Murder is Murder

[NWRatCon]

Murder is defined in a number of consistent ways:
At common law, murder was "historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought." (LII);
Merriam Webster defines it as "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person";
Wikipedia as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction";
and the FBI, "as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." Clarifying further that, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body." (Homicide has a different meaning, as there are a number of nuances to the concept.)

Two events in the last weeks are the basis for this thread. The first, the targeting of a boat in the Caribbean by the Trump regime with military ordnance; the second, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In neither circumstance has a legal justification been put forth to justify the killing and in both cases the victims of the violence have been described as "bad actors". Also in both circumstances, there is no denying that the act was deliberate (premeditated).

What I have been struck by is that in both situations there are those that have attempted to justify an obviously illegal act - but those same people have rendered the opposite opinion in the case of the other.

I know that this is going to open an incredible can of worms, but I think that it is important to be morally clear about the central point: Murder is murder. It is unjustified. It has legal ramifications. And, I think, it is vitally important that we all agree that it is a morally reprehensible act, whether the victim is an anonymous foreigner, a public iconoclast, a political figure, a kid at school or a member of a disfavored race, ethnicity, religious persuasion or gender.

 

[Gozaburo]

At common law, murder was "historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought." (LII);
Merriam Webster defines it as "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person";

Where exactly do you think laws come from? Do you truly have trouble distinguishing between a killing carried out by the most powerful empire on the planet vs. a politically motivated terrorist carrying out an extrajudicial killing due to political disagreement?

This is just a total mess of an OP. You're throwing around words like "justified" and "legal" and "ramifications" without properly understanding what the ontological status of rights or morality even is, which is why you think comparing domestic political terrorism to killings carried out by a state are comparable in any way whatsoever. Totally absurd.

 

[NWRatCon]

Where exactly do you think laws come from? Do you truly have trouble distinguishing between a killing carried out by the most powerful empire on the planet vs. a politically motivated terrorist carrying out an extrajudicial killing due to political disagreement?

This is just a total mess of an OP. You're throwing around words like "justified" and "legal" and "ramifications" without properly understanding what the ontological status of rights or morality even is, which is why you think comparing domestic political terrorism to killings carried out by a state are comparable in any way whatsoever. Totally absurd.

When you don't know what the **** you're talking about, it is better to keep silent and let people only think you are a fool. I'd prefer that the first response come from someone with an informed view.

 

[Gozaburo]

When you don't know what the **** you're talking about, it is better to keep silent and let people only think you are a fool. I'd prefer that the first response come from someone with an informed view.

Okay go ahead and keep thinking some random citizen exists in the same legal jurisdiction as the US government goofball lmfao

 

[Slartibartfast]

Murder is defined in a number of consistent ways:
At common law, murder was "historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought." (LII);
Merriam Webster defines it as "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person";
Wikipedia as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction";
and the FBI, "as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." Clarifying further that, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body." (Homicide has a different meaning, as there are a number of nuances to the concept.)

Two events in the last weeks are the basis for this thread. The first, the targeting of a boat in the Caribbean by the Trump regime with military ordnance; the second, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In neither circumstance has a legal justification been put forth to justify the killing and in both cases the victims of the violence have been described as "bad actors". Also in both circumstances, there is no denying that the act was deliberate (premeditated).

What I have been struck by is that in both situations there are those that have attempted to justify an obviously illegal act - but those same people have rendered the opposite opinion in the case of the other.

I know that this is going to open an incredible can of worms, but I think that it is important to be morally clear about the central point: Murder is murder. It is unjustified. It has legal ramifications. And, I think, it is vitally important that we all agree that it is a morally reprehensible act, whether the victim is an anonymous foreigner, a public iconoclast, a political figure, a kid at school or a member of a disfavored race, ethnicity, religious persuasion or gender.

This is a fair point. The right should condemn Trump's political violence here.

 

[Mycroft]

Murder is defined in a number of consistent ways:
At common law, murder was "historically defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought." (LII);
Merriam Webster defines it as "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person";
Wikipedia as "the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction";
and the FBI, "as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another." Clarifying further that, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body." (Homicide has a different meaning, as there are a number of nuances to the concept.)

Two events in the last weeks are the basis for this thread. The first, the targeting of a boat in the Caribbean by the Trump regime with military ordnance; the second, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In neither circumstance has a legal justification been put forth to justify the killing and in both cases the victims of the violence have been described as "bad actors". Also in both circumstances, there is no denying that the act was deliberate (premeditated).

What I have been struck by is that in both situations there are those that have attempted to justify an obviously illegal act - but those same people have rendered the opposite opinion in the case of the other.

I know that this is going to open an incredible can of worms, but I think that it is important to be morally clear about the central point: Murder is murder. It is unjustified. It has legal ramifications. And, I think, it is vitally important that we all agree that it is a morally reprehensible act, whether the victim is an anonymous foreigner, a public iconoclast, a political figure, a kid at school or a member of a disfavored race, ethnicity, religious persuasion or gender.

What makes you think "the targeting of a boat in the Caribbean by the Trump regime with military ordnance" is "an obviously illegal act"?

 

[NWRatCon]

This is a fair point. The right should condemn Trump's political violence here.

I'd just like a few people to look at the substance and ignore their political stance. I am frequently galled by people - of various political persuasions - who refuse any kind of self, or other honest, reflection of their views.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'd just like a few people to look at the substance and ignore their political stance.

I see in far too many threads the complete inability to look at reality - in Gaza, in Ukraine, and in the United States. Too often there are no standards, just our view and their view.

 

[NWRatCon]

What makes you think "the targeting of a boat in the Caribbean by the Trump regime with military ordnance" is "an obviously illegal act"?

The complete lack of any legal justification. It simply isn't there. It was a specialty of mine, and I have addressed that question multiple times in detail.