[WikiEN-l] murder versus kill

Thu Jul 29 19:06:18 UTC 2004

Harry Smith wrote:

>--- "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>No, its not about emotional undertone. "Murder" means
>>"wrongful immoral killing"; as in the Commandment
>>"Thou shall do no murder" usually misstated as "thou
>>shalt not kill"  This is the meaning of the word.
>>    
>>
>S Vertigo is correct on this point.  I didnt want to
>bring this up lest we have folks who are not aware of
>this and a new diversionary arguments begins on this
>point.
>
I think that very few of us are in a position to navigate the subtleties 
of translating Biblical Hebrew.

>>So why not just use the word murder in its general
>>sense? I agree its tempting to call all such killings
>>"murders" but nobody asks that we do so even-handedly
>>accross all topics for all non-accidental killing
>>(suicide, abortion, excecution, missile strikes,
>>collateral damage,), except for a very small number
>>of very strange people.
>>    
>>
>Murder has an intentional aspect.  
>
>Collateral damage is not murder for that reason, just
>as manslaughter is not murder.
>
So a group of bank robbers start shooting their guns.  Nobody in the 
bank is killed, but an uninvolved passerby gets it from a stray bullet 
when he is simply walking by outside.  There's likelihood of a murder 
conviction there for that collateral damage.

>Missile strikes either hit the target populated by
>enemy combatants or become collateral damage, unless
>the intention is to target civilian populations. 
>(this addresses both Major H. Schmidt and Qassam
>rocket attacks.  One can reach their own conclusions
>regarding Dresden. Thank God I was not issued that
>order.)
>
Schmidt disobeyed orders to hold his fire. 

>Suicide is considered self-murder in a number of
>societies. Unlike other murders, I dont know of any
>that impose the death penalty for it however. 
>
Civilized countries have repealed the death penalty.

>Execution is not "without lawful excuse" unless we are
>talking about the recent beheadings (murders) in Iraq
>regarding which the perpetrators prefer execution to
>murder.
>
Execution may have "lawful excuses" but few lawful reasons.

>Abortion is an issue about which numerous
>well-intentioned, well-respected individuals disagree.
>
Some argue that there is not yet a life there to be killed, so that 
opens up an argument that is outside the scope of murder vs. killing.

>>Im tempted myself, but the use of
>>the term carries a disruptive POV element (local pov
>>vs other) that without other reason justifies its
>>disinclusion.
>>
>Example and further elucidation, please.
>
The fact that this debate is happening at all should be proof enough.

>>>Killing the enemy in time of war is an effective
>>>means of preventing your comrades and yourself
>>>      
>>>
>>from being killed.  This distinction is important.
>>
>>But this can also be a soldiers rationalization, where
>>"enemy" can mean almost anyone (notice how some creeps
>>use the phrase "enemies, foreign 'and domestic?'"
>>Domestic enemies?  So, now we must "be vigilant" and
>>keep watch out for "domestic enemies," eh? (Rebel
>>scum?)  To pull apart your little statement, if an
>>"enemy" is, say, a whole race of people, is their
>>mass killing murder? 
>>
Protecting one's comrades does have a certain justification in the 
immediate circumstances.  The guilt arises from their both being there 
in the first place.  Following orders did not absolve any of the 
defendants at the Nuremberg trials

>Foreign enemies are often, not always, identified by
>uniform.  Domestic enemies are the province of law
>enforcement agencies rather than the military, unless
>during a state of emergency or an incident located on
>military property.
>
Where one country is trying to oppress another by applying overwhelming 
military might, those acting in defense of their country from a position 
of military weakness would be idiotic to wear uniforms.

>>To say that its "not technically a
>>crime called murder"; that would be simple avoidance
>>and denial of the issue. People in denail about
>>something cant or wont really participate in the
>>discussion.
>>
>Killing in war is not murder.  Neither technically nor
>ethically.  
>
That only applies to the winning side.

>War, disagreements, fights in kindergarden, require
>only one party to initiate. We all learned this many
>years ago. Once initiated the other party(ies) must
>decide how to respond.  To refrain from responding,
>seems hold out the possibility of veering in the realm
>of self-murder.
>
When to stand up for one's rights is always a tough decision.  In modern 
society those rights are often suppressed by other than direct action.  
If carcinogens are released into the environment it may be years before 
the effect follows the cause.

>My original questions seem to remain unanswered though
>we have started to discussed some of them:
>
>My question is do we use the term murder for this
>shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
>murder?
>
That's a false dichotomy.

>seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
>definitions for words at wikipedia.
>
>is this type of internal consistency valuable?
>
>if it is not should we make that known?
>
>is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
>definition POV?
>  
>
The real issue is who has the right to make that decision?  Their are 
obviously at least two POV's about whether there may have been a legal 
excuse.

Ec