[chrisseaton]

I don't know of anyone who disputes the killing of Wilkie happened or claims that it was somehow exaggerated.

As a taxi driver he was also not a police officer or an agent of the state. He was not armed or causing violence to anyone.

He was just driving someone who didn't agree with the union to work.

So they killed him.

[celticninja]

And they offenders were arrested, tried and punished. The difference here is the police are never subject to the same justice.

[dantheman]

And why are police never punished, because police unions. Unions in their modern form are granted special privileges by the government and use those privileges to extort society. There is nothing wrong with people joining groups, collective bargaining, etc -- the problem is that they are given special privileges by the state.

[BoiledCabbage]

I don't even understand what you're arguing. Aren't corporations given special privileges by the state? Are you against that well? Can you clarify what you're arguing here?

[terr-dav]

If any group is being given special privileges by the state, it's the police...

Normally, a union is formed to balance the power of capitalists with the laborers they employ. In the case of law enforcement, there is no capital, nor is their labor being used to produce something of value. If anything, law enforcement defends the interests of capitalists, rather than being subject to abuse by capitalists.

[iso1210]

No police union in the UK

[hehebbssjj]

Police unions have no solidarity with workers. They're groups that exist only to protect themselves, and they're happy to suppress strikes when it serves them. It's facile to consider them as part of labour unions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-des...

[kiliantics]

So you have a single example of an (accidental) killing by unions. Now look up how many people have been killed by corporations for striking.

[missedthecue]

in the last couple decades?

[tehjoker]

Are you willing to consider the scope of the entire world?

[pydry]

They dropped a concrete block on his car. It wasn't attempted murder it was attempted property damage.

So, yes, they killed him and were rightly imprisoned for manslaughter.

[refurb]

“Mostly peaceful” would be a good description?

[hyko]

I guess we can all agree that it wasn’t an attempted murder.

[stale2002]

Nah. I think I am pretty ok will calling someone who does this a murderer. That is totally fine in my book to call them that.

[iso1210]

The distinction in England+Wales law caused a fair bit of debate in the UK at the time and was tackled in the following case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Hancock

[kergonath]

Murder requires intent...

[PeterisP]

Well, they did intend to drop the concrete block on his car, the block wasn't dropped by accident or through their gross negligence (in which case it would be manslaughter).

Murder does require intent, but it does not necessarily require an intent to kill that person; if you intend to "just" assault a person but they die, that's murder; if you intend to kill someone but kill someone else whom you did not intend to kill, that's murder.

"extreme indifference to human life" (again, intentional) is generally considered murder - e.g. if you'd intentionally burn down your neighbour's house without knowing or caring if anyone's inside, then if someone dies, it's considered murder. And UK, where the incident happened, has the concept of felony-murder where any death (even if accidental) that happens in the process of felony can be considered murder, because the felony that endangered people's lives was intentional.

[DanBC]

Here's what CPS says about murder: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-ma...

> Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

> Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);

> unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);

> any reasonable creature (human being);

> in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;

> under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);

> with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

[iso1210]

> Well, they did intend to drop the concrete block on his car, the block wasn't dropped by accident or through their gross negligence (in which case it would be manslaughter).

It was manslaughter though

[a1369209993]

I'm comfortable assuming intent when someone discharges a kinetic weapon at a occupied vehicle. If the car was parked and they assumed it was unoccupied you might have a point.

I wouldn't have any trouble believing there were more attempted murders on the part of the anti-union side, or that this example happened differently than described, but what was described was clearly a (successful) attempt to kill someone.

[adamsea]

> discharges a kinetic weapon ...

Is that the same as shooting a gun? ; )

[a1369209993]

Guns are a specific type of kinetic weapon, yes. So are eg trebuchets or de-oribited asteroids.

[DoofusOfDeath]

This may be a case of competing definitions. It sounds like you're using a legal definition.

[john-shaffer]

How is dropping a concrete block on someone from 27 feet up not expected to kill them? Miners should have more common sense than that.