Defining Homicide & Murder

[H2O Man]

" Whoever hates his brother is a murderer" -- John 3:15


The above quote was my late friend Rubin "Hurricane" Carter's favorite in the last five years of his life. I am using it in hopes of having a conversation on what people think defines "murder," rather than to be preachy. For twenty years of his life, Rubin was a convicted triple murderer. Two months after the violent crime, the lead investigator referred to Rubin and his co-defendant as "ni__ers, Muslims, animals, and murders." (NY Times; 9-27-74)

Perhaps the lead investigator had the modus operandi in mind. The two murderers used a shotgun and a pistol to kill the people in the bar. A year earlier, Malcolm X was murdered by two men, with a shotgun and a pistol, with the leader coming from Trenton, NJ. Two of the men picked up the night of the triple murder -- who failed polygraphs and were incarcerated for a time -- were NOI members, connected with the on-going competition for control of the local bars and the money made on "the numbers." (As Malcolm noted in his autobiography, a great deal of money was made on vice.)

Rubin's conviction was eventually overturned by the federal courts. A few years after Rubin's death, the actual gunman Rubin was accused of being confessed to the crime on his death bed, identifying the other man as well. They were the two men that I mentioned in the above paragraph. Yet today, on internet boxing forums, I frequently read posts calling Rubin a murderer.

Thus, there are many definitions of murder and murderers. There is the legal definition, which includes murder as one type of homicide. There are a variety of opinions in the general public. On this very forum, for instance, a friend told me a person cannot be called a "murderer" if they were not convicted in a court of law. That would exclude the two men who slaughtered three people in the Paterson, NJ bar, something I disagree with. And there is Rubin, who in order to win his freedom, recognized he had to go inside himself to find that which is above the law.

Is Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer? He was charged with homicide, but a jury deemed him "not guilty." I suspect that many forum members disagree. How about Chris Kyle? The popularity of the 2014 movie "American Sniper" suggest many considered him a hero. I'm not sure that killing 200 Iraqi citizens opposed to the bush/Cheney invasion was heroic. That would tend to mean that bush and Cheney were heroic, by association.

In our country, states tend to have three levels of homicide: murder, manslaughter, and justifiable. Both first and second degree murder cover intentional acts. For sake of keeping this essay shorter than I find interesting, I'll skip over preterintentional killing and/or manslaughter. There are also at least seven types of murder covered by federal law. (There may be more, but I'm dealing with a head cold, feel sick as shit, and thus my mind isn't at the reduced peak usually associated with old age. But I count seven. And international law is a whole different kettle of fish, and I tend to be a vegetarian while suffering from a cold.)

It is interesting that the general public appears split on the case of the insurance CEO. Some think it was a justifiable homicide in a class war. Many recognize it was murder, do not approve of it, but do not have sympathy for the victim. And many think it was a brutal murder with zero justification. By NYS law, the young man will be prosecuted for murder, and almost certainly be found guilty.

I think the case can be made that the top levels of the insurance industry might be charged with manslaughter -- the unintentional killing of human beings without malice aforethought -- when they mistake human beings as mere statistics. They are as intoxicated by money as any drunk driver in a fatal crash.

[stopdiggin]

1. would suspect that most of us can find several things to both agree, and disagree, with here

Pointing to one of my own - I'm a bit chary of the idea that 'murder' is not something defined by the state (or at least concerted social convention?). If murder is just something that we all 'make up our own minds' about - then it becomes just another word - no better no worse, that we can a sling about with complete freedom and disregard - with the result that it essentially comes to mean little or nothing. Just another slur to be cast about and lathered upon the 'enemy'. Is that amounting to a social good, benefit?

I'd argue not - while having to acknowledge that (in this case, and many others) that horse has long since fled the barn.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[H2O Man]

2. Thanks!

The state does define "murder." No question about that. At the same time, not everyone charged & convicted is a murderer, nor is everyone found "not guilty" not a murderer.

[stopdiggin]

3. Yes. You're absolutely right.

And the plain truth is - to some degree we DO make up our own minds about these things ...
Ergo - the anti-abortion folks that have firmly affixed the label - and without doubt believe in their own minds ...
Flip side - we have people in our community that are adamant that Daniel Perry committed 'murder' - despite any 'verdict that might be handed down.

For my own part - I only point out that this places us on a slippery slope.

[H2O Man]

4. Interesting.

The abortion issue is an important example, and one that I had in mind as I was writing the OP. I was 100% intent upon mentioning it, but being sick as a dog, obviously completely overlooked it! Usually my errors on DU are simply my being stupid, but I plead illness on that. Either way, thank you for mentioning it.

Having four adult children, I can say that abortion never crossed my mind, nor their mothers, that I am aware of. Likewise, telling a woman what to do with their bodies would never cross my mind. (*** Unless, while in bed, I quoted Jim Morrison: "Go real slow -- you'll like it more and more.) I favor everyone having full access to health care.

Now, I've read a bit about the Daniel Perry case. But I do not know enough about it to have an opinion. So I have not read or participated in any of the discussions on the case here on DU. I have commented on numerous other legal cases discussed here over the years. I keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" only has meaning in the context of our legal system, and does not apply to the court of public opinion.

Thus, though the case was decided well before DU was created, there were some spirited debates on the OJ Simpson case. Despite his being found "not guilty" in the criminal case, it is possible to make a case -- maybe even a strong case -- that he was guilty as sin. And, unless one knows the actual case, people could think my late friend Rubin was guilty. I'll note that a person actually said to me, "Look at pictures of him! You can tell he's a murderer!" So that court of public opinion is hardly fool-proof. Too often, people have a bias rather than an opinion ..... this being the exact reason only one with an education and background can give an opinion in criminal court.

While I think the healthcare exec case is definitely one of murder, and the courts will deliver justice, I do think it raises interesting topics of discussion. For example, will the two houses of Congress institute any reforms when it comes to the corporate twins named insurance and big pharma? How likely is any politician who takes donations from them to take a noble stand? And why is it that discussions of class warfare discouraged in polite society?

[malaise]

16. Get well soon

[H2O Man]

23. Thank you!

[Happy Hoosier]

6. There are legal definitions and personal usage.

The state defines “murder,” but I’m guessing most of us have disagreed with courts that have acquitted someone on murder charges.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer and no acquittal will change my mind.

[H2O Man]

8. Exactly.

In my lifetime, in the deep south, if white men murdered black people, there was very little chance of facing legal consequences.

[stopdiggin]

10. And I do not consider Rittenhouse a murderer

based both on my understanding of the circumstances and particulars there - and on the fact that a jury of his (and my) peers said otherwise. Similarly with OJ Simpson - cannot find myself comfortable with affixing the label - even though scores of people are 100% convinced that "he got away with it". (all the while, I might add - not having an iota more evidence or intimate knowledge of that case - than I myself have.)

[Happy Hoosier]

17. Knock yerself out....

You wanna adopt that point of view, fine. I don't think it's useful.

IMO, murder is simply an unjustifiable homocide. If someone murders someone and is never caught, prosecuted and convicted, they are STILL a murderer in mind. There is a distinction between a murderer and a convicted murderer.

[stopdiggin]

18. on the other hand you're the one that drug the Rittenhouse name

into this discussion. Which ironically serves as a fairly apt illustration of what we are discussing. Namely that people will employ the label, either rightly or wrongly - more or less regardless of the specifics or circumstances involved.

To me it seems unuseful if we use the term so loosely - that it comes to mean anything that we choose it to mean (sometimes in wildly different context and scenario) - and then therefore little or nothing at all. For instance, I am completely inured to the cries of 'murderer' from the frothy anti-abortion protesters. Because the appellation simply does not fit the circumstances at all. Just rhetoric without substance or any true value or meaning.

[Happy Hoosier]

19. Actually, I'm not....

But I'm perfectly happy to argue the point if you like. To be clear, words do NOT have a "true meaning." Words have agreed upon meanings. They are defined by their usage. Sometimes the meaning of words is different in different contexts... and sometimes the meaning of words is in dispute, or even in transition. For example, a scientific "theory" is different from the colloquial use of the word "theory."

[H2O Man]

26. Thus, when asked

what he would do with absolute power, the ancient philosopher Confucius said, "Demand that people use words properly."

I plead guilty to being the one to have first mentioned the murderer Rittenhouse. I did so in the OP.

[stopdiggin]

32. Oops. That would be my bad then.

As far as continuing ... Can't say as I see any real point. Everyone has had a chance to say their piece. And I don't think there's a case for misapprehension or misunderstanding here - just fundamental disagreement.

I'm thinking that all of us would agree that language has both the element of potential beauty - as well as a wellspring of power capable of enormous strength and utility ... (for both good and ill) The doors (and applications) of communication and suasion open wide before us (as we have perhaps never before quite fully understood or appreciated?) And perhaps it would behoove us to have some recognition and respect there? (if not a little fear and trepidation?)

- - - - - - - - - - - - peace, neighbor ...

[H2O Man]

25. No.

I am the one that "drug the Rittenhouse name into this discussion." I mentioned him in the OP, and hope for full credit or blame for doing so.

[stopdiggin]

31. OK. I missed that one. My bad there.

[H2O Man]

24. Right.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

5. You cannot put the fox in charge of the hen house and then put all of the blame on the fox.

It is a big flaw in our health care system.

While we would legally expect the insurance companies to make fair decisions on what should be covered, even if it might take all, or most, of their profit at times, it is foolish to expect them to do so.

If the oversight doesn't reign them in, I can see why they pursue higher corporate profits, and feel like they are just doing their job. It is a very flawed system. I hope we get a system in place that is far less flawed.

[H2O Man]

7. My daughter lives in Europe.

Her recent pregnancy, delivery, and months of aftercare (visits by two midwives and one nurse, three visits per week) cost $26. I will speculate that is a better system.

Corporations, by their non-human nature, focus on profit and growth. They do not have a conscience. Therefore, unlike in my daughter's case, they do not value human beings.

[Happy Hoosier]

20. The reality, is, of course, that it cost her more than $26.

The cost was paid for by taxes and spread over the population. The point being that the bigger the risk pool, the lower the costs, and a single payer system will reduce administrative costs by a LOT, and a single government payer can demand more cost accountability from providers.

[H2O Man]

22. Right.

The country she lives in values health and education, and has a very high level of life satisfaction. When my granddaughter is a bit older, for example, she will get her PhD(s) for free. People are happy and friendly there.

[EmmaLee E]

33. But corporations are people, too!

Remember Mitt Romney quoting the Supreme Court?

Corporations may be people, too, but they do not face accountability for the deaths caused by their denial of care.

My two cents on the "innocent until proven guilty" statement.
True, the burden of proof lies in the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.
That's a big hurdle, and often unmet.
But not proven guilty is just that - not proven guilty. Not innocent of the crime.
The plea is always "guilty" or "not guilty" never "innocent." (no lo contendere is something else)

(Wiping brow, brain cells were loosened from law some 40 years ago.)

[H2O Man]

34. Yes.

I remember Willard "Mitt" Romney saying that. In fact, I quoting him in an essay on the nature of corporations posted a few days befoe the NYC shooting that has been subject to much attention -- certainly more than my essay!

[H2O Man]

12. Right.

I think that people who have been denied, or have relatives and friends who were, who while not being in favor of murder, do not have sympathy for that devil. And I'm not using that work in a religious sense. There is no "evil" outside of humanity. But as a "doer of evil."

[Jack Valentino]

11. The 'next Luigi' is watching...

[H2O Man]

13. I saw coverage

of young guys having a Luigi look-alike contest. I've heard the style of coat he wore has sold out. And that people are getting a Luigi tatoo. I don't think any of these people are dangerous. But the chances are that potential ones are watching.

[Mike 03]

14. Defining murder

For the most part I accept the components of murder as requiring intention as the most important factor. There is an adage in criminal law that "If you can prove he did it, you don't need a motive" but I personally have found that motive is so fused to intent that it's deeply unsatisfying not to have a motive. But I don't believe that law requires the establishment of one. And there are strange murders that are a result of the perpetrator wanting to "experience" what it is like to take another's life--which IS a motive, but a hard one to explain to most juries.

I sometimes think about an incident like the Jonestown cult "massacre"/"mass suicide." Was that suicide or murder? If intent is the most important thing, it's more convincing to call those deaths "murders" by a process of deceit, control and manipulation (FWIW, in Buddhism "intention" is the most important aspect of every action, far more important than the outcome of any action)

Maybe that connects to the idea of a corporation that is incentivized to deny necessary medical procedures to their customers. That might raise the culpability above the levels of employees at the company somewhat above "unintentionality" and "non-premeditated." But maybe not. It depends, perhaps, on whether or not the employees denying the claims are aware that they augment the company's profits when they do. Are their year-end bonuses contingent upon the number of claims they deny? Interesting to think about.

[H2O Man]

27. Very good!

You are correct that a prosecutor does not have to prove motive. He or she does not have to even suggest one. But a jury generally prefers if one is produced.

I think that there is evidence from the survivors of Jonestown that documents there were both murders and suicides.

[malaise]

15. Another great OP

THIS

I think the case can be made that the top levels of the insurance industry might be charged with manslaughter -- the unintentional killing of human beings without malice aforethought -- when they mistake human beings as mere statistics. They are as intoxicated by money as any drunk driver in a fatal crash.

[H2O Man]

28. Thank you!

I thought the "drunk driver" bit was the most important part of the OP.

[Saoirse9]

21. Luigi's case is justifiable homicide in my opinion.

It was fairly well thought out and premeditated. But it was still justifiable.

This case while devastating for Luigi and his family is going to open up discussions about the way insurance companies cheat their members. I think that was his intention -- to make the world pay attention to the injustice of these scam insurance companies.

I don't believe in justice anymore. An adjudicated rapist, who stole and sold national intelligence documents, and mounted an insurrection against his own government, is going to be president. There's rarely any justice happening in this country.

Who the hell cares about justice? Who cares what the definition of murder is? Seems like a moot point right now.

I remember Rubin's case well because you've talked about it so often. And I agree with your post above that people who didn't know him would assume he was a murderer because of erroneous things they read in the press. But he was innocent.

I dunno what the hell defines murder? A murderer will be sat in the oval office pretty soon.

We have to make our own justice. That is how I see it.

[H2O Man]

29. Interesting.

I'm not in favor of shooting people, but I am more concerned with innocent victims. Last month, a good friend's son was shot and killed while walking towards his house. It was either a case of mistaken identity, or just someone shooting at an innocent young man. This has been hell for my friend and his family. Likewise, I am concerned about school shootings.

This country is in a position it has never experienced in the past. We'd have to look at examples of other decaying empires, though that would require people stop thinking, "It could never happen here." Yet that type of thinking was common in every other crumbling empire.

Perhaps the one positive that I see from the shooting is that more people understand that it is a matter of class warfare. The response of the "elite" class in trying to tone that down is evidence. It has been a reality for many, many years, to the extent that most common folk do not consciously recognize that they are being had.

[Saoirse9]

35. Very good point

Often people don’t recognize that they are being taken advantage of. Certainly Fox viewers have never figured that out in all these years. They must want to be fooled.

Also a great point about being concerned about innocents being shot, but not so much concern when a bad guy gets it. I haven’t seen anyone, not even one person, say that the UHC CEO was innocent. Everyone knew he was on the take. Everyone knew he was paid an ungodly amount of money to block UHC members from receiving needed care.

[leftstreet]

37. +1

Perhaps the one positive that I see from the shooting is that more people understand that it is a matter of class warfare. The response of the "elite" class in trying to tone that down is evidence. It has been a reality for many, many years, to the extent that most common folk do not consciously recognize that they are being had.

[Easterncedar]

30. A friend rendered aid to someone seriously injured on the street

And was surrounded by people who remonstrated with him and argued for doing nothing for fear of being sued. Letting the person die was to them the wiser course. Does failure to act make a murder?

A friend, 20, with cystic fibrosis finally made it to the top of the waiting list for lung transplants and was preparing for surgery, then was told on the phone that since his parents had died (4 years before) he wasn’t eligible to have his life saved any more because he had no family care team. An actual nurse made that call to him. Can you imagine being that nurse? (My family assembled a care team, but the delay ultimately killed him. Horribly.)
Of course, some other person got his place, so no net loss of life, I guess.

Two men leave a party, both are drunk, both drive. One fails to see a kid on a scooter and kills him, and goes to jail for years. He becomes a pariah and never regains anything like his old life. The other gets pulled over and is ticketed for DUI. He gets a fine and a class on safe driving. Same actions; one is unlucky. Shouldn’t we treat all DUIs equally? Like attempted manslaughter?

I used to enjoy discussing ethics. Now I just feel frustrated by how little effect the subject of ethics has in the real world.

[H2O Man]

36. Your friend re-enacted

the story of the Good Samaritan found in the book of Luke in so many ways. Our society has certainly ventured down that steep road that the prophet Jesus referenced. It is such a great teaching, though understood by few and acted upon by even fewer.

The only good thing that I can think of from the death of the salesman -- for he sold his "soul" -- is that people are starting to recognize they are not alone in frustrations and horrors as a result of insurance corporations. Although it hasn't resulted in Democrats and maga cult members breaking bread, it opens into what Rubin called a tiny door. And sometimes, he used to tell an impatient me, even a tiny door can lead to a large room.

I think we are approaching a point where those who voted for the sociopathic felon recognize that they have been had ......just like so many others around him over the decades have been. And those who didn't vote will realize they screwed up. Not that I anticipate any organic alliance, I do think our party needs to back candidates that do not take contributions from the twin evils of corporate insurance/ big pharma.

[Easterncedar]

38. I see that. A small door that hope might appear through.

Getting money and the widespread acceptance of graft out of the political and judicial systems would be helpful, and how about regulating all media to curb misinformation and corruption? Sweet summer child, that’s me.