What is the difference between murdering and killing. They both result in death... when you are a soldier you know you might end up killing somebody... better, thats part of your training.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Printable View
What is the difference between murdering and killing. They both result in death... when you are a soldier you know you might end up killing somebody... better, thats part of your training.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You kill someone if you happen to be on the road and a suicidal person jumps in front of your car.
It all depends on who is being killed, and who is doing the killing.
Any specifics you’re thinking of? :bow:
I mean what would you specify as murder and what as killing, do you see any difference at all etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharrukin
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
Yes, there is a difference between KILLING and MURDER. Everything eventually ends in death as we are all going to die anyway. The circumstances do matter!
I would count "killing" as "manslaughter" not "murder" however thats quite a broad generalisation, because both words are used very vaguely :2thumbsup:
manslaughter sounds more brutal than murder and killing :P
Broadly, murder is intentional and/or planned killing when not in defense of other lives.
Well, of the six examples above, I would only call no 6 murder, the definitions I'd use are:
1 - misadventure (possibly negligence depending on fences/warnings etc)
2 - manslaughter
3 - death by dangerous driving (but I've long thought you can get away with murder so long as you do it with a car....) or manslaughter
4 - self-defence, but she has to make a good case for killing as opposed to incapacitating him (ie was HE armed, too?)
5 - line of duty for both soldiers
6 - murder, pure and simple
What makes it murder is an intention to kill someone unlawfully. Manslaughter is death caused whilst attempting to HURT someone unlawfully. I think there's a case to extend manslaughter to include drink driving deaths. My definitions are rough n ready rather than legally sound, btw!
1) No that is accidentalQuote:
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
2) No this is either Manslaughter (un-intentional killing) or negligence
3) Manslaughter
4) Self Defence
5) ... how could this be murder?
6) Murder
Murder is defined as intentionally killing an innocent or defenceless person
manslaughter is unintentionally killing an innocent
everything else is killing for a reason (soldiers and self defence killings fit here)
Was the soldier ordered to kill women and children? If he was then it doesnt really count as murder...Quote:
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
Even if he was ordered its a war crime and as such he is guilty of murder
Nuremburg defence won't wash -- still murder, orders or no. But his superiors are ALSO guilty of the murder for issuing those orders.Quote:
Was the soldier ordered to kill women and children?
1. accident. Some people would say proper messages could perhaps have been taken to avoid it, but if the person didn't know about it, then he can't be blamed in any way. If he knows about it, but it costs time and money to cover up the hole so nobody can fall down, then according to averages measured in society in industrial production, people think it's unethical if covering up etc. cost less than $200,000,000 per person that died if you didn't cover up, i.e. a human life is on average worth $200,000,000Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
2. if they saw it starting to burn when they threw the cigarette, and didn't try to stop it or call the firemen. While I believe you have no duty to actively do good things, if you cause something bad you have a duty to actively compensate it, otherwise you're evil (how evil depends on how much damage you caused, obviously).
3. if you can't drive properly while drunk, or keep yourself from driving when you get drunk, you shouldn't drink. You shouldn't be given a second chance on this one - if you've committed this you should be forbidden from ever drinking again, and punished each time you're seen drunk outside your own house as if you had run over someone while drunk.
4. self-defense, however in law it must be thorougly established that it was rape and not a normal intercourse during with she shot the guy before the woman can be considered innocent.
5. killing in war is a form of self-defense if you look at the situation in itself, but if you fight in a war that is unjust, it's definitely a form of murder. You're however pressured to it in order to get your wage, or pressured to it by conscription. The judgement all comes down to whether the war is justified or not. If it's justified, you're pretty much innocent. If it isn't justified, you're comparable to the man who kills someone because someone else forces you to do so (and whether that is a sin or not is different according to different viewpoints). It all comes down to whether the war in itself is justified or not, and in general is carried out in a way such that it'll achieve a political objective that'll improve the life for many people in the future. If a justified war is fought with massacres and massmurder, then it becomes unjustified because the defeated will not tolerate the outcome, and keep fighting back, starting revenge wars etc., in which case a stable peace can't be met. Because of the difficulty for a regular private to assess this situation, the judgement must be based on what information the soldier had at his disposal when he choose to fight or not fight. Certain news seldom reach the soldiers at the frontline until the end of the war, so the judgement must be milder in practise than in theory.
6. murder
I would say:
Murder you kill someone who isn't able to defend himself.
Killing you kill someone who is able to defend himself AND poses a threat at the same time.
These are rough examples. You could say someone with a gun in his hand is a threat, but imo only if he aims at you and is pulling the trigger. Generally speaking all killing in war is killing. But personally I would call the bombings of Guernica, Rotterdam, Warschaw, Dresden, etc murder.
Murder is when you walk into a school and start shooting around. Murder is My Lai, or Sebrenica. Most of the killing can be considered as murder imo, but there are example were you can call it killing.
Writing this was very confusing btw
as for these:Quote:
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
1. Killing, accident
2. Killing, tho he's more guilty then the man at the waterline
3. since he's drunk Murder, it isn't allowed to be that drunk
4. Murder, Gun arms are not allowed
5. Killing, it's war, soldiers are trained to kill and die
6. Murder, since these were defenceless people
That stuff about obeying orders making you murderer (and the superior quite often being considered innocent) is pretty odd really, considering that the man giving the order has all the power to issue the order and threaten to kill the lower ranked if he doesn't obey the orders. As such, the superior has a much greater responsibility and must have more reponsibility for the actual atrocity. Whether the one obeying orders is innocent or not is another matter which I won't discuss here, but at least shouldn't the superior be considered worse than the one who executes the order, because by holding his position of power he commits not one but 2 sins:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
1. murdering the victim - he knows the victim will die when he issues the order, because the private is afraid of getting shot if he doesn't obey, and if the first private refuses and he shoots the first private, he asks another, etc. and he will statistically be almost 100% sure that the victim will die. It's only a matter of wordplay that would make him innocent of the murder
2. he puts the private into a position where he can choose between murdering (maybe also being arrested and punished if they lose the war), or being murdered. Causing such a dilemma, such fear, and forcing another man to get a third man's life on his conscience is no doubt a sin.
so no matter what happens the superior who gives the order will be responsible for ruining not one but two lives (or possibly even more if he has to massacre several privates who refuse to obey orders).
The superior is guilty of a war crime too (in this case ordering it) so all parties involved would be guilty
you can't have manslaughter without LAUGHTER!!!!!
Last I checked, there weren't any lessons in dying...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Yeah you don't have to learn dying, it's pretty easy they say ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Somebody Else
I meant that they know they can die doing their job, unless you're Dutch ofcourse, any proper Dutch soldier resigns from the army if he's about to be send into war ~D
Here's the thing though - no soldier can choose not to fight in an 'unjustified' war (whatever the hell that is supposed to be) since:
1. Justification of war is a point of view and not an absolute.
2. If the soldier refused to go he can/will be court martialled and face dishonourable dishcharge/prison/execution for anything from derelection of duty to desertion depending on what army he is in, something a lot of moronic 'protestors' who assault soldiers while convalescing or who returned from a conflict fail to realise. As a soldier, you do not choose where and when to fight, or what to fight for, it's the civil government that chooses.
Well that’s not completely true. “just following orders” does not justify all actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
I'm a little confused because you lump the first 2 examples in as killing, though they don't fit your definition of killing (ie, you kill someone who is able to defend himself AND poses a threat at the same time. How were the kid and the person burned by the fire posing a threat to the man digging the hole or the smoking teens?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Also, #4 you call murder because 'Gun arms are not allowed.' I do not know what you mean by this. Is it a local law where you live that you're referring to? A larger ethical standpoint? If so wouldn't that make the soldiers' killing in war also murder, if they used guns to do the killing? Does this mean self-defense from rape using a knife to kill the man would have been just killing, whereas the gun made it murder? Very confusing statement.
Ajax
As I see it, the morality of going to war is not the responsibility of the soldier, it is his conduct within the war. So, if the war is judged to be unjust at the end of it (ie. they lose) then the soldier is not guilty of a crime - he went to war, and perhaps killed someone perfectly legally. However, if he forced a PoW to bomb up a magazine for him, he's guilty of a war crime, even if his CO ordered him to.
Never claimed it did. However somebody posted above that taking part in an unjust war is illegal. I'm saying that if the civil government orders an army to go to war and a soldier refuses, he is committing an illegal act, whether the war is 'justified' or not, and there is no escaping that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Yes it does, at least fora rank 'n' file soldier, he is ordered to kill civilians, he has no choice, therefore its not his fault, he still murders them, but his superioir who gave the order is fully responsible, if the soldier killed civilians wihtout orders, then its his bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
- The justification of the war is seperate to the actions within a war.
Open some good dictionary like Oxford or Cambridge. I already explained that in Monastery.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Dictionary definitions are great for unfamiliar words, clarifying a word when confused about its usage, or numerous other things, but they are not the final answer on philosophical issues such as this. Definitions have to be decided by argument and concensus; such things do not end when a definition is published.
Ajax
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
No. Possibly negligence, it was his own property but perhaps he should have foreseen that the neighbouring kids would venture into his garden.
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
Negligence at best, and in Dutch law quite possibly "dood door schuld" (wich I understand overlaps with the Anglo-American "manslaughter")
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
Of course not murder. Again "dood door schuld".
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
Not murder in any circumstance. However there's the question wether it was necessary to kill the guy.
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
Nope.
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
This is the only one that qualifies as murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
Wich is why Israel's "Black flag" concept, while noble, is also a complete farce.
Killing is a fact, a verb, something that happens with no emotion applyed to it. Murder Has emotion attached to it, it has the general rules of morality attached to it. A soldier can kill an insurgent and to his side he's done only that, he's killed an insurgent. To a sympathizer he's a murderer. Killing becomes murder when you attach morality and emotion to it. That is the difference
______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
RidicolusQuote:
BigTex
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
Negligence (maybe less depending on saftey precautions)
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
Manslaughter
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
Manslaughter
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
Self-Defence, albeit extreme
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
Not murder
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
If the soldier is ordered to do it, then no,
If the soldier isnt under orders to kill civilians then yes, it is murder
:2thumbsup:
@Ajax my definition of murder is rough as I said, I didn't take in accidents, I simply forgot them.
And about gun arms not allowed, I live in a perfectly normal European country, walking on street with any kind of weapon is not allowed. (well Swish army knives are, but weapons no)
HeheQuote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Quote:
walking on street with any kind of weapon is not allowed. (well Swish army knives are,
Hehe :2thumbsup:Quote:
but weapons no)
Not sure if you're allowed to carry your weapons everywhere you want here (it's insanely hard to get a licence here, but I thought that was it), though of course there's plenty of bars and other places that have their own "no weapons allowed" regulations.
I'll look that up...
No, the soldier is fully responsible for his actions, he pulls the trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
If he tells his superior that he does not want to commit murder and the superior wants to kill him, he has a chance for self defence...
In any way, if the case would come to den Haag or another court, if the soldier did it, they'd be both guilty of a war crime, if the soldier refused, I do not really know, maybe attempted murder for the superior and probably murder if he kills the soldier.
Or would you really say that some soldiers who threw babies at church walls and watched their brain flow down the wall are not guilty of anything?:inquisitive:
After all, they were ordered to kill the people inside the church...
Well Kralizec why do you think we need a license to have a gun. Ofcourse with that license you can carry one, but I doubt you will. Almost everyone that has a license is a hunter (atleast the people I know), they don't go carry about guns in street. Next to that good luck finding a weapon store here.
Things as big knives, ofcourse you can carry them in you're bagpack, but why?
Okay, then I understand your aversion to a weapon, but how is that related to whether a killing is a murder? What if the woman were to defend herself with her bare hands and kill her assailant, as in the case of that nurse not too long ago? Is that non-murder, while using a gun to do the same thing would be murder? That seems to me to make as much sense as saying that grabbing a chicken leg in my hand and gnawing on it is eating, but using a fork and knife is not. How is the instrument used relevant to whether it is a case of murder?
(I can see it being an illegal possession, and thus a separate crime, but not a defining criterion for murder)
Ajax
As far as I know, soldiers are legally obliged to disobey unlawful orders...
As I would say that since guns are illegal, killing anyone with them is illegal too (unless ...). If for example the woman just pushed the attacker away, he falls, his head hits the ground just too hard and he dies, and this can be proven, it's only an accident.Quote:
What if the woman were to defend herself with her bare hands and kill her assailant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A soldier can't be held responsible for actions that he had no choice over, if he refuses he gets killed, with very little chance of self-defence - therefore its entirely the responsibility of his superioir who gave the order - i might not like the soldier for what he does, but i can't blame him for following the orders he is given.
Again, i wouldnt like the soldier's for what they did, but its the responsibility of the person who gave the orders...:2thumbsup:Quote:
Or would you really say that some soldiers who threw babies at church walls and watched their brain flow down the wall are not guilty of anything?:inquisitive:
After all, they were ordered to kill the people inside the church...
Oh wait, I forgot to say something:
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
In Iran, yes it is, the man is guilty of no crime and the woman can be executed (even if she doesn't fight back).
1.No, an accident, a very un-fortunate one.Quote:
1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?
2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?
4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?
5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?
6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?
Yes, there is a difference between KILLING and MURDER. Everything eventually ends in death as we are all going to die anyway. The circumstances do matter!
2.Manslaughter? One has to ask the question, why are these teenagers smoking?
3.Hmmm, manslaughter? I cannot be sure, I mean I personally think that it is murder. I have had freinds thinking they're going to drive home drunk, but all by themselves they decide it's not a good idea. Why should this person be any different?
4.For me, I would call it self defence. Why the hell does that man have a right to such a thing. He stepped over the line, she reacted, what are we meant to do when someone steps over the line? Do we stand passivley behind it? I don't know.
5.Why the hell was he there in the first place, he was fighting for his survival, unwillingly. In my view sending an unwilling man off to fight, where he may give away his most precius posession, is one of the greatest crimes ever.
6.Again, why in God's name was he there? Oh sure he might be put through court, make the govt. seem like it's upholding the law. But the despiccable men at the top are still smoking cigars, still breaking laws behind the great oak desks.
Scurvy it is the soldiers responsibility to follow LEGAL orders - targeting civilians deliberatly is an illeagal order and should not be followed - if it is then the soldier can be accused of War crimes and in most cases would be jailed
Reason? Nuremberg
during the Nuremberg Trials numerous SS soldiers/officers tried to claim that they were just following orders when killing jewish and other detainees - the judges ruled that such a defence was illegitimate and these men were convicted
Claiming you were just following orders (now known as the Nuremberg defence) doesnt work it doesnt (and shouldnt) Protect soldiers from intentionaly killing civilians
Again, a soldier forced into arms by his govt. is not a real soldier, He is just man forced to fight. He's not in the ar,ed forces for a career.
Thus it is imposiple to confide forced consription and the Rules which govern war.
A soldier has no choice but to obey "illegal" orders, if hes been told to do it, he has too, it is the principal any army works on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I dont like the example of Nuremburg, because at the time the judges were very anti-nazi, and therefore the convicted had very little chance, in a less byass court some of those SS soldiers (but not the officers) may have been found innocent
scurvy not all orders are legitimate - if a officer tells you to shoot yourself do you do it? the point is if a soldier recieves a order which is in effect orders him to break the law he doesnt have to follow it and is obligated to report the officer
Reinforcement: In the British army at least, soldiers are not mindless drones trained to obey each and every order. If ordered to do something illegal, they are trained to disobey. If they witness a crime, whether it be by a friend, superior officer, whatever, they are trained to report it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
In how many armies is it possible to do this? In the vast majority of armies which commit illegal orders soldiers are expected to be mindless drones - with no choice over their actionsQuote:
Reinforcement: In the British army at least, soldiers are not mindless drones trained to obey each and every order. If ordered to do something illegal, they are trained to disobey. If they witness a crime, whether it be by a friend, superior officer, whatever, they are trained to report it.
- if whenordered to shoot themselves, they refused, they would be shot for disobeying the order to shoot themselves
the only time a soldier might be held responsible for such things is in the case of no order given, or an ambiguous order which they choose to follow in a certain way...:2thumbsup:
i know for a fact that all "western" armies dont allow "following orders" as a defence and i believe theres an international treaty signed by most countries that means all signees are ment to follow it too - problem is some armies as you say arnt exactly very big on soldiers thinking for themsevles (normally the same armies that are used to maintain dictatorships)Quote:
In how many armies is it possible to do this? In the vast majority of armies which commit illegal orders soldiers are expected to be mindless drones - with no choice over their actions
- if whenordered to shoot themselves, they refused, they would be shot for disobeying the order to shoot themselves
I agree :2thumbsup: - a soldier who has the ability to not-obey is more at wrong than others - although i still think the officer in command has to accept the most of the responsibility (ie/ differing levels of war crime)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Killing is causing death. Murder is normally killing with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm (not necessarily to the victim). Some places broaden it, so that it is also murder to kill with reckless indifference to human life, or to kill by a dangerous act in the course of an unlawful purpose. Manslaughter is a killing that isn't murder. That includes a killing caused by criminal negligence. In other words there is generally no offence of "negligently causing death", except manslaughter.