Comment by martythemaniak | Hacker News Reader

Comment by martythemaniak | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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?

"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?

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.

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.

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-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.

> 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.

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://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.ht...

Illegal != Immoral. Using phrases like "Criminal behaviour" implies both.

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...

I just read through that India Together article. Very interesting, but it doesn't support your position at all:

"The Rangarajan case simply ignores statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and an equal number of case laws laid down by larger benches that have recognized the right to strike. It also fails to consider International Covenants that pave the way for this right as a basic tenet of international labour standards."

and

"In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (v), Justice Ahmadi opined that "The Trade Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining strength would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate by adopting agitational methods such as 'work to rule', 'go-slow', 'absenteeism', 'sit-down strike', and 'strike'. This has been recognized by almost all democratic countries"."

You are a right wing libertarian loon.

Well? He is. A blockade is apparently "criminal behaviour", but police beating the blockaders with clubs until at least twenty of them are hospitalised and one of them dies gets a "How do you know the union leader was killed unnecessarily?"

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com