What distinguishes "killing human beings" from murder?

Thread hop; nothing distinguishes killing another person from murder, for me. If you talk of the kinds of murder — manslaughter, "justified" execution, an accident — the context differs, guilt or no guilt.

But you put a life into a lower state of existence.

If I recall correctly, Edward Coke defined murder as the unlawful killing of a human being in rerum natura, with the unlawful act being the cause of death in law and in fact (that is, without an intervening cause).

Therefore, murder is killing unlawfully, and that's all there is to it.

What does that even mean?

I very much agree with you.

That they were removed from this mortal coil. Not in the land of the living. Six feet under. Dead.

Thus they can't live in the physical realm like the rest of us.

edited 7th May '11 7:12:14 PM by EldritchBlueRose

Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.

So, no distinction for accidents, self defense, defense of another or killing the an enemy in time of war? It's all murder?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

The "time of war" bit has always puzzled me slightly. What's to stop one side treating the whole thing as a law enforcement issue? After all a military invasion is simply multiple counts of illegal immigration, violation of assorted transportation regulations, assault battery, use of deadly weapons, murder and conspiracy to commit the above.

In general, the Geneva Conventions.

It's more a mutual respect thing than anything else.

To be more specific: Murder is a subset of killing a human being. Murder is the deliberate or intentional killing of a person without legal or moral justification.

Killing in self-defense or the defense of others is not murder. Many moral and legal codes agree that a person has a right to kill in self-defense or defense of another. It may be unpleasant and cause problems with one's conscience, but it isn't murder.

Killing by accident is not murder. It may be a lesser offense, but it is not murder because the person did not have the specific intent to kill.

Killing another person pursuant to the legal authority of the State in accord with due process of law, or killing according to the laws and customs of war is not murder. One can argue the morality of capital punishment or warfare, but it is generally agreed that killing by execution or according to lawful warfare is not murder.

"The "time of war" bit has always puzzled me slightly. What's to stop one side treating the whole thing as a law enforcement issue? After all a military invasion is simply multiple counts of illegal immigration, violation of assorted transportation regulations, assault battery, use of deadly weapons, murder and conspiracy to commit the above."

The difference between warfare and unlawful action is a public declaration or public action that is in accordance with warfare. An open and hostile invasion by uniformed and armed troops is warfare. Infiltration by spies or saboteurs is espionage. Soldiers should be treated according to the laws of war, but spies and saboteurs can be treated as common criminals.

edited 9th May '11 9:47:30 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Also the point of a war is not to kill other people, but to reduce their capacity to resist.

If somebody slips on a wet floor, hits their head and dies as a result, would you say the person who washed the floor is a murderer?

Thread hop, bounce bounce.

For me, the difference is in the context. Killing in self-defense when in mortal danger is not murder and I would hope that no-one would blame themselves for it. Murder is mostly killing someone in cold blood.

But consider this question:

You know someone who has a lot of tough friends. One day, while walking through the city, you witness them commit a murder in an alley. You're close to a main street, so you have plenty of time to run away and disappear. But they've seen you. They might come after you later, or send their buddies. And similarly, if you turn them into the police the result may be the same. Is it just to kill someone in pre-emptive self-defense, especially if the reach of their violence could be felt if they were locked up?

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

I'd say that's murder. Preemptively killing somebody when you are in no immediate danger based on your fear that they or somebody else might hurt you isn't justification. In that position, you should go to the police and tell them what's happened and ask for protection. That's what they're supposed to do. If somebody actually does come after you, then you may be justified in killing in self-defense at that time, but until you are actually in mortal danger, then killing him would be murder.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Madass Alex: If they have commited a murder, and they are closing inn on me looking scary, then frankly they intend to kill me, hence I am already in self defence. The "somebody must have shoot the first shoot"-part is bullshit.
If I have several people with bloodstained hands in front of me not giving of a signal that they just want to talk, and they attempt to push me around somehow, they are per defintion attempting an assault.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

^ I think he's referring to the case where you aren't in immediate danger.

@Madass Alex: I think that would fall under Citizen's Arrest: If you witness a felony being committed, you are allowed to restrain the perpetrator and assist police in capturing him. You are therefore probably justified in pulling a gun on the murderer and ordering him to freeze. If he then makes a hostile move, you're now in self-defense territory. It's a bit doubtful if he runs though... Does "shooting him down" count as "restraining"?

<><

I think if they were actually closing in on you in a threatening manner, you'd be entirely justified in using reasonable force to defend yourself. That might include killing them, if that was reasonable in the circumstances e.g. they clearly had a gun and looked as if they might be ready to use it. I'm not sure about the "letting them shoot the first shot" thing - it's certainly not a requirement of English law, and if it is elsewhere I can't see why. It seems to defeat the whole purpose of allowing self-defence.

edited 10th May '11 10:58:52 AM by captainbrass2

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Yeah, if they're after you it's definitely ok. Where I live they even tried to get the requirement to warn people first repealed...

But I think the above posted was talking about a situation where the person is not actively trying to kill you right now, but you have good reason to believe that he will try to kill you in the near future.

<><

Par on the course for my country. Here no one ever denounces theft, rape or drug marketing in some neighborhoos because if they do, the neighbours and drug / rape clans will kill them not soon, but late after they're back home.

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?