First of all, I'm sorry. I realized your last sentence was a joke. I wasn't too sure of where you were going with your NEXT to the last sentence. It felt like a barb disguised as a joke, but us girls are always hopelessly confused about such things.

I think the problem here, Bruce, is that no one has given a definition of the word "murder."

Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word: NOUN: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

also:

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.) execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.)


"all mean “to deprive someone or something of life,” but they differ in important ways. Execute has long meant “to perform, to carry out an action or a duty, to enforce a law,” and a number of other senses not necessarily involving taking life, and for some time in the nineteenth century, commentators deplored the use of execute in the sense of “put to death.” (Their unhappiness may also have been caused in part by the fact that execute is a back-formation from execution.) But today, execute clearly also means “to put to death,” usually under order of a court: The judge sentenced the convicted murderer to be executed by means of lethal injection. (Ironically, gangsters, mobsters, and terrorists often claim to be executing victims judged guilty in their own informal tribunals.)
To murder is usually “to kill with malice aforethought and unlawfully”: He murdered the bank guard who had tried to stop him. To assassinate is “to kill a public or political figure,” and it often is a crime performed for hire or at least on assignment by an organization: The terrorists assassinated the governor of the province. To slay is a literary word—a bit old-fashioned (David slew Goliath) but beloved of the press because it fits headlines (Dissidents Slay Rebel Leader). Slay gives a change from the more common kill, which is, of course the generic term, meaning simply “to take the life of”: We killed hundreds of mosquitoes."

THESE are the definitions of "murder" and "kill" which I am using in my argument. It appears to me that you are using the two words inter-changably.

I will agree with you that animals are capable of and do commit the act of KILLING. I fail to understand how I am creating a straw man when I say animals are incapable of murder. Animals may act in a premeditated fashion, but they do not do so out of malice. You are anthropomorphizing the animal if you embue it with a human emotion such as malice. You admitted yourself that you only showed examples of animals acting in a premeditated manner, but you did not show examples of animals acting with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. Both conditions must exist for an act of killing to become an act of murder.

Animals can, do and will perform premeditated killings. Selecting the one antelope in the herd to bring down shows that. There's a certain degree of thought that goes into it.

Animals can not murder. Even leaving behind the 'of one human' part, when they go to kill something, they aren't doing it for political reasons or anything like that. There are no reasons really, it's done by instinct and the drive to continue living and pass on genes. Taking the life of the antelope is not done because the pride has a certain grudge against that or any antelope or because they want to hear the antelope scream in terror and pain. There's no ill will or malice, as the book says, there.

There's first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter:

Manslaughter is, generally, unintentional, as in, you busted your husband in bed with your best friend and shot them both in the heat of passion, or if you're driving down the road and someone darts in front of you, and you hit them, causing death.
Murder in the first degree is not only premeditated--you planned it, even if only five seconds before but is also murder committed while in the act of committing another felony, such as armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc.

Murder two is premeditated. That's what I think you mean when you say murder one.


Hoodeehoo! I finally got to use my CJ degree! Hahahahahahahahaha!! I knew it'd come in useful SOME day....


Besides, like I said before, we can't apply our laws to animals. They aren't part of our society, as is shown by the way we take over their hunting grounds and entire ecosystems, leaving them without means, then pitching a bitch when they don't understand why they can't hunt or live there anymore.

You can't call an animal a murderer for killing for food, defense or genetic advancement, because by the "laws" of their society, this is acceptable. Murder is a crime, by human standards. It is considered separate from "killing" (ie, war, hunting, self-defense). In the animal world, killing and murder aren't valid concepts. Killing is a way of life if one wants to eat or survive. It isn't murder because there is no malice, nor is there a concept of crime among animal predators.

Therefore, due to the fact that they are not part of our society, and therefore not subject to our laws, an animal cannot be guilty of the crime of murder.


So there. ;)


Sidhe

In PA, felony murder is 2nd degree. Weird quirk of state law. Premeditated murder is first degree, other murder is third. Then there's voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Yeah, I didn't differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, sorry about that.

In La., first degree is premed and while in the course of committing another felony--it has to have certain aggravating factors. Other states have different tweaks on it, I'm sure.

My point was merely that we cannot hold a non-human animal who is not considered a part of our society, nor has rights within our society, to the laws of our society, just as we would not condone murder by a human even if he WAS living in the woods and only came down once a year for groceries. He is a human, part of the human society with it's attendant laws and mores that are applicable only to humans. Whether or not he's living like an animal doesn't change the fact that the laws apply to him.

There are standards for human behavior because we need them. Animals don't need them. I don't think that animals are as inherently vicious as humans can be. I'm not downing the human race; I'm just saying that humans don't seem to have the instinctual built-in safeguards to their behavior, by which they preserve their groups, like animals do, and thus we need rules and laws to control our behavior lest we destroy our society.

We can't apply our rules to them, any more than their rules can be applied to us. Different species, different worlds, different rules for what is acceptable.


Sidhe

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's something that I could never be accused of. :D
OK, so we're in agreement that both people and animals sometimes kill for reasons we don't fully understand. But, the English language has divided these acts into different names, of which the majority apply to only humans.
That makes sense, as were are much more concerned about people killing and try to define it more precisely.

All I know is that my very well-fed kitty will kill for the hell of it if she spy's a chipmonk. I've talked to her about this but she has so far ignored me, she merely looks away like she's interested in something else. She is such a wench...

MEOW

Before a whole bunch of people condemn me ---I've been a foster mom for LOTS of little kitten's and cat's--all of them display hunting/killing traits. Especially the MALES when they want to engender their own.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by lots. When I worked at the Humane Society I was known to beg the higher ups to let me take pregnant dogs home so they could have the puppies. Before me even if the dog was 2 days away from giving birth they aborted the litter and fixed the dog. As long as the dog was within a few weeks of the delivery they let me take them home and then mom and pups came back when the babies were old enough. One time the dog I took home delivered 9 pups. That meant I had 14 dogs at my house (9 pups, plus the mom, my 3 dogs, and my moms 1 dog). That would seem like a lot but it was only for a few months. I loved having puppies around, I almost always wanted to keep some. Its hard when you see them born to let them go, but they hopefully went to go homes.

Well, obviously, you win Brig--I've never had that many animals in my home. I usually have about 5 cats--two are mine and the rest I am trying to socialize for the shelter--so, that means three 'strangers'---cats are kinda difficult to socialize and I don't feel like I've done my job until everybody's happy----that's just me, though. Co-dependant trait impossibe to irradicate. Don't even try. I'll just agree with you and kiss you to death.

I for one am glad cats still have that killer instnct. Ray killed a weasle in our house a while back. Last year we gave some chickens to one of our neighbors because a weasle had gotten in her hen house and killed every bird. Hen houses are like magnets for vermin, I wouldn't have chickens without at least one hunter around.

That's true, Griff. A dog to roust the big ones and a cat to kill the little ones. The vermin will come for miles to a chicken coop. :worried: