4 ms·

Well, we have no way of knowing whether he actually wanted him killed or "just" savagely beaten, but it doesn't matter. Second degree murder is still murder. N

Well, we have no way of knowing whether he actually wanted him killed or "just" savagely beaten, but it doesn't matter. Second degree murder is still murder. Now, if you think this was some kind of routine police enforcement action that got out of hand and that the company boss had nothing to do with it, then I don't think you know how things work, especially in places like India. The police chief and top brass would most likely be part of the same social circles and would look out for each other's interests. In corrupt places, the power of the state is always readily available to the rich and powerful, whether it's quelling a labour dispute in India or a low-interest Fed borrowing window. Now, when I first read the title I was struck that a company president would be killed by workers, but after reading the article, it suddenly makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? Now that I think about it, it's also pretty sad that the killing of a labour activist doesn't surprise or shock me, but the killing of an executive does.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
In this case, the union leader and others were trespassing and attempting to prevent others from peacefully selling labor at prices lower than his. The police responded violently to prevent this. What's the problem? It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law. If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?
- bandushrew 15y ago
  "The police responded violently to prevent this." "What's the problem?" maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily? "It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law." If the rule of law allows for murder, then the rule of law is wrong and operating under it is no defence. "If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?" yes? if the police have already caught him, what possible cause could they have for beating him unnecessarily?
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    How do you know the union leader was killed unnecessarily? The article is unclear on this point. All we know right now is that the union leader was killed while engaging in criminal behavior. Your version of the story may be correct, but you've presented no evidence of it. Similarly, in the hypothetical I raised, I made no claim as to whether the gang leader was in custody. That's merely your assumption.
    - anthonyb 15y ago
      Please don't use phrases like "criminal behaviour". If you read the article, he was killed by riot police while blockading the factory. Pretty standard peaceful protest, standard procedure when the law doesn't do the right thing, and should not be beaten down with clubs.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        A blockade is criminal behavior. An angry mob does not have the right to surround your house and prevent people from entering or leaving. Such activity does not qualify as "peaceful". Trespass (which Rao was engaged in) is also criminal behavior, as is rioting, destruction of property, etc. http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Regency-Ceramics-executive-in-Yanam/357751.html http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Reg... You may be right that the police used excessive force, but you've presented no evidence of it. However, some force was clearly required.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        yread 15y ago
        > A blockade is criminal behavior. That isn't true even in the US. I suggest you go and read on wiki about strike action which includes this helpful paragraph: A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside the workplace to prevent or dissuade people from working in their place or conducting business with their employer. Less frequently workers may occupy the workplace, but refuse either to do their jobs or to leave. This is known as a sit-down strike. And perhaps you can then go to the article on picketing, which is exactly what these guys were doing.
- calibraxis 15y ago
  Just because something is a law doesn't make it legitimate. Virtually no one thinks violent cops are always justified in enforcing the law, like during civil rights struggles, or revolutions we happen to like. And when it comes to enemy nations, conventional wisdom is that the whole government has no legitimacy, and should be violently overthrown. (And when convenient, we send in a military which may kill cops and their employers left and right; then we replace the laws with ones which suit us more.) In this case, cops are used to enforce that bosses control the factory, not the workers. But it could work the other way around.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    But it could work the other way around. And if the factory bosses were doing something illegal, the cops tried to stop them, and someone died in the scuffle, I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that the cops murdered him at the behest of the union. It wouldn't take a lot to convince me - I'm generally very critical of cops, particularly in India. But some evidence is needed.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

In this case, the union leader and others were trespassing and attempting to prevent others from peacefully selling labor at prices lower than his. The police responded violently to prevent this. What's the problem? It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law. If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?

bandushrew 15y ago
"The police responded violently to prevent this." "What's the problem?" maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily? "It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law." If the rule of law allows for murder, then the rule of law is wrong and operating under it is no defence. "If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?" yes? if the police have already caught him, what possible cause could they have for beating him unnecessarily?
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  How do you know the union leader was killed unnecessarily? The article is unclear on this point. All we know right now is that the union leader was killed while engaging in criminal behavior. Your version of the story may be correct, but you've presented no evidence of it. Similarly, in the hypothetical I raised, I made no claim as to whether the gang leader was in custody. That's merely your assumption.
  - anthonyb 15y ago
    Please don't use phrases like "criminal behaviour". If you read the article, he was killed by riot police while blockading the factory. Pretty standard peaceful protest, standard procedure when the law doesn't do the right thing, and should not be beaten down with clubs.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      A blockade is criminal behavior. An angry mob does not have the right to surround your house and prevent people from entering or leaving. Such activity does not qualify as "peaceful". Trespass (which Rao was engaged in) is also criminal behavior, as is rioting, destruction of property, etc. http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Regency-Ceramics-executive-in-Yanam/357751.html http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Reg... You may be right that the police used excessive force, but you've presented no evidence of it. However, some force was clearly required.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - yread 15y ago
        > A blockade is criminal behavior. That isn't true even in the US. I suggest you go and read on wiki about strike action which includes this helpful paragraph: A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside the workplace to prevent or dissuade people from working in their place or conducting business with their employer. Less frequently workers may occupy the workplace, but refuse either to do their jobs or to leave. This is known as a sit-down strike. And perhaps you can then go to the article on picketing, which is exactly what these guys were doing.
calibraxis 15y ago
Just because something is a law doesn't make it legitimate. Virtually no one thinks violent cops are always justified in enforcing the law, like during civil rights struggles, or revolutions we happen to like. And when it comes to enemy nations, conventional wisdom is that the whole government has no legitimacy, and should be violently overthrown. (And when convenient, we send in a military which may kill cops and their employers left and right; then we replace the laws with ones which suit us more.) In this case, cops are used to enforce that bosses control the factory, not the workers. But it could work the other way around.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  But it could work the other way around. And if the factory bosses were doing something illegal, the cops tried to stop them, and someone died in the scuffle, I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that the cops murdered him at the behest of the union. It wouldn't take a lot to convince me - I'm generally very critical of cops, particularly in India. But some evidence is needed.