The problem here, groman is that you reek with the fallacy of Equivocation: you are using words with two different meanings interchangeably in an effort to prove your point.
The common-law or statutory crime of murder has certain elements. To prove murder in court, the state must show a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that each element was committed by the accused. The accused also has the right to present affirmative defenses, which he must prove by preponderance of the evidence, and which may vitiate or completely negate one or more of those elements.
“Murder” also refers generally to the unlawful killing of a human being, regardless of a judicial determination thereof. If I see a man draw a knife on the subway and slit someone’s throat, I am comfortable calling him a murderer even before his trial.
I insist that there’s only one concept at play because the most general definition of “murder” is still “killing that is against some set of rules”. You need to determine the act, the context and the rules for there to be murder. If you see somebody slit a throat on the subway you are presuming “murder”, it is unlikely but possible for it to be some other type of killing. You are presuming guilt, not establishing it. Something we have legal protections againt.
I’m glad to hear that! No, seriously, being content with your own opinions as well as differing opinions of others is a pretty important ingredient in being happy.
Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence! You can’t handle the truth! No, you’re out of order, the whole system is out of order!
That’ll be $450.[sup]00[/sup]
Damn, this lawyerin stuff is E-Z!
Disclaimer: IAALIAAUBNITO
([sub]I am a lawyer in an alternate universe but not in this one)[/sub]
or
([sub]It’s about as loosely interpreted as allowed under benefits not involving two otters.[/sub])
