Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Agelastus]

Damn, a "Grumblerisation argument" takes to long...there's been at least three new posts while I was typing the last one.

So what you are saying is that it is a crappy argument and withdraw it?  Smart man.

One can't withdraw something one has already said is difficult to generalise from. You shouldn't have bothered quoting it in the first place.

You have lost me here.  In what jurisdictions are honor killings legal, and what makes you think they are there made legal because of the concept of self-defense?  It seems to me that you are grasping at straws here.  That is always a sign of an untenable position.

Now that the Latin countries have all fallen in to line (most recently Brazil and Colombia, according to mostly-reliable Wikipedia) only a bunch of middle eastern Islamic countries as far as I can tell.

And as for the self-defence idea, protecting one's honour has a long tradition in many societies as a concept as important as preserving ones own life. "Self" defence, as in defence of "Self", "Self" being more than just the physical but also the status and obligations imposed on you by society.

Fortunately, that attitude towards honour that justifies such killings never took much of a hold in post-Roman western societies, and we have long outgrown it.

Sorry, but Idon't trust you on this.  I also remember the cases, and remember that the public opinion was "we thought this was already illegal!  If it isn't, that was an oversight that should be corrected immediately!"  That isn't an emotional response.

Actually, with Dunblane, that certainly was not the case, as the public had been sensitivised to the gun laws by Hungerford. The hysteria around Dunblane in particular was not rational.

Still, I can't help it if you don't trust me on this. After all, I am only a citizen of the country in question, and thus a little closer to the source than you...you could be right in that that makes me too close for objectivity on the issue. I would disagree, of course, but that is what discussion boards are for, is it not?

Of additional interest, many of the members of the 442 (including one of its battalion commanders) were Korean-Americans, unfortunately totally overshadowed by the Nisei story.

I didn't know that, although, on reflection, I suppose it was not too surprising given Korea's status in the Japanese Empire. Were many Chinese Americans mistaken for Japanese as well, since Formosa fudged the issue slightly?

Okay.  Just understand that this merely weakens your position.  Logic is universal, while emotion is individual.

I wouldn't deny that, but I repeat, humans are not Vulcans. I am not convinced that you have completely divorced logic and emotion either (see previous post.)

I meant it exactly as written, and know from my courses in the Law of Armed Conflict that it is true.  Your rewording of it is untrue, of course, but I cannot help you re-writing my points in a feeble attempt to refute them.

Let's take a case from LoAC textbooks: an enemy soldier is driving civilians in front of him and hiding behind them.  He pops up and shoots at you, then ducks down again behind his human civilian shield.  Can you, under the LoAC, shoot the civilians in front of him to get him?

And now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario! That is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.

Anyway, in the example given, and operating from deduction rather than courses in law (which, as I am sure you are aware, I have never claimed to have taken.)

Presumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."

How close am I?

Answer my question, and then we will see which of us knows what the law says.  Note that my case involves deliberately targeting those civilians.

In a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".

May I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.

[The Minsky Moment]

The death penalty is like a murder of crows.  There is a lot of noise and beating of limbs about it, which can become very annoying.

[grumbler]

Abandoned my original contention? Hardly, and if you think that, then we have been having two different discussions.

I clarified my original phrase by adding the word "deliberate", that should have been there all along, then added one case that was ill-covered by the post I had made. 

So you still contend that "murder [is] defined as the [deliberate] taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence"?  That the killing of enemy soldiers who are not threatening the soldiers doing the killing is murder?  That a policeman who kills a maniac about to knife a women is a murderer?

Adding "deliberate," of course, makes your terminology even worse.  A gang-banger firing a gun into a crowd and killing a person at random is not murder by your definition, because the gangbanger didn't deliberately kill anyone, let alone the victim. 

Your position grows more absurd by the post.

As for "weaselling contentions", the debate is merely expanding from its base proposition.

Expanding as your desperately attempt to avoid the logical consequences of your own contentions.

And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.[/quote]
You are entitled to whatever hysterical opinions you wish to generate.  Just don't expect anyone else to respect those opinions.

[Agelastus]

And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.

That is simply inane.

Murder is a legal term. It has a specific legal meaning, and there is no way execution can possibly fit that definition, by definition.

The word you are looking for his "homicide".

I already stated that.  Almost word for word.

I am actually confused as to what A is arguing here.  Saying that Execution of criminals is wrong because it's not a power we should invest in the state, or that it's cruel, or that it's immoral, or that it's wasteful, or that it makes one late for dinner all seem to be valid arguments (I don't subscribe to all of them), but to say it's murder doesn't seem be a valid argument since by definition it can't be.   The State can of course murder people when it acts in contrary to it's own laws.  I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.

I concur. You did indeed, Berkut could just simply have quoted your post for equal effect.

Nor would I subscribe to the "late for dinner" argument...was it inspired by General Melchett from Blackadder goes Forth, by any chance?

Anyway.

Equating execution with murder is a moral position.

It is not currently a legal position, although as a number of jurisdictions will not extradite their citizens if they could face the death penalty, even if the offence in question is one covered in extradition treaties with the country where the crime took place, one does wonder if it would be possible for said governments to be sued as accessories to murder if they did extradite individuals in these cases.

Although it is not currently a legal position, laws can and are changed, and given how "wet" society is becoming on other issues, it may not be an entirely unlikely possibility in certain countries.

As for your point about international and national law, I don't know the answer, although theoretically I suppose it could be possible. Can anyone think of a possible scenario for discussion here?

[grumbler]

The legal definition of murder:

229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

We all understand that, BB.  What Agelastus and mglia are arguing is that murder isn't murder by any legal definition, but rather by any defnition that makes judicial execution a murder.  This isn't about logic, it is about an appeal to emotion.

[Agelastus]

So you still contend that "murder [is] defined as the [deliberate] taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence"?  That the killing of enemy soldiers who are not threatening the soldiers doing the killing is murder?  That a policeman who kills a maniac about to knife a women is a murderer?

Adding "deliberate," of course, makes your terminology even worse.  A gang-banger firing a gun into a crowd and killing a person at random is not murder by your definition, because the gangbanger didn't deliberately kill anyone, let alone the victim. 

Your position grows more absurd by the post.

We've already discussed the semantic issues with self-defence.

And firing a gun into a crowd is most definitely a deliberate action. Just because he could have killed anyone does not mean he has not deliberately taken a human life. I am surprised you would even consider that a telling point.

Anyway, when did "gang-banger" become a term for a shooter? Last I heard that referred to a much different, and if consensual, much more pleasant act. Is this a recent addition to American slang?

Expanding as your desperately attempt to avoid the logical consequences of your own contentions.

Well, that deserves a "you started it" response, but since I am really starting to enjoy myself here, I won't. In fact, Raz has just raised a very interesting point that I am looking forward to your response on.

You are entitled to whatever hysterical opinions you wish to generate.  Just don't expect anyone else to respect those opinions.

Well, I wouldn't call it hysterical, in either sense of the word. You disagree, obviously enough. I respect your opinion. You see no need for the converse to be true, but would rather make a laboured attempt to ridicule it rather than make simple and factual posts in disagreement to it.

Well, anyway, my opinion is my opinion. I would not dream of forcing it on others absent the backing of a democratic majority, which is currently not present. However, I'm happy to keep talking about it as long as you are.

[grumbler]

No strawman here - "trust" and "faith" have emotional components as much as logical, and your second contention relies on your own faith in your deductive abilities rather than hard data, as far as I am aware.

No, they don't, and no, it does not.  This argument by assertion of yours is boring and pointless, so from now on I will respond to such arguments by noting "ABA" and otherwise ignoring them.

I was rather hoping you could point me at a study to back-up your second contention, as I am dubious about it. I can quite easily see more murders being done by released murderers than there are innocent men falsely accused of murder in jail. However, that may be due to my impression of the British legal system, and may not equate directly to the American experience.

I am afraid you will have to do your own research on this.

I find it impossible to believe that anyone is completely unemotional in their assessment of the death penalty, given the horrific nature of many murders.

Okay, you find it impossible.  I know of no way in which to expand the range of what you consider possible, so we will just leave it at the point where I contend that I can do something you think impossible.

I was unaware that you are a Vulcan or a robot, Grumbler...

I was well aware that you resort to ad hominem arguments. 

Besides, you just admitted to anger over the perceived injustice.

So?

I am interested in just how far you wish to limit government powers, though. At face value, that looks almost like an anarchist outlook in the last two lines.

I believe that government should be limited to those roles that only it can do effectively.  This is a pretty common political stance this side of the pond.

Quite correct. But since I never said there reason was the same as mine, I fail to see what I am admitting. You are grasping at a straw here to try and beat me with, and failing.

Dude, ywhy would you post

...which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country...

and then claim that you had never said such a thing.  Your stance "the death penalty is murder" is not in line with the views of the politicians who run your country, and you later conceded that this was true.  Now you are saying you never even made the contention, which is easily disproven!

It was sarcasm and a pretty trite attempt at ridicule, of a type you had done before. And my point was if you had simply posted, "you're position does not match the commonly accepted definition of murder", rather than typing a response that was more insulting than clever, then we would not be having this argument.

We are not having an argument, you are simply posting silly contentions and I am blowing them away.  You are not responding to my arguments at all, which would be required for us to have "an argument."  My point is that if you had simply not posted silly shit, we would not be spending lifespan on the issue.

I expressed my personal opinion on the subject of murder. Moreover, as a generalised description of murder, it is actually fairly apt crap.

No one really cares about opinions that are rooted in absurd premises and lack any evidence of careful consideration.

How the law stands now is not irrelevant; if enough people share my view in the future, then the law will be changed. Moreover, your point is, to be blunt, pointless, as it is highly unlikely any such law could be, or would be, applied retroactively.

I don't think it would be wise to hold your breath until even a seond person hares your view, let alone a majority of people.  Your point is, to be blunt, pointless (such a clever pun I will also use it).

I believe you are the one who stated that the death penalty could be described as society's legitimate self defence, not I; moreover, since this is a statement neither of us are in agreement with, trying to misuse it as a bat to beat me with is foolish. Stop putting your words in to my mouth (or rather, text.)

Are you arguing for the narrow definition of self-defense (the one everyone agrees upon) or the broad one (where anyone can make up their own meaning)?  Either way, you lose.  You cannot choose the definition where you get to make up meanings and I don't, though.

Besides, how on earth do you draw a reference to the death penalty from the various political contortions Britain and the USA went through in order to justify the second Gulf War in terms of self-defence? I actually think it is quite silly that we had to go through all that, but the modern world demands it.

This is the second time you have brought this up, and each time you ask me how I do something with it.  The answer is that i don't.  This is a red herring.

While it may have been ignored in the specific, the general moral message has been a part of western thought and society for at least sixteen centuries. It is therefore one of the best examples to use, as it has had reat influence even on otherwise violent societies. Consider the "Truce of God" concept in medieval France, for example.

No, it has never been enforced, as the existence of humans proves.  I don't think it was ever even written by any of the authors of the bible.  I think you will find out that your entire point here is based around a mis-translation!    It is, I am sure, not "thou shalt not kill," it is "don't commit murder."

[grumbler]

One can't withdraw something one has already said is difficult to generalise from. You shouldn't have bothered quoting it in the first place.

  Don't you mean that you shouldn't have said it in the first place? You cannot gig me for quoting you when you say stupid shit.

Now that the Latin countries have all fallen in to line (most recently Brazil and Colombia, according to mostly-reliable Wikipedia) only a bunch of middle eastern Islamic countries as far as I can tell.

Stricken as non-responsive.  Argument refuted by default.

And as for the self-defence idea, protecting one's honour has a long tradition in many societies as a concept as important as preserving ones own life. "Self" defence, as in defence of "Self", "Self" being more than just the physical but also the status and obligations imposed on you by society.

In your society?  Or in mine?  These kinds of weasels about "many societies" and "a bunch of countries" are ABA.

Actually, with Dunblane, that certainly was not the case, as the public had been sensitivised to the gun laws by Hungerford. The hysteria around Dunblane in particular was not rational.

ABA

I wouldn't deny that, but I repeat, humans are not Vulcans. I am not convinced that you have completely divorced logic and emotion either (see previous post.)

Strawman.

And now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario!

I was discussing an issue of war.  War includes armed opposition.  Kinda by definition.

That is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.

You clearly didn't understand the military necessity argument when extended to a larger theater, so now I have given a case on a much smaller scale, to demonstrate why deliberately targeting and killing civilians is not always a war crime.

Presumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."

Nope.  There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" in the LoAC.  You can deliberately target and kill as many civilians in this case as military necessity requires, but no more than that.  This is not murder, even if you yourself are not under threat.

In a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".

Nope, not covered by those cases at all.  Deliberate targeting of civilians is not always murder.

May I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.

I do not need to include every qualification possible to each case.  If there is only one case, the general statement is true.  This is basic logic. 

It is merely your strawman that I am "endorsing a war crime" unless I make some known-only-to-you specific qualification.

[Agelastus]

No, they don't, and no, it does not.  This argument by assertion of yours is boring and pointless, so from now on I will respond to such arguments by noting "ABA" and otherwise ignoring them.

No argument by assertion about it; you are simply denying a logical point about your own views.

I am afraid you will have to do your own research on this.

Which rather suggests my point about the lack of such studies is real, as I am confident a man such as yourself would normally be able to quote me chapter and verse. Do you want to quit the losing hand you have here?

I believe that government should be limited to those roles that only it can do effectively.  This is a pretty common political stance this side of the pond.

And these roles are?

You are avoiding the point here, which is that your definition of roles that government can do effectively will naturally differ to another person's even when they are presented with exactly the same data. You are expressing a personal opinion which may not match with the law as written or the perception of the general populace. Should I ridicule you asininely for that?

Dude, ywhy would you post

...which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country...

and then claim that you had never said such a thing.  Your stance "the death penalty is murder" is not in line with the views of the politicians who run your country, and you later conceded that this was true.  Now you are saying you never even made the contention, which is easily disproven!

The government's stance on the death penalty is that it is not a legitimate punishment; my stance is that it is not a legitimate punishment. That's pretty simple to understand, isn't it? I repeat, I did not say their reasons were the same as mine.

We are not having an argument, you are simply posting silly contentions and I am blowing them away.  You are not responding to my arguments at all, which would be required for us to have "an argument."  My point is that if you had simply not posted silly shit, we would not be spending lifespan on the issue.

Since the first "silly shit" was posted by you your definition of our current activity does not inspire me to agree with you.

I expressed my personal opinion on the subject of murder. Moreover, as a generalised description of murder, it is actually fairly apt crap.

No one really cares about opinions that are rooted in absurd premises and lack any evidence of careful consideration.

Other than a number of years of careful thought, of course. I didn't make this opinion up on the morning of my post, after all. Not, of course, that you seem to believe me, but what the heck can I do about that?

I don't think it would be wise to hold your breath until even a seond person hares your view, let alone a majority of people.  Your point is, to be blunt, pointless (such a clever pun I will also use it).

Normally I edit my posts to avoid word repetition; it is lazy writing not to use two different words given the breadth of the English language.

No pun intended.

And I would not be surprised if other people in the world shared my view. However, I would not expect to run into many/any of them on Languish.

This is the second time you have brought this up, and each time you ask me how I do something with it.  The answer is that i don't.  This is a red herring.

So WHY did you bring it up? The section of the relevant post talked about the political contortions used to justify the second Gulf War in terms of self-defence, not the death penalty, so why did you link the two? You are actually one of the best I know for bringing up red herrings...

No, it has never been enforced, as the existence of humans proves.  I don't think it was ever even written by any of the authors of the bible.  I think you will find out that your entire point here is based around a mis-translation!    It is, I am sure, not "thou shalt not kill," it is "don't commit murder."

The Catholic church, quite possibly the oldest extant Christian denomination, and also the principle faith of Western Europe during the critical formative years of modern western civilisation, uses "kill", not "murder". Yes, it is a mistranslation of the original, but it is the mistranslation that was and is in common usage. Hence that is the moral directive relating to this Commandment that most of us are brought up with.

And as for its enforcement, you are aware, for example, of the medieval "Truce of God" movement that I have already cited, aren't you?

[Agelastus]

  Don't you mean that you shouldn't have said it in the first place? You cannot gig me for quoting you when you say stupid shit.

I rather think I can, when your quoting it proves you did not bother to either read all of the section involved, or trouble yourself to understand it.

Stricken as non-responsive.  Argument refuted by default.

Oh, this is new - it is now non-responsive to answer a question about under which jurisdictions honour killings remain legal. That's a good one.

In your society?  Or in mine?  These kinds of weasels about "many societies" and "a bunch of countries" are ABA.

ABA as you really need to study more history. Which is something I never thought I would have to say to YOU!

ABA

ABA yourself. To the best of my knowledge you were not present in Britain at the time, so are not best placed to provide a first hand opinion of the public mood post-Hungerford and Dunblane.

And now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario!

I was discussing an issue of war.  War includes armed opposition.  Kinda by definition.

That is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.

You clearly didn't understand the military necessity argument when extended to a larger theater, so now I have given a case on a much smaller scale, to demonstrate why deliberately targeting and killing civilians is not always a war crime.

Presumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."

Nope.  There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" in the LoAC.  You can deliberately target and kill as many civilians in this case as military necessity requires, but no more than that.  This is not murder, even if you yourself are not under threat.

In a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".

Nope, not covered by those cases at all.  Deliberate targeting of civilians is not always murder.

May I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.

I do not need to include every qualification possible to each case.  If there is only one case, the general statement is true.  This is basic logic. 

It is merely your strawman that I am "endorsing a war crime" unless I make some known-only-to-you specific qualification.

Now, as for this whole section.

You stated "deliberately targeted civilians" with no qualification. Without a qualification that can mean anything from taking a family to one side and shooting them dead to your own weaselly retraction-by-example.

Are you saying that the first example (taking a family to one side and shooting them dead) is covered by your blanket assertions? Because that is bullshit, easily disproved by reference to events in Iraq. Which, as they involved American soldiers, I am sure you know more about than I do.

Now, as for the example you gave, I suppose I am not surprised there is no "shoot to wound" in the LoAC, although as I am not a lawyer, I was not previously aware of that. But since you raised the whole thing as a red herring to cover your own shocking imprecision (the very issue you take me to task for) I don't suppose that really matters, does it?

[grumbler]

And firing a gun into a crowd is most definitely a deliberate action. Just because he could have killed anyone does not mean he has not deliberately taken a human life. I am surprised you would even consider that a telling point.

It is not a deliberate killing.  I am surprised that you still insist on this "deliberation" part of the definition, when it is precisely the lack of deliberation that makes reckless killing murder in the real world.

Anyway, when did "gang-banger" become a term for a shooter? Last I heard that referred to a much different, and if consensual, much more pleasant act. Is this a recent addition to American slang?

A gangbanger is a member of a gang who isn't a leader.

Well, I wouldn't call it hysterical, in either sense of the word. You disagree, obviously enough. I respect your opinion. You see no need for the converse to be true, but would rather make a laboured attempt to ridicule it rather than make simple and factual posts in disagreement to it.

The reason why you respect my opinion is because my opinion is based on the available facts and some simple logic.  Yours is based on an assertion which everyone but you know to be false.

[grumbler]

I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.

Yes, it can.  Genocide, for instance, cannot be justified by reference to domestic law.

[grumbler]

I rather think I can, when your quoting it proves you did not bother to either read all of the section involved, or trouble yourself to understand it. :

I dare say your difficulty here is that I did trouble myself to understand what you wrote, and you did not.  The clear implication of killing someone in order to "self defence" yourself from the severe trauma of seeing your wife killed is that is the trauma, and not the defense of others, that triggers your milling justification.  Had you tried for a logical argument rather than an emotive argument, you would have seen instantly how stupid this would sound when parsed out.

ABA yourself. To the best of my knowledge you were not present in Britain at the time, so are not best placed to provide a first hand opinion of the public mood post-Hungerford and Dunblane.

ABA.

You stated "deliberately targeted civilians" with no qualification. Without a qualification that can mean anything from taking a family to one side and shooting them dead to your own weaselly retraction-by-example.

No, that is not true, as a matter of logic.  "One can target civilians and not commit a war crime" is true if there is even one case in which it is true (and there is).  Your argument that I was saying "it is always possible to target civilians without committing a war crime" is an obvious strawman.

Are you saying that the first example (taking a family to one side and shooting them dead) is covered by your blanket assertions? Because that is bullshit, easily disproved by reference to events in Iraq. Which, as they involved American soldiers, I am sure you know more about than I do.

I have no idea why this paragraph is even in here.  No one is arguing that one can legally take a family to one side and shooting them dead.  That's not even an issue of war crimes.  That is straight ordinary murder.  What does this have to do with anything we are discussing? Are you arguing it is not murder?

Now, as for the example you gave, I suppose I am not surprised there is no "shoot to wound" in the LoAC, although as I am not a lawyer, I was not previously aware of that. But since you raised the whole thing as a red herring to cover your own shocking imprecision (the very issue you take me to task for) I don't suppose that really matters, does it?

Haven't a clue as to why this bleat is here, either.  What is a "shocking imprecision?"  Some sort of electric whoopee cushion?  I don't own one of those, not that it is any of your business.

[Razgovory]

I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.

Yes, it can.  Genocide, for instance, cannot be justified by reference to domestic law.

I didn't think so.  I wasn't sure how that was always handled.  So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?

[grumbler]

I didn't think so.  I wasn't sure how that was always handled.  So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?

It would be an extrajudicial execution, so it would be murder.  The "US" couldn't execute anyone in violation of the law; it would have to be a person or persons doing this as private individuals rather than government officials.