You're viewing a single thread.
Are people really acting like an assassination is the same thing as your everyday, meat-and-potatoes murder?
Legally indistinct
Feel free to explain how this is different than a poor person murdering another poor person for revenge
Do you really not understand the difference between assassination and murder, or are you just pretending to have a point?
If my neighbor pisses me off and I decide to kill him, is it murder or assassination?
Depends who your neighbor is.
How so?
Is your neighbor a public figure or somebody who holds significant power? Are there political or ideological motivations behind killing him?
So if I choose to kill my neighbor because of who he voted for, but he’s not a public figure or holding significant power, where does that land?
Feel free to explain how this was an assassination and not a murder
Pretty sure assassin roughly means person who you hire to kill people.
The difference is effectively one of motive and contract.
If I'm personally wronged by the victim and I personally plan to kill them myself, that's first degree murder.
If I don't leave the house intending to kill someone, but end up in a fight or situation where I end up intending to cause harm to someone (even if it's protecting myself), and end up killing someone, that's generally second degree murder.
Now if I'm wronged by someone, plan to have them killed, but don't want to do it myself, so I set up a contract with a hit man and pay money to have a target killed. That's assassination.
It's an assassination because the dead person had way more social|political|economic power than the killer.
It's an assassination because the dead person had way more social|political|economic power than the killer.
So... only bad power seeking people that cross those they have tangible power over to the point of vengeance.
Fuck, in this hellscape of corruption and captured governments world? I'm sold. You should sell the concept of assassination more often. You're good.
Yeah, I'm not sure why the downvotes on my previous comment. "Assassination" is the "privilege" of the powerful.
Assassinations are typically politically motivated. We don't know what his motivation was yet, so calling it an assassination is jumping to conclusions.
I'm not sure why the downvotes on my previous comment.
Because apparently noting what makes this killing different from others means you love slobbing on CEO knob, or something. That's my takeaway from this thread so far.
You seem to be under a false belief of what defined an assassination. Is it an assassination every time a poor person kills a rich person?
We're REALLY like you to explain the difference you see. Even if we think there is one, no one has any idea what you are talking about.
The difference is this wasn't random, it likely wasn't directly personal, he attacked by surprise, and the victim held social/political power and was otherwise noteworthy.
Why is half this thread acting like they're incapable of opening a dictionary?
The difference is this wasn't random, it likely wasn't directly personal, he attacked by surprise, and the victim held social/political power and was otherwise noteworthy.
Why should any of those determine the level of police response? Not why does it, we all know that. Why SHOULD it?
Why are you acting like there is a MEANINGFUL difference? The differences that you state are arbitrary. Who cares if it was personal or not? Murders are almost NEVER random, so what?
Clearly in your mind the difference between assassination and murder is not only obvious, but it is super important and relevant in some way that no one else here is getting. Assassination IS murder. SO what is your point, exactly?! Why are you so het up about what is really nothing more than a question of pedantry?? To the point that you are insulting the intelligence of everyone who doesn't see things your way. It sounds like you have some kind of emotional issue with this.
I think you need to make a point about how this is more than "just" a murder, but possibly an attempt to influence the behaviour of other CEOs, or something like that.
Why would we have the word "assassination" if it's just murder? The word was invented to fill a linguistic need.
While the practical event is the exact same, its implications to the currently living are distinct. Saying this is an assassination communicates that this murder is unique, and should be thought of in a different context than most murders.
everyday, meat-and-potatoes murder
bruh
This is what living in America does to the brain
While I largely agree with you, the brain rot isn't this extreme in all of us. The brash are already shouting while the measured weigh their words.
Personally I prefer assassinations over random killings. Cause no one cares enough to assasinate me.
On here? Yes. Lemmy is very anti-capitalist, anti-rich, anti-buisness. So in their eyes a possible hired assassination of a CEO should be considered a good thing. Which is kind of ironic considering I hear a lot of folks on here say how CEO's don't do anything but collect money which in that case targeting them does no good since they didn't do anything.
Pretty gross thing to say. It's like you got the point and said "yes this despicable moral failing is justified because it exists. Can't argue against that. Checkmate!"
One is politically motivated? Or what is the "official" difference? One happens in public? But why should one be investigated with more resources than the other?
But why should one be investigated with more resources than the other?
Because there's likely reason to believe that this CEO may not have been the only target. One usually doesn't write a message on their bullets unless somebody is planned to still be left alive to get the message.
I mean, the assassin did leave over 99% of CEOs still alive, and hopefully the message will make its way there.
Nah, the message is on the casing, not the bullet. Though when youre as badass as this, I wouldnt be surprised if he could kill someone with a casing