Anders Behring Breivik
Yeah, he seems likely to mix up with all the innocent Anders Breiviks.
Actually, of the five examples in the OP, two of them shot men who were already known by their full names in life: John Fitzgerald Kennedy (or John F. Kennedy, or JFK, but never John Kennedy) and Martin Luther King.
Neat. But a little strange. That’s why you advise science, I guess.
In the pointless nitpicks department, John Lennon changed his middle name from Winston to Ono.
Isn’t it that serial killers always get two names, while lone gunmen get three? At least that’s how the movie Conspiracy Theory explained it to me:
[
Actually, four of my paternal-line ancestors have had the same first, middle, and last names, and one had a minor to middling criminal record (less than murder but more than jaywalking) and the chance is not zero that I will end up having a son who gets that full name. It’s quite possible the combination goes back even further, but we can’t find any records before 1820 other than poorly sourced legends.
As others have mentioned, there are some famous murderers who are commonly referred to by just their first and last names, including Ted Kaczynski, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer. Another is Charles Guiteau.
It looks like Lizzie Borden was actually acquitted of all murder charges, so one can argue whether or not she can really be called a murderer, as she is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Also, sometimes we use middle names or middle initials to differentiate people with the same first and last names when referring to them and a standard form has arisen by convention. Examples include George Bush vs. George W. Bush and John Adams vs. John Quincy Adams.
Also, several noted non-murderers are typically referred to with their middle name, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and George Washington Carver, though in both of those cases they were named after other famous people (Martin Luther and George Washington, natch) and there might have been interest in emphasizing the namesakes.
That’s interesting, but I’m not sure I agree with his “legal name” being Michael as the US has traditionally used the English Common Law with respect to personal names, which says that the name a person uses and is known by is their legal name, regardless of what name is actually on their birth certificate, passport, marriage license, etc. Yes, if you try to claim to have undergone a “Common Law Name Change” today after having gone by the name on your documents for most of your life, you can expect to face a lot of skeptical DMV clerks, suspicious banking officials, and others who think that a legal name change must be done via a court or, for women, by marriage (but only to take their husband’s last name, not to go from Miss Ann Smith to Mrs. Elizabeth Jane Smith Jones), but it protects people who discover at age 60 that their birth certificate, which they never actually saw until then because they didn’t need it, has a different name than the one that they have used since age 3 and is on all of their other paperwork.
Maybe there was no case in law there. I don’t know. But it is a good example of a moral case. I came across an article by this guy a while back (on Slate.com, I think) and I was misled and confused by it for a while. I eventually figured it out, but I dare say there may have been others who didn’t. The article was about The Rolling Stones, focusing on the relationship between Jagger and Richard, and was under the byline Bill Wyman. It turns out the guy is a rock journalist and really is named William Wyman; well, fair enough, but if you are not intending to deceive and to trade, as a rock journalist, on sharing a famous name, and particularly if you are going to write about The Stones, the only honest thing to do is to make it very clear upfront that you are not THE Bill Wyman. For fuck’s sake, even if you have always habitually gone by Bill, sign your articles as William Wyman or something, or at the very least have a note on the byline or at the beginning of the article explaining. Otherwise you are trading illegitimately on the famous person’s name.
Maybe there was no case in law there. I don’t know. But it is a good example of a moral case. I came across an article by this guy a while back (on Slate.com, I think) and I was misled and confused by it for a while. I eventually figured it out, but I dare say there may have been others who didn’t. The article was about The Rolling Stones, focusing on the relationship between Jagger and Richard, and was under the byline Bill Wyman. It turns out the guy is a rock journalist and really is named William Wyman; well, fair enough, but if you are not intending to deceive and to trade, as a rock journalist, on sharing a famous name, and particularly if you are going to write about The Stones, the only honest thing to do is to make it very clear upfront that you are not THE Bill Wyman. For fuck’s sake, even if you have always habitually gone by Bill, sign your articles as William Wyman or something, or at the very least have a note on the byline or at the beginning of the article explaining. Otherwise you are trading illegitimately on the famous person’s name.
The article linked to by SpoilerVirgin is a completely one-sided, misleading account of the situation, omitting crucial facts, typical of John Stossel, indeed.
Gavrilo Princip.
His full name, I believe.