gET SHOT IN THE BUM - IT"S AN ASSASSASSINATION.
Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan?
ETA: Bishra, apparently.
I think an assassination could be for technical reasons, too, like taking out an adversary’s top nuclear enrichment expert.
I think there’s also an aspect of an assassination being specifically targeted at the person, with significant advance planning.
A “regular” murder is often in the heat of the moment (a robbery, a domestic dispute, a bar fight), and quite often, who gets murdered is just a matter of the luck of the draw - like, say, the victim was working that night when the robbery happened. The murderers wouldn’t have walked in and said, “Oh, is Steve not working tonight? Well, okay I’ll come back to rob the place and murder Steve tomorrow!”
But an assassination is targeted. The person planned the time and place to specifically murder that person, and if something throws off the schedule, they usually won’t murder anyone, and will try again at a later opportunity.
While this is true, there are many murders that are also premeditated, planned, and targeted. In particular: when a spouse or family member is murdered to get at their money and/or get them out of the way so that the murderer can enjoy life with their lover. (My cite: all of the Dateline episodes that my wife watches, about murder plots. 
)
Is your wife making you suspicious?
Or are you making her suspicious?
Either way, it may not end well for me. 
Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your middle name. If it is Wayne then you are a serial killer.
dammit.
Chris Rock on people who say Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls were “assassinated”:
No, they wasn’t. Martin Luther King was assassinated, Malcolm X was assassinated, John F. Kennedy was assassinated…Shit, I love Tupac, I love Biggie, but school will be open on their birthday!
What is the difference between being assassinated and murdered?
Usually, the number of column-inches you’ll get in the newspapers.
A few years ago I provoked a minor kerfuffle when I remarked on the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto, leading to horrified cries that his death was not an assassination. I would not regard it as murder, being an act of war, but I stand by my identification of the act, a targeted killing of a military leader, as an assassination (although neither Lieutenants Barber nor Lanphier are thought to have partaken of cannabis before the mission).
I agree; in fact, IMHO the term “targeted killing” is just a military euphemism for assassination.
An assassination is a murder to send a message.
They were presumably (wrongly) inferring that you were claiming that his killing was illegal? Since you were not implying it was a war crime, it’s just a question of whether the term “assassination” necessarily implies an illegal act. A sophisticated Allied plot to kill an Axis leader certainly has all the other hallmarks of an assassination. I tend to agree with your use of the term, since it’s a useful description of the act itself, and the legality of the matter might be disputed and never resolved. A “legal assassination” does not strike me as an oxymoron in the way that “legal murder” does.
I suppose the difficulty lies in the fact that many things that are illegal in peacetime become SOP in war, so standard definitions don’t always fit perfectly.
So, if I hire someone to kill a witness before they can testify against me, assassination or not?
Don’t need answer fast.
A friend of mine considers that her father was assassinated (in Cyprus in the early 60s). He wasn’t an important person and was definitely not rich, but he was shot for being a member of a political party. There was nothing personal about it. I’d say that’s probably a legitimate use of the word.
I think maybe you can assassinate a judge? Certainly if it was (say) a judge in charge of a major series of Mafia trials in a clampdown on organized crime. But I don’t think I’d use the word for a witness.
Yes I think so. You’re not simply murdering someone—you’re doing because of their job, trying to stop them from doing it because they can legitimately put you away for a long time.
I got to wondering, looked up Osama Bin Laden.
John Bellinger III, who served as the U.S. State Department’s senior lawyer during President George W. Bush’s second term, said the strike was a legitimate military action and did not run counter to the U.S.’ self-imposed prohibition on assassinations:
The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981], because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda, and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition does not apply to killings in self-defense.[187]
That same article in Wikipedia notes that some in the Arab world considered it an assassination.
Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, condemned what he saw as the assassination of an “Arab holy warrior”.[170]
So YMMV.