Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcny | Hacker News Reader

The difference is that the Americans, the Brits, and the Chinese can leave any time they want. I've talked to a few Indians and that tried to defend the mob that killed some guy for allegedly coming beef. More embarrassingly, they defended the police for taking a sample of the questionable meat for lab testing to check if it was beef.

I can forgive the mob. Maybe things get heated and people lose their minds. They should all go to prison for life but I can forgive them once the sentences are handed. I can never forgive the police for taking a sample of the meat to check if it was beef.

Democracy doesn't mean anything without rights of the minority. Not because you like Muslims. You can totally hate Muslims and still support basic decency of life for people of that faith.

View on HN

Defending lynching(done for whatever reason) is sickening.

However, I don't see how that is a reason for someone "not coming back to India". Not all people from the majority religion have ganged up and decided to lynch Muslims.

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.

> Democracy doesn't mean anything without rights of the minority. Not because you like Muslims. You can totally hate Muslims and still support basic decency of life for people of that faith.

What is the rationale behind this argument? The Indian state doesn't discriminate against people based on their religion or color. I am not denying criminal acts against Muslims. Investigations are on in these cases and people are being punished as per the law.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43496017

> The Indian state doesn't discriminate against people based on their religion or color.

In theory that is correct. But states have the luxury of being economical with the effort they put in. The spurt in beef related lynching is a phenomenon of the current government and has been going on in a while.

> Investigations are on in these cases and people are being punished as per the law.

I assume that statement of yours is based on some knowledge. How many convictions so far ?

I can give examples where the accused got immediate bail layed out on a red carpet.

Why wouldn't the police take a sample of the meat for lab testing and evidence?

It would seem to be a crucial piece of motive for the mob crime; it's also unlikely that the man killed was solely responsible for the entire chain of killing, butchering, and transporting the finished beef product, so other people may be implicated as well, etc.

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.

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.)

It is not illegal and even if it were it does not, in any lawful society, justify extrajudicial torture and/or murder.

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/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?

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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?

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?

What's this story ?

googling for "india death beef" gives you quite a few similar stories to choose from.

Then I don't understand "I can never forgive the police for taking a sample of the meat to check if it was beef." If it's forbidden in that state, where's the problem with sampling ?

Because it is signalling.

What does that even mean ? Shouldn't they sort things out ? Is it signalling when police conducts interrogations following someone's accusations then ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com