4 ms·

Why would it matter whether the meat was beef or not with respect to motive? The crowd thought it was beef and beat him based on that belief; they didn't test t

by sidlls 8y ago

Why would it matter whether the meat was beef or not with respect to motive? The crowd thought it was beef and beat him based on that belief; they didn't test the meat first.

sokoloff 8y ago
WRT motive, the fact of whether it was or wasn't beef when introduced into evidence may prove to be exculpatory (if the finders of fact decide that it was justified) or may prove to be further damning (if the finders of facts decide that it was pre-meditated). I wouldn't want the police on the scene to be in the business of deciding what possibly relevant facts in the case will prove to be crucial. Collect, catalog, and preserve the evidence as best you reasonably can in a major crime case, and let the court system figure out what's relevant. Additionally, if it was beef, there's a reason to look upstream to where the dead man got the beef and chase down those leads. What's the external/societal cost to them taking the meat to the lab? It's not like the police not taking the beef to the lab will suddenly summon the cow back to life nor that they took the beef and tested it by eating it. (I'm assuming from context that beef for consumption is locally illegal. That seems a safe assumption.)
- mcny 8y ago
  It is not illegal and even if it were it does not, in any lawful society, justify extrajudicial torture and/or murder.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    OK, then what is your objection to the police taking a sample of the meat to the lab for testing?! It seems no different than taking any other piece of crime scene or crime-related evidence to me.
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      > OK, then what is your objection to the police taking a sample of the meat to the lab for testing?! >It seems no different than taking any other piece of crime scene or crime-related evidence to me. It has the same vibe as checking the skirt length of a rape victim, or checking into the sexual history of someone beaten up for being gay, just to be sure they really were gay.
      - legolas2412 8y ago
        Wearing short skirts is not a crime, but slaughtering cows, transporting and selling beef is (in that state). I do not agree with the laws, but the police should dutifully follow the laws.
        mcny 8y ago
        > I do not agree with the laws, but the police should dutifully follow the laws. > India has a population of more than 1.3 billion and it is severely under-policed. This leads to several miscreants doing all sorts of bad stuff. So the police is spread thin and you want them to go after dead people for allegedly eating beef? What kind of mental gymnastics do you do?
        legolas2412 8y ago
        Besides the murder, the police might also be interested in finding the illegal slaughterhouses or beef sellers. Is following the law mental gymnastics? Should I curse the police for following procedures and investigating crimes, even if I disagree with them? What if police decided that it was spread too thin, and did not stop me being lynched?
  - legolas2412 8y ago
    I don't support vigilantes and neither do I agree with the imposition of religious views in violation of civil rights. That being said, you are wrong. It was illegal. Lynching happened in UP. And sale, transport, and slaughter of beef is illegal there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Dadri_mob_lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Dadri_mob_lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Uttar_Pradesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Utta... The police should take the samples for analysis as they did. It is the procedure I expect from them in this case. If a bank robber was killed during a bank heist, you would still investigate who planned the robbery wouldn't you?

by sidlls 8y ago

Why would it matter whether the meat was beef or not with respect to motive? The crowd thought it was beef and beat him based on that belief; they didn't test the meat first.

sokoloff 8y ago

WRT motive, the fact of whether it was or wasn't beef when introduced into evidence may prove to be exculpatory (if the finders of fact decide that it was justified) or may prove to be further damning (if the finders of facts decide that it was pre-meditated). I wouldn't want the police on the scene to be in the business of deciding what possibly relevant facts in the case will prove to be crucial. Collect, catalog, and preserve the evidence as best you reasonably can in a major crime case, and let the court system figure out what's relevant. Additionally, if it was beef, there's a reason to look upstream to where the dead man got the beef and chase down those leads. What's the external/societal cost to them taking the meat to the lab? It's not like the police not taking the beef to the lab will suddenly summon the cow back to life nor that they took the beef and tested it by eating it. (I'm assuming from context that beef for consumption is locally illegal. That seems a safe assumption.)

mcny 8y ago
It is not illegal and even if it were it does not, in any lawful society, justify extrajudicial torture and/or murder.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  OK, then what is your objection to the police taking a sample of the meat to the lab for testing?! It seems no different than taking any other piece of crime scene or crime-related evidence to me.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    > OK, then what is your objection to the police taking a sample of the meat to the lab for testing?! >It seems no different than taking any other piece of crime scene or crime-related evidence to me. It has the same vibe as checking the skirt length of a rape victim, or checking into the sexual history of someone beaten up for being gay, just to be sure they really were gay.
    - legolas2412 8y ago
      Wearing short skirts is not a crime, but slaughtering cows, transporting and selling beef is (in that state). I do not agree with the laws, but the police should dutifully follow the laws.
      - mcny 8y ago
        > I do not agree with the laws, but the police should dutifully follow the laws. > India has a population of more than 1.3 billion and it is severely under-policed. This leads to several miscreants doing all sorts of bad stuff. So the police is spread thin and you want them to go after dead people for allegedly eating beef? What kind of mental gymnastics do you do?
        legolas2412 8y ago
        Besides the murder, the police might also be interested in finding the illegal slaughterhouses or beef sellers. Is following the law mental gymnastics? Should I curse the police for following procedures and investigating crimes, even if I disagree with them? What if police decided that it was spread too thin, and did not stop me being lynched?
- legolas2412 8y ago
  I don't support vigilantes and neither do I agree with the imposition of religious views in violation of civil rights. That being said, you are wrong. It was illegal. Lynching happened in UP. And sale, transport, and slaughter of beef is illegal there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Dadri_mob_lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Dadri_mob_lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Uttar_Pradesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India#Utta... The police should take the samples for analysis as they did. It is the procedure I expect from them in this case. If a bank robber was killed during a bank heist, you would still investigate who planned the robbery wouldn't you?