Are soldiers murderers?

You're putting words in my mouth.

We're going round in circles.

In your world a murder has not been committed until a court has said
so.

In my world, a murder has been committed if the relevant facts
surrounding the killing, whether known by a court or not, would be
found to be murder by a court if those facts were known and the court
allowed to sit in judgement.

In many murders, the necessary facts are never brought to light and
thus no finding of murder can be made. That does not mean that a
murder did not occur.

In the case of the invading army it gets even more corrupt. The laws
and courts of the invaded country are completely disregarded, but I
assert that if those courts were able to rule on the matter they would
rule that the invasion constituted mass murder. Sweeping laws and
courts aside does not change the facts. And I argue that the facts
are that an invading army commits mass murder according to the laws of
the country being invaded.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

If you can, after reviewing all relevent facts, forecast the decision of a
cort than I am in awe. In my experiance courts are often unpredictable
especialy when jurys are involved, as in often in murder trials.

A killing occured it is yet to be shown that it was murder

Undoubtably they would, but they don't, and so no murder is deemed to have
been commited. Lots of killing has been commited but no murder.

Capt. A. L.

 

Unlawful killing is not necessarly murder, it could be any nunber of lesser
offences. It requires a court to detirmine if it was murder.Perhaps I
should just paste my previous responces as you're not comming up with any
new points here.

When the resistance succeeds in overthrowing the invaders then they can be
tried and found to be guilty of murder or not. Until then.....


Capt. A L.

 

I think around about now we just agree to disagree and leave it at
that. Neither of us is going to convince the other that he is
right... Neither of us is going to say anything new.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

".

I'm with you on that one. No doubt we'll cross keyboards again on another
controversial thread
Good luck and many days of winding roads and sunshine to you sir.

Capt. A. L.

 

No doubt about it. ;-)

And all the best to you, my captain...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

No. It was Abel he did away with.

Theo

 

No. It was Abel he did away with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So he was disabeled?

 

We would need to go to court to determine that, apparently.

Theo

 

We would need to go to court to determine that, apparently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you suggesting we can do away with courts and just use intuition or
something?

 

I reckon a killing could be both murder and not murder at the same time!
For instance some of the Mossad assassinations after the Munich Olympics
were murders in some countries (the countries in which they occurred) but
not others (the countries sanctioning the killings).
Ditto any killings made by Government Agents in foreign lands during the
cold war. (Assuming they'd been declared murder by the legal system of the
country in which they occurred of course).

 

Knob! Brilliant!

P

 

Nah, I think the point is, until the court decides, you've only killed
it. Perhaps in self defence, perhaps premeditated .. we need a court to
decide whether the killing is "lawful" as such before we can make such a
pronouncement

 

So all the killings/ hangings of negroes in America's deep south
(with or without the assistance of the Klu Klux Klan) weren't murder
then. Obviously perfectly lawful.

 

Why are some people found guilty of 'lawful' killings given prison
sentences? Please define lawful.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

How do you come to that conclusion? It's the reasoning of an idiot.
They're not murder as they were never found guilty of such. That anyone
would conclude, however, that they are lawful solely because a prosecution
has never been attempted is beyond belief. And even if they were unlawful
it remains to be seen if each or any was murder.

Capt. A. L.

 

Why do you imagine the killings were "lawful" if they were (assumedly) never
subject to a legal procedure?
Killings are killings are killings, murders are declared by a court.
They're not dependent on each-other ('though closely related) and they're
certainly not mutually exclusive!
It's just silly Nev-argument-logic to say that because it's never been
declared murder it's lawful!

 

But it can't be murder, because it hasn't been found so, isn't that
what you're saying?

I'm going on your definition of murder, that it has to be a Court of
Law to determine same.

fwiw, I gave you a definition of murder (albeit an old one) which you
appeared to ignore. The law is such that it is whatever the law makers
say it is (going by the pedantry that you seem to be hanging on to,
that it can only be qualified by a court of law).

You've also, it appears, chosen to ignore my original comment that I
was being a smart arse.

 

Please give examples of people who have been found guilty of lawful
killings.
And those then given prison sentences.

I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that if one was found guilty, the killing
would be deemed illegal but the court that found one guilty..

You still haven't said if you belive my abused housewife is a murderer or
not.

Capt. A L.

 

Refer to my other comment, mostly being a smart arse. I found it
remarkable that anyone could get themselves tied up in knots and the
pedantry that it can only be a court of law that can determine murder,
when put in a historical context of the act, and community sanctions.

I'm somewhat amazed that anyone responded to the thread in the first
place, that I'm still reading it, and that I'm responding.

The OP must be very proud.

Bill