A lot of people seem to use "killing" and "murder" interchangably, though they are different in more than legal ways. A building collapsing can kill a person, as can a landslide, and an uncontrollably skidding car. A lion attacking a human and eating his organs is no murderer, and neither is that human for defending themselves by killing that lion before he can finish his attack. One human killing another does not necessarily have to be murdering them. Initiation of violence, and intent, determine the difference between killing and murder. Even self-killing and self-murder have their own words (suicide is one). Also crows; They gather in murders all the time.
Please consider applying the correct word to the context you wish to discuss.
You are not responding to the previous comment. If you want to say that you think killing someone because they took or damaged your things is justified, say that. GGP was clearly saying that doing so is murder (in my reading: normatively if not in the eyes of the law), so respond to that.
I think parent was referring to the definition of murder being "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Killing someone under lawful circumstances (such as self defense) is not murder, under this definition.
Getting pretty deep in the semantic weeds here though, and I feel obliged to say I have no horse in this race either way. Don't kill or murder me :)
It’s not murder if it’s legal. Just like killing in war isn’t murder. The guy stealing your catalytic converters defiantly deserves it more than the random dude in Iraq.
“Murder” is the name of specific crimes in many legal jurisdictions, but it’s also an English word that is commonly used in ways that overlap significantly but not perfectly with specific legal jurisdictions.
Don't kill anyone who is not trying to murder you. If you catch someone stealing your catalyst, you use your weapon to deter a violent action of his part, not to stop the theft by murdering him. The fact that he is willing to disregard societal property norms, already flags him as potentially dangerous, s he might enforce his criminal difference of opinion by using violence. That is why security is armed; Not to shoot the sucker in the back as he is absconding with your stuff. Unless your stuff could be used to harm others, then you might be justified in using reasonable force. Always try to de-escalate, but respond in kind.
> The fact that he is willing to disregard societal property norms, already flags him as potentially dangerous, s he might enforce his criminal difference of opinion by using violence.
The fact that people keep talking about gun ownership in Texas like it's a deterrent is odd. It's not like the criminals don't have weapons too.
Running a stoplight and making an illegal left turn into a kid running across the street, is unlwaful. Still counts as killing (legal term: manslaughter), not murder.
True, but that isn't relevant. I am saying it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be murder. By definition, it must be unlawful, but it also must be premeditated.
>True, but that isn't relevant. I am saying it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to be murder. By definition, it must be unlawful, but it also must be premeditated.
IANAL, but I don't believe murder can only be if it's premeditated. In fact, IIUC, most murders are not premeditated.
