"Vito" wrote in message ...
"Horvath" wrote
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Then I suggest you back a candidate other than Bu****. He's responsible
for the murder of US troops.

Name one person he's murdered, you lying asshole.

Gota define "murder" first. Solomon sent Bathsheba's husband into battle so
he would be killed, leaving the toothsome wench to himself. Was that
murder?


I dont know about your little warped world, but the USA says:

Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another
human being, without lawful excuse. When an illegal death was not
caused intentionally, but was caused by recklessness or negligence (or
there is some defense, such as diminished capacity), the crime
committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent
homicide, which are considered to be less serious than murder. In the
United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories:
involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

A difficult issue in defining murder is what counts as causing death.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of this, but some legal
principles have been developed to help. For example, many common law
jurisdictions abide by the year and a day rule, which provides that
one is to be held responsible for a person's death only if they die
within a year and a day of the act. Thus, if you seriously injured
someone, and they died from their injuries within a year and a day,
you would be guilty of murder; but you would not be guilty if they
died from their injuries after a year and a day had passed.

It is not murder to kill someone with lawful excuse; lawful excuses
include killing enemy combatants in time of war (but not after they
surrendered), killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the
lives of ones self or others (i.e., in self-defence), and executing a
person in accordance with a sentence of death (in those jurisdictions
which use capital punishment). Sometimes extreme provocation or duress
can justify killing another as well. These cases of killing are called
justifiable homicide.

Under English law (and the law of other countries, such as Australia,
which pay close heed to the decisions of British courts), it is murder
to kill another human being for food, even if without doing so one
would die of starvation. This originated in a case of three
shipwrecked sailors cast adrift off the coast of South Africa in the
1920s; two of the sailors conspired to kill the other sailor, and
having killed him ate his flesh to survive.

Most countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind"
to be regarded as mitigating circumstances against murder. This means
that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter on the basis of
diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved
that they were suffering from a condition that affected their
judgement at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and
medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken
into account when assessing responsibility.

Also, some countries, such as Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom and
Australia, allow post-partum depression, or 'baby-blues', as a defense
against murder of a child by a mother, provided that a child is less
than a year old.

Hope this helps Veto.

Joe