front of Parliament on October 7. 
Former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, his then-deputy Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, then-police chief Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, and then-Metropolitan Police chief Pol Lt-General Suchart Muenkaew were found not guilty.
The court ruled that the defendants did not intend to inflict casualties in a legitimate operation that aimed to ensure that the Cabinet could fulfil its constitutional duty as well as protect individuals and state property. 
Somchai is the brother-in-law of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while Patcharawat is the younger brother of Deputy PM Prawit.
Prawit said he had not yet talked to his brother. He also rejected the notion that Pathcharawat’s acquittal was linked to their blood ties. 
In this case, he said, Patcharawat was merely the police chief, whereas there was a prime minister and a deputy prime minister above him.
“I did nothing for him. I only take care of his personal matters. I have not done anything yet, not even talked to him,” said Prawit, rejecting the notion that he had something to do with this case.
Former PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila said that Wednesday’s ruling had hurt the feelings of yellow shirts as a many of their loved ones had faced various degrees of losses. Some had become handicapped while others had lost their lives hence someone must be held responsible, he added. The PAD would meet to address the issue and determine future moves before petitioning the NACC to appeal the verdict.

Initially, Suriyasai outlined three points of contention that he said had raised doubts in the members of the public. 
He disputed arguments that the dispersal of the protesters had been conducted in line with international practices, that the demonstration was not peaceful or unarmed, and that the defendants had no intention of causing casualties.