5 ms·

"The police responded violently to prevent this." "What's the problem?" maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily? "It's s

"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.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside the workplace to prevent or dissuade... If the non-workers prevent others from conducting business with their employer, it's a blockade, and it's illegal. If they merely persuade, it's a picket, and legal. In both the US and India, you do not have the right to use violence against the competition. It's illegal if you prevent people from entering a factory and undercutting you, it's illegal if you sabotage the trucks of your competitors, etc. Further, a quick google search shows that sit-down strikes are illegal in the US and India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.htm http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.ht...
        anthonyb 15y ago
        Illegal != Immoral. Using phrases like "Criminal behaviour" implies both.
        yread 15y ago
        People's rights are not won by chatting on the internet. Check out this for stuff that happens in industrialized nations when people are pressed to hard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of...

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.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside the workplace to prevent or dissuade... If the non-workers prevent others from conducting business with their employer, it's a blockade, and it's illegal. If they merely persuade, it's a picket, and legal. In both the US and India, you do not have the right to use violence against the competition. It's illegal if you prevent people from entering a factory and undercutting you, it's illegal if you sabotage the trucks of your competitors, etc. Further, a quick google search shows that sit-down strikes are illegal in the US and India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.htm http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.ht...
      - anthonyb 15y ago
        Illegal != Immoral. Using phrases like "Criminal behaviour" implies both.
      - yread 15y ago
        People's rights are not won by chatting on the internet. Check out this for stuff that happens in industrialized nations when people are pressed to hard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of...