Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The terms first degree murder, second degree murder, etc are commonly used in the English speaking world and this is an English speaking forum.

The definition of the English word assassinate is the same regardless where you are. You must be really stupid if you think the definition changes if you are somewhere else.

I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.

Originally Posted by lljadw

You can't say that the Israeli athletes were killed and that the terrorists were murdered .
To kill a terrorist is a legitimate action , it is never a murder or an assassination .

This is however entirely incorrect as you can "murder" a terrorist, for example two former British soldiers were charged with murdering IRA leader Joe McCann in 1972 and you can say that Israeli athletes were killed as that is the result of an action (as in they are dead), the term murder or assassinated is the description of how they died.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I must admit the English language is full of pit falls and double meanings.

Yes it is but it is also the most diverse and adaptable language on the planet which is what makes it so much fun.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.



This is however entirely incorrect as you can "murder" a terrorist, for example two former British soldiers were charged with murdering IRA leader Joe McCann in 1972 and you can say that Israeli athletes were killed as that is the result of an action (as in they are dead), the term murder or assassinated is the description of how they died.

The soldiers were accused (44 !! years after what happened ) for political reasons : it was only political correctness .Besides : there is still no trial .

You said and I quote "To kill a terrorist is a legitimate action , it is never a murder or an assassination ." clearly that is not the case as I demonstrated with my example.
As far as my opinion on the McCann case I wouldn't find them guilty myself McCann chose a life style and paid the price but the law has different standards to what I think on this one.

[QUOTE=MontyB;709089]I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.

My bad, I shouldn't have used it, but I read the UK and NZ are using the terms. The majority of countries differentiates between planned/cruel/heinous murders and those committed in the heat of the moment when the victim and the offender have some sort of a relationship, or other not planned murders. Courts in democratic states are usually using "Beyond any reasonable doubts" and that can be a bit strange, but it is a part of having a legal system following human rights and democratic principles.

Another controversial "killing" was when the SAS killed three members of the IRA in Gibraltar, it caused a debate if it was a good idea to use the military for handling terrorists. There weren't any murder charges filed against the SAS for its action in Gibraltar. They prevented an attack against the Remembrance Day Parade.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

My bad, I shouldn't have used it, but I read the UK and NZ are using the terms. The majority of countries differentiates between planned/cruel/heinous murders and those committed in the heat of the moment when the victim and the offender have some sort of a relationship, or other not planned murders. Courts in democratic states are usually using "Beyond any reasonable doubts" and that can be a bit strange, but it is a part of having a legal system following human rights and democratic principles.

We dont use it at all, we have Murder and Manslaughter, murder pretty much covers everything from premeditated to heat of the moment action any mitigating circumstances are accounted for in the sentencing process and manslaughter is essentially neglegent deaths.

Another controversial "killing" was when the SAS killed three members of the IRA in Gibraltar, it caused a debate if it was a good idea to use the military for handling terrorists. There weren't any murder charges filed against the SAS for its action in Gibraltar. They prevented an attack against the Remembrance Day Parade.

Indeed in that case I really dont have any issue with the SAS handling of the situation as the IRA had a van load of explosives and were in the way to carrying out an attack, McCann case is slightly different in that he was unarmed and not posing a threat at the time of his shooting which makes it a little more in line with an assassination, that being said he was a known terrorist, was known to have carried out armed attacks and no innocent bystanders were injured so sucks to be him basically.

Originally Posted by MontyB

We dont use it at all, we have Murder and Manslaughter, murder pretty much covers everything from premeditated to heat of the moment action any mitigating circumstances are accounted for in the sentencing process and manslaughter is essentially neglegent deaths.








Indeed in that case I really dont have any issue with the SAS handling of the situation as the IRA had a van load of explosives and were in the way to carrying out an attack, McCann case is slightly different in that he was unarmed and not posing a threat at the time of his shooting which makes it a little more in line with an assassination, that being said he was a known terrorist, was known to have carried out armed attacks and no innocent bystanders were injured so sucks to be him basically.

Oh, I thought NZ uses the terms. I found this article from NZ
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/p...%20of%20murder.

I think the controversial part of the SAS operation in Gibraltar was, the SAS soldiers were wearing civilian clothes and didn't identified themselves as soldiers or police officers. I don't have any issues with what the SAS did in Gibraltar, but it might have been more efficient if they had apprehended the terrorists to maybe been able to capture more of them. But soldiers behave differently than what police officers do

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Oh, I thought NZ uses the terms. I found this article from NZ
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/p...%20of%20murder.

That was a proposed bill to introduce degrees of murder but it never made it through parliament.

I think the controversial part of the SAS operation in Gibraltar was, the SAS soldiers were wearing civilian clothes and didn't identified themselves as soldiers or police officers. I don't have any issues with what the SAS did in Gibraltar, but it might have been more efficient if they had apprehended the terrorists to maybe been able to capture more of them. But soldiers behave differently than what police officers do

To be honest I don't care whether they were all dressed as Krusty the Clown if you are in the process of carrying out an attack and get shot in the process too bad, I think the British should have been far more ruthless with the IRA than they were.

Originally Posted by MontyB

To be honest I don't care whether they were all dressed as Krusty the Clown if you are in the process of carrying out an attack and get shot in the process too bad, I think the British should have been far more ruthless with the IRA than they were.

I cannot agree more with this, absolutely spot on. The troops in Northern Ireland were fighting a war (yes it was a war) with one hand tied behind their back. What is rarely understood, British troops went into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics!

What angers me greatly, IRA murderers have been given a free pass from prosecution after murdering innocent men, women and children and troops trying to keep the peace, yet Troops who served in Northern Ireland are being prosecuted for doing their duty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, BUT, I firmly believe the death penalty should have been carried out on cowardly terrorists.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I cannot agree more with this, absolutely spot on. The troops in Northern Ireland were fighting a war (yes it was a war) with one hand tied behind their back. What is rarely understood, British troops went into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics!

What angers me greatly, IRA murderers have been given a free pass from prosecution after murdering innocent men, women and children and troops trying to keep the peace, yet Troops who served in Northern Ireland are being prosecuted for doing their duty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, BUT, I firmly believe the death penalty should have been carried out on cowardly terrorists.

I am prepared to give them a pass on attacking troops but I believe that attacks on civilians should still be prosecutable.

I am a fan of the death penalty, I concede that it doesn't stop offending but it sure as hell stops re-offending.

If I remember correctly under the Geneva Convention those fighting in civilian clothes are not afforded the protection of the convention. and are liable to suffer capital punishment.

Albert Pierpoint, Britain's last hangman stated that the death penalty does not deter premeditated murder, as Monty stated which I agree with, it does stop reoffending. However, there have been miscarriages of justice such as the death penalty handed out to Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. The hanging of Ruth Ellis caused such outrage by the British public, it brought about the abolition of the death penalty.