Political Crossfire Forums

No2wookie · Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 1224

Murder is defined as a result of an intentional (premeditated) assault. A defender who kills his attacker cannot physically murder his attacker. Two men fighting on the street cannot physically murder innocents who get in the way. They are killings.

Agree, disagree, hungry?

Silkheat · Joined: 06 Sep 2005 Posts: 5981 Location: Austin

No2wookie wrote: Murder is defined as a result of an intentional (premeditated) assault. A defender who kills his attacker cannot physically murder his attacker. Two men fighting on the street cannot physically murder innocents who get in the way. They are killings.

Agree, disagree, hungry?

WHy the need to define it?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

No2wookie wrote: Murder is defined as a result of an intentional (premeditated) assault. A defender who kills his attacker cannot physically murder his attacker. Two men fighting on the street cannot physically murder innocents who get in the way. They are killings.

Agree, disagree, hungry?

Murder is unlawful killing. I agree with the example of the defender. I disagree with the example of the two men on the street. That could possibly be murder.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

perdidochas wrote: Murder is unlawful killing.

Being put to death by the state doesn't seem to be unlawful. However, it is murder.

No2wookie · Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 1224

Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

mgwisni · Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 73

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: Murder is unlawful killing.

Being put to death by the state doesn't seem to be unlawful. However, it is murder.
you took the words out of my mouth.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: Murder is unlawful killing.

Being put to death by the state doesn't seem to be unlawful. However, it is murder.

Not according to the common definition.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9042

Murder is with intent to do harm. Manslaughter is death without intent to kill.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

What are the degrees then?

eg. Murder in the first degree

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ah...premeditated malice...thats why execution is not murder, also I would say why abortion cannot be murder.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Selfish_Meme wrote: ah...premeditated malice...thats why execution is not murder, also I would say why abortion cannot be murder.

Wait, what? How does that not make it murder?

Abortion is a tricky one. Because as we all know, the definition as to where life begins is questionable. Nobody can really answer the question, everyone just has their own personal belief.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:

No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assult, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

Spanking isn't assault?

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61040

I was one of the very few who disagreed with spanking. It isn't a proper way to deal with your children.

Explain to me how the death penalty isn't murder?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assult, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assault, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

Surely you realize what seems to me to be contradictions this post?

Your own definition of Assault seems to contradict you. You claim assault is a violent physical attack. We know that spanking is physical by definition, or else it would not be spanking. But is it violent? When you spank your children, you intend to do something to them to make them not perform a certain undesired act, do you not? When you spank them, is it the case that you do not mean to cause them pain? Yes or no. If no, then there would never be any reason to spank at all. If yes, then you are intending to cause them pain. Pain is a form of harm. It is usually not permanent, but to cause someone pain is to harm them. So you are, unless you claim to not intend them pain, which will be a very difficult argument to maintain, intending to cause them pain, and thus harm. That would fit your definition of violent, for it is harmful, and physical, and so would be assault. How would it not be?

You aren't harming them much, this is true. And hell, I'm all for spanking. It gets the point across. To claim it isn't harming or assaulting them is pointless. I say you have to harm and assault them, just a little at least, to make them understand. But it is temporary harm, and most likely will fit the definition of assault, as I showed above.

patrickt · Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 1734 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico

It's not tough at all. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life of another person. If it's a court sentence, it isn't unlawful. At the present time, an unborn baby isn't a person so killing him isn't unlawful.

There are a variety of legal distinctions in murder. For example, if you and a buddy hold up a 7-11 and you stay in the car and your buddy shoots the clerk, you're on the hook for murder. If your buddy walks in, pulls his gun, and the clerk keels over with a heart attack, you're both on the hook for murder.

Murder does not require premeditation. You're drunk, get in an argument with a guy in a bar and shoot him, you would, in Colorado, probably be charged with 2nd Degree murder.

Vehicular homicide is a seperate statute that involves killing someone when you're operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

So, saying a death sentence is murder is demagoguery and not an accurate statement. There are circumstances under which police officers can shoot someone without showing it was in self-defense.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assault, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

Surely you realize what seems to me to be contradictions this post?

Your own definition of Assault seems to contradict you. You claim assault is a violent physical attack. We know that spanking is physical by definition, or else it would not be spanking. But is it violent? When you spank your children, you intend to do something to them to make them not perform a certain undesired act, do you not? When you spank them, is it the case that you do not mean to cause them pain? Yes or no. If no, then there would never be any reason to spank at all. If yes, then you are intending to cause them pain. Pain is a form of harm. It is usually not permanent, but to cause someone pain is to harm them. So you are, unless you claim to not intend them pain, which will be a very difficult argument to maintain, intending to cause them pain, and thus harm. That would fit your definition of violent, for it is harmful, and physical, and so would be assault. How would it not be?

You aren't harming them much, this is true. And hell, I'm all for spanking. It gets the point across. To claim it isn't harming or assaulting them is pointless. I say you have to harm and assault them, just a little at least, to make them understand. But it is temporary harm, and most likely will fit the definition of assault, as I showed above.

The intent in spanking is not harm. The intent is to decrease bad behavior.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assault, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

Surely you realize what seems to me to be contradictions this post?

Your own definition of Assault seems to contradict you. You claim assault is a violent physical attack. We know that spanking is physical by definition, or else it would not be spanking. But is it violent? When you spank your children, you intend to do something to them to make them not perform a certain undesired act, do you not? When you spank them, is it the case that you do not mean to cause them pain? Yes or no. If no, then there would never be any reason to spank at all. If yes, then you are intending to cause them pain. Pain is a form of harm. It is usually not permanent, but to cause someone pain is to harm them. So you are, unless you claim to not intend them pain, which will be a very difficult argument to maintain, intending to cause them pain, and thus harm. That would fit your definition of violent, for it is harmful, and physical, and so would be assault. How would it not be?

You aren't harming them much, this is true. And hell, I'm all for spanking. It gets the point across. To claim it isn't harming or assaulting them is pointless. I say you have to harm and assault them, just a little at least, to make them understand. But it is temporary harm, and most likely will fit the definition of assault, as I showed above.

The intent in spanking is not harm. The intent is to decrease bad behavior.

If I walk out of my lap and hit someone in the next room in the head with a hammer, with truly the intent of not harming them, but instead, with the intend of making them turn their music down from now on, or decreasing an undesirable behavior, have I not assaulted them?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assault, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

Surely you realize what seems to me to be contradictions this post?

Your own definition of Assault seems to contradict you. You claim assault is a violent physical attack. We know that spanking is physical by definition, or else it would not be spanking. But is it violent? When you spank your children, you intend to do something to them to make them not perform a certain undesired act, do you not? When you spank them, is it the case that you do not mean to cause them pain? Yes or no. If no, then there would never be any reason to spank at all. If yes, then you are intending to cause them pain. Pain is a form of harm. It is usually not permanent, but to cause someone pain is to harm them. So you are, unless you claim to not intend them pain, which will be a very difficult argument to maintain, intending to cause them pain, and thus harm. That would fit your definition of violent, for it is harmful, and physical, and so would be assault. How would it not be?

You aren't harming them much, this is true. And hell, I'm all for spanking. It gets the point across. To claim it isn't harming or assaulting them is pointless. I say you have to harm and assault them, just a little at least, to make them understand. But it is temporary harm, and most likely will fit the definition of assault, as I showed above.

The intent in spanking is not harm. The intent is to decrease bad behavior.

If I walk out of my lap and hit someone in the next room in the head with a hammer, with truly the intent of not harming them, but instead, with the intend of making them turn their music down from now on, or decreasing an undesirable behavior, have I not assaulted them?

A hand on the backside doesn't cause harm.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No2wookie wrote: Hmm, perhaps this should have been placed in the philosophy section.

In any case, saying the death penalty is murder is like saying spanking is assault, or grounding is imprisonment, or going to bed without supper is forceful starvation.

I see no reason why you couldn't say these things are the case actually. Spanking is a form of assault, grounding imprisonment, and bed without supper/forced starvation, is it not?

Spanking is not assault.

Assault is a violent, physical attack.

Violent means with the intent to harm or abuse.

When I spank my kids, I do not assault them. I have no intention to harm or abuse them.

Surely you realize what seems to me to be contradictions this post?

Your own definition of Assault seems to contradict you. You claim assault is a violent physical attack. We know that spanking is physical by definition, or else it would not be spanking. But is it violent? When you spank your children, you intend to do something to them to make them not perform a certain undesired act, do you not? When you spank them, is it the case that you do not mean to cause them pain? Yes or no. If no, then there would never be any reason to spank at all. If yes, then you are intending to cause them pain. Pain is a form of harm. It is usually not permanent, but to cause someone pain is to harm them. So you are, unless you claim to not intend them pain, which will be a very difficult argument to maintain, intending to cause them pain, and thus harm. That would fit your definition of violent, for it is harmful, and physical, and so would be assault. How would it not be?

You aren't harming them much, this is true. And hell, I'm all for spanking. It gets the point across. To claim it isn't harming or assaulting them is pointless. I say you have to harm and assault them, just a little at least, to make them understand. But it is temporary harm, and most likely will fit the definition of assault, as I showed above.

The intent in spanking is not harm. The intent is to decrease bad behavior.

If I walk out of my lap and hit someone in the next room in the head with a hammer, with truly the intent of not harming them, but instead, with the intend of making them turn their music down from now on, or decreasing an undesirable behavior, have I not assaulted them?

A hand on the backside doesn't cause harm. Pain is not harm.