Talk:March 19 shooting incident

Comment

We must anticipate future assasination attempts in Taiwan, so this article should be renamed somewhere in the lines of 3·19枪击事件.

Now that we have this article, we should move much of the commentary at Taiwan presidential election, 2004 here. This article should also be linked at Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu. The Standard: "Yes, I did meet the president ... and did examine his wound. He was very gracious. I took some photos. I can tell you that the wound is completely consistent with a gunshot wound. It fits in with being 10 days old, and correlated with the pictures from the hospital. I have no reason to believe it was not an injury of an acute nature sustained on that day," Wecht said.

This contradicts the statements made on this page. --Jiang 05:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey Jiang I created an account. I guess Wecht said that and changes should be made. I got my sources from [1]. It was in last week's paper so I'll have to dig up. I've never heard chinatimes reporting what wecht said though. It only said that the wound's healed up pretty well and it's difficult to say exactly how many days. He said it looks like a gunshot wound though. Yeah we should rename the page to avoid confusion because there was also an attempt on Chiang Ching-Kuo by a radical taiwanese independence supporter, i think in the eighties. ---User:Wareware

I moved the page to "March 19, 2004 assassination attempt in Taiwan". Comments?

Commentary should be added on Pan-Blue demands for an independent investigation and Pan-Green concerns that Henry Lee is a Pan-Blue supporter. I thought a bullet casing was found Chen's jacket and another was found at the scene (not both of them there...). We should also mention Lu's recent article describing the incident, and questions/contradictions brought up by James Soong. --Jiang 08:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

you could've mentioned "presidential" assasination i guess. Also, the bullet "casings" were found on the campaign route. The bullet "heads" themselves were found in the jacket and on the floor of the jeep. Now that henry lee is here we shuould add some stuff, particularly the x-ray equipment he's using. Have to check on that. Wareware 10:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the title short. I think it's unambiguous enough since no other assassination attempt seems to have occurred in Taiwan on that day. It was also a "vice presidential assassination attempt" --Jiang 10:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update is needed. --Jiang 04:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

partiality

I think the following line is not entirely accurate. Has the Council of Grand Justices ruled on the law yet? "Because the law was suspected to be unconstitutional, the Pan-Green Coalition opposes such a commission and after the Executive Yuan veto was overriden, unsuccessfully asked the Council of Grand Justices to nullify the law." --anon

Thank you for your comment. Thank you for removing the misleading comment. I find the whole article extremely one-sided. Obviously, Pan-blue supporters know better English, and they have taken the lead to write this article. Reading it, a foreigner would be excused to come to the conclusion that President Chen must be behind some sort of dark scheme. AugustinMa 05:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a info, the Council of Grand Justices has rule the investigation law unconstitutionalCsmth (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is completely crank at the moment -- like reading a page about UFOs from an enthusiast who believes that they are really from Vega. 140.116.55.72 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

OK, I've removed "possible" assassination attempt and changed to "failed", and removed the line about garnering sympathy votes, since that is KMT propaganda (Chen was leading narrowly in most polls two weeks prior to the election, as actually occurred). 140.116.55.72 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

I've also removed this line:

"These speculations were (and still are) however, considered highly offensive by both camps, and were not condoned by the leaderships of either camp until after Chen had already won the election."

Some pan-Blue politicians started with the conspiracy line right away, prior to the election.140.116.55.72 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

I just don't believe

I dont believe 3-19 shooting incident is only an accident.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.165.110 (talk • contribs).

200 Years ago, people believe the Earth is flat. You believe what you believed in, which is not necessarily the fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.7.85 (talk • contribs).

It was a failed assassination attempt, not an accident.--Jerrypp772000 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an act, so it's not an accident. It's all planned. Bobbybuilder (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re resignation

I have heard that the National Security Bureau director's resignation had more to do with disgust over his inadvertent role in shaping the election results. I'm told he was the one who authorised the national security mechanism which mobilized the military and law enforcement into a state of emergency and, in accordance with the directive, subsequently prevent this traditionally pro nationalist party demographic from voting in the election. I don't know enough about Taiwan's politics or government procedures to check up on this, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise could confirm or refute this.

I remember reading articles refuting that accusation by pulling out the voting statistics, which suggest that those affected military population in recent years had a history voting for pro-DPP candidates. It was a debate long time ago and I can't remember where I saw it. However, I belive it is a conspiracy theory which can not be proved made by the pan-blue.Mababa 07:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update Required

Someone needs to update this article with information on the recent public recanting by the family of one of the suspects and their accusations of blackmail by the police.

What's the point? The whole thing was rigged already. (From the election to the so-called shooting.) A great display of "Democracy - Taiwan Style." TheAsianGURU 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Li Ao's evidence of CIA involvement

The Li Ao article says he had evidence of CIA involvement.

In February 2005, Li held a press conference, accusing PFP leader, James Soong of having changed his opposition towards military weapons purchase from the United States under the influence of people of Pro-American inclination, people with CIA backgrounds and arms traders who would receive kick-backs. Li threatened Soong that he will reveal the names of the people with CIA backgrounds, who were influencing Soong, to the general public unless Soong reverted to his previous opposition position.[2] PFP legislators dismissed the accusation and responded that Li Ao should reveal his evidence to support his story.[3]

Later that year, in June, Li revealed to the Taiwanese press that he had exclusive information from the CIA concerning the 3-19 shooting incident. He alleged that the real motive of the killer was to assassinate Vice-President Annette Lu in order to garner sympathy votes for Chen Shui-bian, and that the killer had been condoned by the governing party for ulterior political reasons. After flashing a series of supposedly CIA-endorsed documents to reporters, he mailed them to Annette Lu, claiming that she would need to know the full extent of truth about the assassination attempt.

What has become of this? Perhaps it should be included in this article, if the evidence has been vetted. Kent Wang 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One could assume that if the CIA had actually sent any info to any Taiwanese Politician (Pan-blue or otherwise), China would have a fit and condemn such an act. Seeing how none of the 'CIA reports' ever made it into the news again, Ockham's razor (which admittedly has become blunt through overuse) states that it was something Li Ao created to get his face back on national television.

Conspiracy theories

Why is there so much cruft on the page?!? It's worse than the 9/11 page before it was finally cleaned up. Jumping cheese 05:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all conspiracy theory nonsense, that's why. For example, someone wrote:

"Henry C. Lee suggests that it was not a serious assassination attempt in which the assassin would usually aim for the head."

What? Does Henry Lee read minds now? How does he know where the shooter was aiming?140.116.55.72 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

No citation is given for the claim that the blood on the undershirt is 7.5cm wide, so I have removed ti to this place until a citation is given.

• The blood on the undershirt is only 7.5 cm wide as the distance between the 2 holes is only 7.5 cm wide according to the ruler provided by Dr. Henry Lee in his report. This does not match with the length of the wound which was 11 cm.
  • There is still no response to this issue.

Similarly pan Blue politician Li Ao's claim that CIA sent him the bullets is amusing bit of buffoonery on his part, and so I have removed this claim as well:

• Li Ao claims that two separate guns were used in firing the bullets, citing CIA sources (instead of one gun, as declared by the original investigation). He has also claimed that another assassin was present at the time of the shooting.
  • The Pan-Green has doubted the authenticity of the reports.

Also removed this; so what if Wang Sing-nan showed an x-ray? What does that have to do with anything?

• An x-ray was shown by DPP Legislator Wang Sing-Nan at 2:45 P.M. showing a bullet head in the back area which could have suggested that the bullet was inside Chen's body and that he was seriously wounded. At 3:30 P.M. in a Presidential Office press conference, Secretary General Chiou I-Jen said that the bullet was "on his body" and smiled. It was explained later that the bullet head was lodged in Chen's jacket as it came to rest.

This claim below is unsourced. What tests? By who? When? Methodology? Results? Discussions? Nothing.

• Tests done on bullets going through 3 articles of clothing (undershirt, dress shirt, and jacket) show that because the undershirt is thicker than the dress shirt, that if the bullet had enough velocity to penetrate the dress shirt when exiting, then it will break the dress shirt also causing the bullet to either exit through the jacket, or lay between the dress shirt and jacket. Tests show that it is impossible for the bullet to end up between the undershirt and dress shirt.
  • Pan-Green supporters claim that the bullet must have been stuck in the clothing some how, so it didn't fall down.

This is just ridiculous. What is the definition of "overly casual"? It is normal in such cases for bystanders to find evidence, especially since the police had no idea where the shooter was standing.

• Pan-Blue supporters charged that the investigation of a Presidential assassination attempt was overly casual. The bullet casing was found by nearby vendors under a double parked car when it was driven away more than three hours after the shooting. Additionally, government investigation bureau agents were also seen collecting video and photos of the scene half an hour after the incident while the police did not arrive until about 3 hours later.

No source for this claim, so I have removed it.

• Recently, according to reports by the media in Taiwan, another investigation suggested that Chen Yi-Hsiung was killed by another person in the possible time period of his death (which, they claimed, was between 18:00 on 28 March to 5:00 on the following day), instead of committing suicide as the original investigative report said.

Again no source, and a written statement about what Lu heard (which doctor? When?) is irrelevant hearsay in any case.

• According to Vice President's Annette Lu's written statement, she heard the doctor say the bullet was found in between the jacket and dress shirt. The opposition then countered saying that the bullet head should have fallen down if that were the case. The story changed 2 weeks later as the government then claimed that the bullet was found in between the undershirt and dress shirt so the bullet head did not fall down. This is the claim even though there are 6 or more holes in the dress shirt with a large "L" shape tear where it looks like the bullet could have exited. Additionally, Chen also waved to supporters from the jeep, walked into the hospital, laid down for surgery where doctors lifted his clothing up, and then walked into the x-ray room and the bullet head still did not fall down.

Almost the entire conspiracy claim page consists of unsourced claims. It should all be removed until properly sourced and cited. I've added an introduction and hopefully we can get the nonsense cleared up. 140.116.55.72 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

The famous Michael Turton is here preaching his biased view. Learn how to edit Wikipedia before you attempt to vandalise a page, okay? So now "According to Annette Lu's writen statement" is deemed as "unsourced claim" also, brilliant. I suppose your only reliable source is Liberty Times right? Bobbybuilder (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"3-19 truth in-the-making commission"

What's that? I've never heard of it, and I'm a Taiwan native. What's it translated from? 石川 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be a section about the aftermath effect on Taiwan's polictics.

There are alot after effect after this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easymem (talk • contribs) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 3-19 shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051029182350/http://s2.newfancy.com:80/data/COM/Technology/Bulletgate1213.pdf to http://s2.newfancy.com/data/COM/Technology/Bulletgate1213.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

National Security Mechanism

What is the "National Security Mechanism, and what does "the "National Security Mechanism had been activated" mean? If this is going to be mentioned, there should be some explanationRoyalcourtier (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"5th hand of a possible weapon"?

What does "The connection between Chen and the weapon maker was established by confirming Chen as being the 5th hand of a possible weapon" mean?Royalcourtier (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a planned assassination?

How could Dr Lee conclude "that the incident was not a planned assassination attempt" because "a more powerful weapon than a homemade pistol would have been used"? This makes no sense. Firstly shooting someone in the stomach with a pistol is not an accident, it is inevitably planned. Secondly the pistol was not home made, but made in an illegal factory. If the president shot himself by accident, or a guard dropped a gun and it went off, those would not be planned assassination attempts. Or if someone already armed, such as a guard, spontaneously decided to shoot the president, that would not be a planned assassination. But the evidence suggests that the attacker obtained an illegal weapon, placed himself in the crowd, wore a suitably concealing cloak, and deliberately shot to kill both the president and vice-president - I cannot see how it can be said not to be planned. I realize that this is a "talk" but not discussion page. Therefore my point it, has there been criticism of Dr Lee's conclusion, or any other commentary or information on whether the attack was planned?Royalcourtier (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 3-19 shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/08/30/1093830899.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3-19 shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024091958/http://urbantitan.com/7-failed-assassinations-attempts-that-shook-the-world/ to http://urbantitan.com/7-failed-assassinations-attempts-that-shook-the-world/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3-19 shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forum.dtmonline.com/leo/cgi-bin/view.cgi?forum=7&topic=63
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727112950/http://www.ncaar.org/news/319_Report.pdf to http://www.ncaar.org/news/319_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3-19 shooting incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225070452/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/nov/5/today-fo5.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/nov/5/today-fo5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

I moved the page because of the consensus reached here on naming Talk:February_28_incident#Requested_move_23_September_2015. However, it's a weak consensus, and I could also see an argument for "319 shooting incident" (I think in any case the hyphen should be removed). Thoughts? DrIdiot (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

One observation is that most Taiwanese English media seems to use "228 incident" whereas English language media seems to use "February 28 incident." So maybe that's an argument for sticking with the current title. DrIdiot (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)