Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PROTESTING MINERS GUNNED DOWN BY POLICE
Posts
Pages:
1
Tau
View playlists
Closeauthor=BBC
Thirty-four people were killed after police opened fire on striking miners at a South African mine on Thursday, the police chief has said.
Riah Phiyega said police had been forced to shoot after armed protesters charged them, "firing shots", at the Marikana mine in the north-east.
At least 78 people were injured in the confrontation, she added.
Unions are demanding an inquiry into the incident - one of the bloodiest police operations since apartheid.
The Lonmin-owned platinum mine has been at the centre of a violent pay dispute, exacerbated by tensions between two rival trade unions.
Violence had already killed 10 people, including two police officers, since the strike began a week ago.
Some of the strikers' wives gathered near the mine on Friday, chanting anti-police songs and demanding to know what had happened to their husbands.
"Police, stop shooting our husbands and sons," read a banner carried by the women, according to the Associated Press news agency.
South African President Jacob Zuma has cut short a trip to Mozambique in order to visit the mine, which lies about 100km (62 miles) north-west of Johannesburg.
'Maximum force'
Police were sent to break up some 3,000 miners - some armed with clubs and machetes - who had gathered on a hillside overlooking Marikana to call for a pay rise of about $1,000 (£636) a month.
The circumstances that led police to open fire remain unclear, but reports from eyewitnesses suggest the shooting took place after a group of demonstrators rushed at a line of police officers.
Police, armed with automatic rifles and pistols, fired dozens of shots, witnesses said.
One witness, Molaole Montsho, of the South African news agency Sapa, said police had first used water cannon, tear gas and stun grenades in an attempt to break up the protest.
"And then in the commotion - we were about 800m from the scene - we heard gunshots that lasted for about two minutes," he said.
David Nkolisi, 37, who works as a rock-drill operator, told the BBC: "We were killed for asking our employer to pay us a decent salary for hard work deep underground."
At a news conference on Friday, Ms Phiyega said police had been forced to open fire to protect themselves.
"The militant group stormed toward the police, firing shots and wielding dangerous weapons," Ms Phiyega said. "Police were forced to use maximum force to defend themselves."
She said 259 people had been arrested on various charges.
The Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) accused the police of carrying out a massacre.
"There was no need whatsoever for these people to be killed like that," General Secretary Jeffrey Mphahlele told Reuters news agency.
A spokesman said President Zuma would be travelling to the site later on Friday.
"The president is concerned about the violent nature of the protest, especially given that the constitution and labour laws allow enough avenues to deal with issues, and is sympathetic to calls for a commission of inquiry," his spokesman Mac Maharaj said in a statement.
Thursday's incident came after several days of violent strikes in which 10 people were killed, including two police officers who were hacked to death.
The miners, who are currently earning between 4000-5000 rand ($484 - $605), say they want their salary increased to 12,500 ($1,512).
The stand-off has been exacerbated by rivalry between two trade unions, with the AMCU, a new group, seeking to challenge the dominance of the NUM.
The NUM is seen as being close to the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and the two groups were allies in the fight to end white minority rule, although relations between the ANC and the unions have worsened in recent years.
South Africa is the largest platinum producer in the world and the dispute has already affected production.
Lonmin, the world's third-largest platinum producer, has encountered similar labour disputes at the Marikana mine. In May 2011, the company sacked some 9,000 employees after a strike.
News Article
Unedited:
What do you guys think about all this?
There's a clear line between a peaceful strike and a violent one, especially if the strikers are armed and show clear hostility towards the police. I'm personally of the opinion that the police had every right to defend themselves.
Do you think they were still defending themselves by the time the thirtieth person was dead?
edit: Looking at that video, I'm not even sure why the shooting started.
Here's a quote from the San Francisco Bayview that pretty much sums up my feelings on this:
edit: Looking at that video, I'm not even sure why the shooting started.
Here's a quote from the San Francisco Bayview that pretty much sums up my feelings on this:
The precise details of the killings are unclear, but irrespective of this the blame lies squarely with the ANC government which has been in power for 18 years while conditions have become worse for most South Africans.
The mineworkers strike and the struggle for decent housing, health, incomes and education are the same struggles the ANC once supported but have turned their backs on since gaining power.
They have betrayed the core principles of the historic “Freedom Charter” and instead followed free-market economic policies which has meant little change in the lives of the poorest South Africans while a wealthy elite, which includes a few Black faces now, has become obscenely rich.
Race-based apartheid has been replaced with economic apartheid.
Dyhalto
7536
A strike begins with workers simply refusing to work.
Intimidation and aggression tactics ordinarily begin on the employer/state's side. As the workers arm themselves to guard against Battle of the Overpass style brutality, the violence level escalates. Ongoing violence supports the company/states' case to shut them down more often than it does the workers' case to keep up the good fight.
There's a reason thousands of workers are striking/demonstrating, and it isn't because they're a mob of ruffians who want to go around chopping up cops. What prompted a group of them to "charge" the police when all you have to do to strike is sit down and cross your arms? Add to that, the use of the phrase "illegal strike", which shows a clear bias by Al Jazeera.*
This whole thing stinks of setup. You can get away with a lot of shit in rural Africa.
*All strikes are illegal. It's the whole point of them. Concerted democratic action to force TPTB to accede to your demands. Codifying various strike behaviors as 'legal' or 'illegal' is counterproductive to the whole concept.
Intimidation and aggression tactics ordinarily begin on the employer/state's side. As the workers arm themselves to guard against Battle of the Overpass style brutality, the violence level escalates. Ongoing violence supports the company/states' case to shut them down more often than it does the workers' case to keep up the good fight.
There's a reason thousands of workers are striking/demonstrating, and it isn't because they're a mob of ruffians who want to go around chopping up cops. What prompted a group of them to "charge" the police when all you have to do to strike is sit down and cross your arms? Add to that, the use of the phrase "illegal strike", which shows a clear bias by Al Jazeera.*
This whole thing stinks of setup. You can get away with a lot of shit in rural Africa.
*All strikes are illegal. It's the whole point of them. Concerted democratic action to force TPTB to accede to your demands. Codifying various strike behaviors as 'legal' or 'illegal' is counterproductive to the whole concept.
UPRC
5516
author=KingArthur
There's a clear line between a peaceful strike and a violent one, especially if the strikers are armed and show clear hostility towards the police. I'm personally of the opinion that the police had every right to defend themselves.
But most strikers aren't driven to act quite so extreme, so you have to question how things could have even escalated like that. While it's awful that workers lost their lives, it seems like this was a case of "hurt us before we hurt you." I sympathize for the workers and their rights, but not for their actions.
There probably is a reason behind why the strikers acted like they did and the root cause should be investigated and appropriate actions taken to prevent a recurrance of this event, but the point of debate here is whether the police were right to open fire at a charging group of armed strikers in self-defense.
From what I've seen of the two videos up there, it's pretty clear that some group of strikers were charging (or at least moving rapidly towards) the police. No matter the exact cause behind the strike that would enduce such a charge, the strikers provoked the police force present to open fire to defend themselves from what they understandably perceived as a legitimate threat (remember that the strikers were already armed with lethal weaponry).
Unless there is clear and certified evidence of the police force opening fire first or otherwise provoking the strikers into charging, I'm personally of the opinion that there really isn't much to discuss about. Of particular note, I took the frantic calls of "cease fire!" after the initial wave of fire to mean that the police were trying to keep casualties as low as possible in an already tense and deteriorated situation.
From what I've seen of the two videos up there, it's pretty clear that some group of strikers were charging (or at least moving rapidly towards) the police. No matter the exact cause behind the strike that would enduce such a charge, the strikers provoked the police force present to open fire to defend themselves from what they understandably perceived as a legitimate threat (remember that the strikers were already armed with lethal weaponry).
Unless there is clear and certified evidence of the police force opening fire first or otherwise provoking the strikers into charging, I'm personally of the opinion that there really isn't much to discuss about. Of particular note, I took the frantic calls of "cease fire!" after the initial wave of fire to mean that the police were trying to keep casualties as low as possible in an already tense and deteriorated situation.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
It's too bad they couldn't keep things calmer. It would have been nice if the strike had only been...
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
... a miner incident.
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
... a miner incident.
author=LockeZ
It's too bad they couldn't keep things calmer. It would have been nice if the strike had only been...
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
... a miner incident.
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ O U
There are a lot of ways to control a crowd, even one armed with blades, without live ammunition and automatic weaponry.
Really? You think they were trying to keep casualties as low as possible and gunned down 34 people and injured 78 others?
I'm not sure exactly what happened. The eyewitness accounts from journalists tend to vary. Most sources tend to agree that the workers shot first, although they don't really say if they were discharging into the air or the ground or at people or what, and Al Jazeera says that " the strikers had been forced by police in armored vehicles with water cannons into an area surrounded by razor wire at which point the shooting began" which...doesn't really sound good. In any case, just from the bodycount I really doubt that the police gave a fuck about the number of casualties.
Of particular note, I took the frantic calls of "cease fire!" after the initial wave of fire to mean that the police were trying to keep casualties as low as possible in an already tense and deteriorated situation.
Really? You think they were trying to keep casualties as low as possible and gunned down 34 people and injured 78 others?
I'm not sure exactly what happened. The eyewitness accounts from journalists tend to vary. Most sources tend to agree that the workers shot first, although they don't really say if they were discharging into the air or the ground or at people or what, and Al Jazeera says that " the strikers had been forced by police in armored vehicles with water cannons into an area surrounded by razor wire at which point the shooting began" which...doesn't really sound good. In any case, just from the bodycount I really doubt that the police gave a fuck about the number of casualties.
See, that's the thing though when you have keepers of the peace who are trying to keep said peace among a thousand+ mob of angry people.
I stand by what the police did, it's so easy for people who don't know the pressure to say "ooh that's so wrong" maybe the motherfuckas shouldn't have ran at armed men with weapons, or for that matter shooting off rounds in the ground or air. Situation is already tense, they don't need that.
I agree that it could probably have been handled differently, but shit, if they really did use smoke and tear gas and all that and the protesters were still being aggressive, then I don't seem much leeway the police officers had.
And fyi, if they didn't care about casualties they would have just unloaded until everyone was dead. So, that's not true.
I'm getting tired of seeing people always blame the police in shit like this, I know officials can be bad and bloodlusty, but not all of them.
You really think any of those cops wanted to mow down people that day? Some maybe, but then again they got charged like some shit from Black Hawk Down.
Also, you did read that some police officers got hacked to death, right? I'm sure the policemen were on fucking edge when a huge crowd of armed people ran at them.
;tltr - I agree with KingArthur, legitimate threat was there to take the actions they did.
(I dare you to not shoot an angry mob rushing you, I dare you.)
I stand by what the police did, it's so easy for people who don't know the pressure to say "ooh that's so wrong" maybe the motherfuckas shouldn't have ran at armed men with weapons, or for that matter shooting off rounds in the ground or air. Situation is already tense, they don't need that.
I agree that it could probably have been handled differently, but shit, if they really did use smoke and tear gas and all that and the protesters were still being aggressive, then I don't seem much leeway the police officers had.
And fyi, if they didn't care about casualties they would have just unloaded until everyone was dead. So, that's not true.
I'm getting tired of seeing people always blame the police in shit like this, I know officials can be bad and bloodlusty, but not all of them.
You really think any of those cops wanted to mow down people that day? Some maybe, but then again they got charged like some shit from Black Hawk Down.
Also, you did read that some police officers got hacked to death, right? I'm sure the policemen were on fucking edge when a huge crowd of armed people ran at them.
;tltr - I agree with KingArthur, legitimate threat was there to take the actions they did.
(I dare you to not shoot an angry mob rushing you, I dare you.)
I agree that it could probably have been handled differently, but shit, if they really did use smoke and tear gas and all that and the protesters were still being aggressive,
Um. Rubber bullets? And they killed a lot of people, dude. Just because they didn't literally murder the other 2900 people does not mean they cared about casualties. There's a difference between doing your job poorly and being a cartoon monster. They continued to shoot after bodies dropped and others turned to run. s-s-s-sharpville. Please don't try to twist my words.
I never said that the cops wanted to mow them down. Ever. But sure, I'll pretend to be the strawman you wanted me to be. The police basically planned on killing them from the start from what I've read. It's an extremely important point that all of these miners were herded towards the waiting line of police with live ammunition.
It doesn't matter that police officers got murdered. That was a separate preceding event and not really comparable to the exploitation of the workers in terms of "damage caused." If you say that was a factor, then you are basically admitting that this was an emotionally charged revenge killing perpetrated by people who are extremely bad at their job.
Sorry if it came off that way, but I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I just think that it's wrong to constantly blame the police force when they were probably in an honest threat.
And I doubt they were being "herded" so they could be shot, it's angry people getting violent.
And it's a factor though, not for an emotionally fueled shooting fest, but because in the back of their minds they had to be thinking that. In a protest, some cops got killed. And now you have a large group of armed(and unarmed) protesters rushing you, I'm just saying that you can't really blame the cops if they felt they were going to be attacked.
I wouldn't say any police officer is bad at his job for a situation like this, they gotta be under some extreme pressure.
I don't know, just tired of people(not you, specifically) making cops look bad because they are doing their job, even if it's not always pleasant.
If there wasn't someone stopping them they probably would've busted into their workplace or their boss headquarters or w/e and killed people.
It's not like you ARM yourself for a peaceful protest.
And I doubt they were being "herded" so they could be shot, it's angry people getting violent.
And it's a factor though, not for an emotionally fueled shooting fest, but because in the back of their minds they had to be thinking that. In a protest, some cops got killed. And now you have a large group of armed(and unarmed) protesters rushing you, I'm just saying that you can't really blame the cops if they felt they were going to be attacked.
I wouldn't say any police officer is bad at his job for a situation like this, they gotta be under some extreme pressure.
I don't know, just tired of people(not you, specifically) making cops look bad because they are doing their job, even if it's not always pleasant.
If there wasn't someone stopping them they probably would've busted into their workplace or their boss headquarters or w/e and killed people.
It's not like you ARM yourself for a peaceful protest.
Dyhalto
7536
author=InfectionFiles
I just think that it's wrong to constantly blame the police force when they were probably in an honest threat.
In this situation, the police force's behavior is reprehensible. The people they shot are striking workers who would have responded to "stop immediately or be shot" followed by warning shots. They weren't Jihadi martyrs or zombies.
Keep in mind that the South African Police aren't the same police you and I enjoy in our community. They're shrouded with accusations of torture, extra-judicial killing, extortion, all that stuff. I'm sure they attend their own little police academy, and get their own colored uniforms, but are these guys really much better than local-warlord thugs with authorization to apply force? I'm not in position to make that call, but the records look ugly.
Anyway, I get the impression that the workers were running away from something. Maybe they "charged" the cops thinking they would get protection from whatever it was to their back. We'll never know because they were gunned down as soon as they emerged from the tall grass.
My suspected scenarios, based on what little I know :
A) Total accident. The workers ran in the wrong direction at the wrong time. The whole area was probably tense, especially if water cannons and razor wire barriers were involved. One loose cannon cop opened fire, and the rest followed in unison.
B) Blood feud between some workers and guys on the force. They were shot at on one side, and ran to the other, where unprofessional, cowardly cops shot them down in a panic. A deliberate herding so that no single person or group would get blamed.
C) Nefarious company/state plot to get world public opinion on the side of "shut those strikes down". Very unlikely, but not worth ruling out.
For me, the far-fetched scenario is that a group of working males, who want to improve the standard of living for their families, would sacrifice themselves in some bloodlusted, head-on charge.
WonderPup
50
author=Dyhalto
All strikes are illegal. It's the whole point of them. Concerted democratic action to force TPTB to accede to your demands. Codifying various strike behaviors as 'legal' or 'illegal' is counterproductive to the whole concept.
This isn't true. If you work at a generic manufacturing facility and you strike, that's not illegal. It's disruptive, but not illegal. You can walk off the job, and everything is fine. No one has put laws in place to prevent that.
In an industry like the nuclear industry, however, if you walk off the job, there is a chance that lives could be lost, and certain portions of the country/world could potentially become uninhabitable. There are laws in place to prevent that from happening, so those strikes would be illegal. Same with air-traffic controllers.
But not all strikes are illegal.
Dyhalto
7536
^
I use the term "illegal" liberally for emphases. You need to look at the scope of strike action.
If a single steel worker walks off the job, he's breaking the rules, and they can fire him. It's not "illegal" in a technical sense from the government standpoint, but it is against the company's rules and is subject to discipline. So it's illegal from the company standpoint.
As for the real technical sense, thanks to the rise of powerful unions throughout history, western nations have lots of laws saying what kind of strike action is legal and what is not. To use an analogy, the kids are always fighting over the TV. Dad (government) doesn't want to have to get involved every single time, nor does he want to see them beat each other senseless, so he sets some rules for how they can decide amongst themselves. There's a list of things they can do (do each other's homework for more time) and can't do (fist fight). Only on rare occasions will dad get involved, like Truman seizing the steel mills.
So yes, steel workers can leave their workstations and picket for three months, reach a negotiation, return to work, and no laws of the land will have been broken. If the company had their way, they'd either fire everybody or Pinkerton their asses back to work. Labor laws prevent that sort of behavior.
The next step is to see how these same strike tactics work against the rule-setting authority : government. We've already seen Occupy scuffles with cops in riot gear, so they're a little touchy on the subject. We've also seen the setting up of "free speech zones" where you can dissent freely and ineffectively. We'll see how legality comes into play as conditions in the US deteriorate, and government agencies start to use legality as a tool to squash useful dissent.
I use the term "illegal" liberally for emphases. You need to look at the scope of strike action.
If a single steel worker walks off the job, he's breaking the rules, and they can fire him. It's not "illegal" in a technical sense from the government standpoint, but it is against the company's rules and is subject to discipline. So it's illegal from the company standpoint.
As for the real technical sense, thanks to the rise of powerful unions throughout history, western nations have lots of laws saying what kind of strike action is legal and what is not. To use an analogy, the kids are always fighting over the TV. Dad (government) doesn't want to have to get involved every single time, nor does he want to see them beat each other senseless, so he sets some rules for how they can decide amongst themselves. There's a list of things they can do (do each other's homework for more time) and can't do (fist fight). Only on rare occasions will dad get involved, like Truman seizing the steel mills.
So yes, steel workers can leave their workstations and picket for three months, reach a negotiation, return to work, and no laws of the land will have been broken. If the company had their way, they'd either fire everybody or Pinkerton their asses back to work. Labor laws prevent that sort of behavior.
The next step is to see how these same strike tactics work against the rule-setting authority : government. We've already seen Occupy scuffles with cops in riot gear, so they're a little touchy on the subject. We've also seen the setting up of "free speech zones" where you can dissent freely and ineffectively. We'll see how legality comes into play as conditions in the US deteriorate, and government agencies start to use legality as a tool to squash useful dissent.
Update: All the miners are being charged with murder. Against themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484
Also, I've read that the situation with the two dead policemen is that their killers were killed before the massacre took place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19424484
Workers arrested at South Africa's Marikana mine have been charged in court with the murder of 34 of their colleagues shot by police.
The 270 workers would be tried under the "common purpose" doctrine because they were in the crowd which confronted police on 16 August, an official said.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesman Frank Lesenyego told the BBC the 270 workers would all face murder charges - including those who were unarmed or were at the back of the crowd.
"This is under common law, where people are charged with common purpose in a situation where there are suspects with guns or any weapons and they confront or attack the police and a shooting takes place and there are fatalities," he said.
South African lawyer Jay Surju told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme that the "common purpose" doctrine was used by the former white minority regime against activists fighting for racial equality in South Africa.
"This is a very outdated and infamous doctrine," he said.
"It was discredited during the time of apartheid."
Also, I've read that the situation with the two dead policemen is that their killers were killed before the massacre took place.
Pages:
1
