should he be charged?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Certainly, under the simplest definition of the word, anyone who directly kills someone else is a murderer. The question at hand, in this case, was whether or not it was a justifiable murder.

Kaneman's brief declaration was open to interpretation. But if he feels the murder in this case was unjustified, I'd be interested to know what response he would consider justified.

That would be incorrect. You can be a killer, without being a murderer. The two terms are similar, but not synonymous. That is the case for both dictionary and legal definitions of the words.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That would be incorrect. You can be a killer, without being a murderer. The two terms are similar, but not synonymous. That is the case for both dictionary and legal definitions of the words.

I knew I would have problems as soon as the word "definition" left my keyboard.

My point is, leaving aside the moral and legal implications of the word (which is problematic, since at least half of the definitions in the dictionary I referenced use the law as context), one might say "That man is a murderer," even if the "murderer" is not legally culpable (totally looked that one up too). So when Kaneman said "Dude is a murderer IMO," he may or may not have been making a statement regarding the father's ethical or legal guilt.

At any rate, it seems the world may never know.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I knew I would have problems as soon as the word "definition" left my keyboard.

My point is, leaving aside the moral and legal implications of the word (which is problematic, since at least half of the definitions in the dictionary I referenced use the law as context), one might say "That man is a murderer," even if the "murderer" is not legally culpable (totally looked that one up too). So when Kaneman said "Dude is a murderer IMO," he may or may not have been making a statement regarding the father's ethical or legal guilt.

At any rate, it seems the world may never know.

If this wasn't in the News section I might have gone on to talk about the mistranslation of the not-to-be-named-here book's 'prime directives' too