On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
[snip]
Perhaps we need to change the definition to add something like, "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." The facts outlined above could very well result in a determination that there was a murder, but neither we nor our contributors are in a position to make the needed interrogations that will lead to the truth. It's not for us to decide.
Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism classes in college. One of the few things I remember is that when writing about unlawful activities, one must carefully use specific words to qualify the charge, such as "accused", "alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
Note carefully that what is being asserted is not whether or not any of the people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes, merely the opinions of a large number of people, or the official verdicts of the American legal system. And it has been documented that individuals are occasionally arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are later shown not to have committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction for a crime means that it was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that specific crime.
Also note that these phrases are based on Anglo-American law, where people are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found innocent or guilty by a court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent terminology in Civil Law would be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a crime, would it be correct to say that the person charged is indicted?
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.
Geoff