# Assassinated v. Murdered **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 26, 2008, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707 "2008-12-26T04:20:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Glazer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a88e57/32.png) [@Glazer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glazer)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/41 "2008-12-29T05:32:25Z")
In the U.S. it is aganist the law to target a head of state just for being a head of state. Lucky thing for Bush at he kept missing Sadam. When we bombed his palace it was ok (we where going after comand and control), but when we bombed a restrant he had just left it was atempted murder. Nobody ever call Bush on his real crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/42 "2008-12-29T07:59:53Z")
> [@Glazer](#): > > In the U.S. it is aganist the law to target a head of state just for being a head of state. Actually, that’s been an unofficial rule of international relations for thousands of years - namely, that kings don’t kill other kings. I guess they don’t want to set a precident. ---
**Author:** ![Nom\_de\_Plume](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85f322/32.png) [@Nom\_de\_Plume](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nom_de_Plume)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/43 "2008-12-29T16:16:50Z")
According to the style guide for the Associated Press, ‘assasination’ should only be used if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary backs this up, defining the term ‘assasinate’ as 'To murder (a prominent person.) So, according to these references, an assasination is murder, but a murder is not necessarily an assasination. A soldier under orders would be, I would think, an exception as Siam Sam has pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/44 "2008-12-30T03:05:16Z")
> [@Glazer](#): > > In the U.S. it is aganist the law to target a head of state just for being a head of state. Lucky thing for Bush at he kept missing Sadam. When we bombed his palace it was ok (we where going after comand and control), but when we bombed a restrant he had just left it was atempted murder. > [@Alessan](#): > > Actually, that’s been an unofficial rule of international relations for thousands of years - namely, that kings don’t kill other kings. I guess they don’t want to set a precident. I’m not sure if this is what you’re thinking of, but there’s a common misperception – at least, I’ve read it was a misperception – that political assassinations of foreign dignitaries are illegal for Americans like, say, the CIA. In reality, it’s just a policy sarted by Reagan but never carrying the force of law. I’ve not gone and looked this up again, so please someone correct me if that’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![schindler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba9def/32.png) [@schindler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/schindler)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/45 "2008-12-30T07:38:50Z")
> [@Nom\_de\_Plume](#): > > According to the style guide for the Associated Press, ‘assasination’ should only be used if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack. > > My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary backs this up, defining the term ‘assasinate’ as 'To murder (a prominent person.) > > So, according to these references, an assasination is murder, but a murder is not necessarily an assasination. A soldier under orders would be, I would think, an exception as Siam Sam has pointed out. again, making use of legal definitions. Any intentional killing is murder by legal definitions. But the original question was semantic. So assuming we aren’t discussing a murder case, but rather are discussing how he is irked by use of assassinated vs. use of murder in every day discussion, murder ALWAYS has negative connotations, and so the “murder” of osama bin laden would be a funny phrase indeed (outside a courtroom or inane straight dope argument), where the murder of Pope Benedict would not. Both would probably be assassinations (unless it was some crime of passion or attempted mugging- unlikely scenarios). The real superclass you’re looking for is Kill. Kill includes murder, assassinate, manslaughter, “neutralize” (since one soldier killing another is not murder, in fact i don’t even think legal definitions would consider it such). murder includes, in normal usage, “bad” intentional killing. neutralize (and i’m sure you can think of more words for this) is strategic killing. morality has nothing to do with it. assassination seems to be used in two circumstances. Either with a prominent figure, for who they are, or with any figure, for what they have done or will do of public import (that is, not killing an old lady for not giving me her watch-- but yes killing an old lady for plotting a coup d’etat). ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/46 "2008-12-30T10:11:11Z")
I generally agree that assassination infers some political/ideological motive beyond the garden variety murder. I happen to consider Lennon’s killing an assassination, based on the evidence indicating that the government of the time sought to neutralize him and that Chapman was a tool towards that end. Regardless of the validity of my conclusions, it speaks to why people use the term. But ultimately, he was murdered, be it an “assassination” or just some “lone nut”, right? ---
**Author:** ![Some\_FNG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@Some\_FNG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_FNG)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/47 "2008-12-30T21:05:09Z")
OP here, just checking in to say Thanks for all the replies- the only difference seems to be the motivation behind the act, which is what I suspected all along. ---
**Author:** ![Stathol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71e660/32.png) [@Stathol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stathol)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707/48 "2008-12-30T21:26:06Z")
For a historical perspective, the OED’s etymology and definitions for “assassin” give a pretty good explanation: > [@](#): > > [a. F. assassin, or ad. It. assassino: cf. also Pr. assassin, Pg. assassino, Sp. asesino, med.L. assassnus (OF. forms were assacin, asescin, asisim, hasisin, hassissin, haussasin, etc.; med.L. (pl.) assessini, ascisini, etc.), ad. Arab. ashshshn and ashshiyyn, pl. of ashshsh and ashshiyy, lit. ‘a hashish-eater, one addicted to hashish,’ both forms being applied in Arabic to the Ismli sectarians, who used to intoxicate themselves with hashish or hemp, when preparing to dispatch some king or public man. The OF. variants, (pl.) assacis, hassisis, haississis, med.L. assasi, haussasi, med.Gr. , point to the Arabic singular, but the form finally established in the European languages arises from the Arab. plural, as in Bedouin; cf. also It. cherubino, serafino, F. and earlier Eng. cherubin, seraphin (sing.). Naturally the plural was first in use, in the historical sense, and occurred in Eng. in the Lat. or It. form before assassin was naturalized: the latter was still accented assassin by Oldham in 1679.] > > ``` > 1. lit. A hashish-eater. Hist. (in pl.) Certain Muslim fanatics in the time of the Crusades, who were sent forth by their sheikh, the ‘Old Man of the Mountains,’ to murder the Christian leaders. > > ``` > > 1. Hence: One who undertakes to put another to death by treacherous violence. The term retains so much of its original application as to be used chiefly of the murderer of a public personage, who is generally hired or devoted to the deed, and aims purely at the death of his victim. The word “assassin” most likely derives from Arabic “hashshashin”. The meaning of the word still retains the specific connotations of killing a leader or important figure by sudden, covert measures because that’s what the [Hashshashin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin) did. Of course, these guys are kind of like the Templars – it’s hard to separate the historical facts from the loony conspiracy stuff. But inasmuch as the _perception_ of the Hashshashin (regardless of historical fact) has a direct bearing on the connotation of the word “assassin”, even the conspiracy stuff is relevant, I suppose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinated-v-murdered/478707.md?page=2)