If it is true, as my dictionary suggests, that an assassin is someone who ATTEMPTS to kill a political figure, then it follows that there's no such thing as a "would-be assassin." If you tried and failed, you are still an assassin.
Right?
If it is true, as my dictionary suggests, that an assassin is someone who ATTEMPTS to kill a political figure, then it follows that there's no such thing as a "would-be assassin." If you tried and failed, you are still an assassin.
Right?
Apart from the dictionary definition I think it's often seen as an 'occupation', you have a 'job' as an assassin which would make you an assassin ;)
it's often seen as an 'occupation', you have a 'job' as an assassin
Whether you succeed or not, it's your job title - assassin. So you can deduct your training, the Barret .50, and the HiEx rounds from your taxes.
The question would be, what if you were only doing it as a hobby? As an occupation, you're getting some form of remuneration for it. I'm not talking about the one-offs here. Those are guys who simply attempt the job, whether they succeed or not. Of course, there are other job titles that fit this description, such as hit-man, and they get paid as well.
But what about the guy (or gal) that has a job as, say, a floral delivery driver. That's really what they do for a living. Would their killings then simply be classed as vigilantism? They're just doing it for a hobby. Batman gets to write all his toys off as research for Wayne Enterprises - how would the florist write off the ammo? Unless he (or she) used flowers as the weapon of death.
The question would be, what if you were only doing it as a hobby?
Then it would be a serial killer instead of an assassin :)
If you take money for killing people, that is an assassin in my mind. A terrorist kills politicians or innocents to effect political change.
Remus2
6/10/2021, 4:11:27 AM
Updated: 6/10/2021, 4:12:00 AM
@PotomacBob
If you take money for killing people, that is an assassin in my mind. A terrorist kills politicians or innocents to effect political change.
Following this definition would mean that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an assassin and that JFK was NOT assassinated. Right?
As a matter of custom, killing a head of state has always been considered an assassination. Custom and definition do not always mean the same thing.
By modern definition, Oswald would be considered a terrorist more than an assassin.
Another example was Yitzhak Rabin's murder by Yigal Amir. Whether it was terrorism or an assassination, it was entirely successful with its effect on Israeli politics.
Why do you think that it has to be a political person? It's basically anyone for political, religious and financial reasons.
Why do you think that it has to be a political person? It's basically anyone for political, religious and financial reasons.
How about when your motivation is merely to impress the girl of your dreams? Does that make it self-interest/self-promotion, even if you know you'll die doing it? And does that therefore demean it as a potential motivating factor?
Why do you think that it has to be a political person? It's basically anyone for political, religious and financial reasons.
Or even an AI, as aroslav so adroitly demonstrated.
AJ
Or even an AI, as aroslav so adroitly demonstrated.
Or nowadays, a nameless armed drone, either shooting civilians, or whiping out an entire generation of birds.
In German it's simple: assassination = Attentat (from Latin attentatum 'the attempted') so your dictionary may be right.
Assassinations are older than the modern English word for it which comes from this Shia Nizari Ismailis group in Persia.
it follows that there's no such thing as a "would-be assassin."
This depends on your definition of "would-be". I always translated "would-be" into German "Möchte-gern" (would like to be), which implies can't perform it due to clumsiness and/or stupidity.
HM.
My deskside dictionary says it's 'someone who assassinates', implying someone who tried and fails doesn't qualify. That's something I'm not sure I agree with.
AJ
My deskside dictionary says it's 'someone who assassinates', implying someone who tried and fails doesn't qualify. That's something I'm not sure I agree with.
If you look at it from a numerical/statistical perspective, the amount of one-time amateurs vastly outnumbers the number of paid professionals, especially when you consider that most of those 'paid pros' actually have another profession entirely (gang member, mob enforcer, political action committee volunteer, beat cop or FBI agent).
You can hardly define an entire concept based solely on the top less than 1% of the profession! That's similar to announcing that all financiers are named Bernie.
If it is true, as my dictionary suggests, that an assassin is someone who ATTEMPTS to kill a political figure, then it follows that there's no such thing as a "would-be assassin."
Actually, no it doesn't follow that there would be no such thing as a "would-be assassin".
Consider someone training to be an assassin but who hasn't yet attempted an actual kill against a political figure.
I think if we break it down the deeper meaning becomes clear:
Ass as sin.
But there are those would be language assassins who insist it's:
Ass ass in
Suggesting both the carrot and the stick.
Suggesting both the carrot and the stick.
If you already have a stick up your butt, then what's the point of the carrot? Or, in other words, if there's a stick up your butt, does the carrot even exist (to you)?
there's no such thing as a "would-be assassin."
In my story "Matilda and the Assassin," Matilda is a "would-be" assassin. She wants the assassin/hitman to teach her how to be an assassin.
"would-be assassin."
What if the individual wanted to assassinate someone but something prevented him.
For instance, say there was someone in Austin who planned to assassinate JFK on November 22, 1963? That person would be a 'would-be assassin' since they never had the chance to even try.
For instance, say there was someone in Austin who planned to assassinate JFK on November 22, 1963? That person would be a 'would-be assassin' since they never had the chance to even try.
Or, in the case of the Grandfather paradox, if they succeed, but the universe negates either their attempt, or cancels out their birth, again negating the event. Does that then mean he's a successful would-be assassin? A negated assassin? A successful never-was assassin, or a Schrodinger's-Cat Assassin?
I never gave it any thought, but there are connotative differences between the two. The following is copied from a site I found:
The terms murder and assassination are often used interchangeably, as they both have something to do with the death of someone. However, what a lot of people don't realize is that murder and assassination have two different implications.
Assassination is almost the same as murder, as in it results in the killing of another human being. However, it differs from murder in motive. While, murder is done for person reasons, such as revenge or greed, an assassination is conducted for political or religious reasons. Alternately, it may also be conducted for money, wherein somebody pays another to kill a person; or for a desire for fame or notoriety. Basically, any murder in which the murderer does not directly benefit from the murder can be classified as an assassination.
However, it should also be noted that in order to be called an assassination the victim is typically a famous or important person. The impact of such a person's death would be more widespread than then murder of regular person. Due to this, an assassination is commonly employed as a tactic in politics, where the political leaders of the opposing parties or other important figures may be targeted for assassination. It may also be conducted due to military reasons where the assassination of the opposing army's general or leadership can result in the win for the assassinating side.
Assassination is almost the same as murder, as in it results in the killing of another human being. However, it differs from murder in motive.
In the USA, murder does not necessarily mean the killing was intentional cf George Floyd. Whereas assassination always is.
AJ
Are you sure about that? Murder means that the killing was deliberate. There are parallels with the killing of Dalian Atkinson there, except that Floyd was killed in public with cause and effect being filmed.
Are you sure about that?
No. I was puzzled why the cop was charged with murder when there was no obvious intent to kill and I found multiple websites that said 2nd degree murder did not have to be intentional. I assumed they were expressing a legal definition rather than a dictionary definition.
AJ
I was puzzled why the cop was charged with murder when there was no obvious intent to kill and I found multiple websites that said 2nd degree murder did not have to be intentional with each other.
Unless you were sitting in the court listening to the testimony, there is no way to know the full details. There may well have been previous animus between the two. Both Floyd and Chauvin were known to have had previous interactions.
Unless you were sitting in the court listening to the testimony, there is no way to know the full details.
Doesn't the video trump eyewitness testimony? Everyone can see what happened.
AJ
Doesn't the video trump eyewitness testimony?
Maybe. Eye witnesses may have been in a position to see things the camera couldn't. There's also the issue of whether or not the video has audio.
Also video can be tampered with after the fact. Though, actual cases of tampered video likely happen more often in civil cases than criminal.
It's hard to do it in a way that's undetectable, but people still try it.
There's also the issue of whether or not the video has audio.
I haven't actually seen it. It was recorded on a cellphone by a bystander and allegedly includes the whole time Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck.
AJ
Doesn't the video trump eyewitness testimony? Everyone can see what happened.
There is no doubt in my mind what Chauvin intended. However, that video doesn't disprove the case for previous animus. The latter being necessary for the murder 1 charge.
There is no doubt in my mind what Chauvin intended. However, that video doesn't disprove the case for previous animus. The latter being necessary for the murder 1 charge.
Actually, what the video does demonstrate was the officer's complete indifference to the victims struggle, and that he at no point in time presented any kind of threat to said officer. In fact, it appears clear that he'd intended to kill the victim the entire time, and never felt an ounce of compassion about the entire incident, considering it an annoying requirement of his job. After all, 9 minutes is a long time to wait when simply shooting someone in the back is so much easier (and simpler to challenge in court)!
More than anything else, it was that utter indifference which condemned the officer, as he made it impossible to ignore.
Actually, what the video does demonstrate was the officer's complete indifference to the victims struggle, and that he at no point in time presented any kind of threat to said officer.
See, that's the problem with THAT video. As Paul Harvey used to say, what about the REST of the story?
Specifically, the OTHER video that was shown and released from the officer's body cams? The one that shows Floyd resisting, and showing behavior indicative of being on drugs? The one that shows him saying 'I can't breathe' before they even TRIED to put him in the back of the cruiser, let alone well BEFORE he ended up on the ground?
Floyd was not murdered. Absolute best, MAYBE manslaughter. Based upon additional evidence, including the actual fact that Chauvin was following written police procedures at that time for dealing with suspects with drugs - and even more, a suspect that was considerably larger than any two of the police officers present combined - charges dropped.
Floyd was not murdered. Absolute best, MAYBE manslaughter.
It's a little more muddled that that. Most states only have 1st and 2nd degree murder and then you get into manslaughter.
Minnesota has a 3rd degree murder.
But yeah, I was a bit surprised when the jury returned a conviction on the 2nd degree murder charge.
But yeah, I was a bit surprised when the jury returned a conviction on the 2nd degree murder charge.
Were you really? If he was tried for murder 1 he would have been found guilty for that. His fate was sealed before the trial began.
Were you really?
Yes, just a bit.
Cops have been acquitted in far more egregious cases.
I expected that to mitigate at least a bit against the riot threats, especially when it seemed clear to me that the rioters had no intention of stopping no matter what the outcome.
He could have gotten the death penalty and it wouldn't have been enough.
Cops have been acquitted in far more egregious cases.
But this case was different because of the video. And even the president said justice was done after he was convicted. And many celebrities came out with that kind of statement BEFORE the conviction. And before the trial, the city paid the family millions (for doing something wrong).
The result is police forces around the country are understaffed because so many took early retirement and they can't recruit new cops. Would you want to be a cop today? And crime has gone up almost everywhere.
Now I'm not saying Chauvin wasn't wrong. But not for the crimes he was convicted of. There's a Louisiana case where cops beat and murdered a man based on the camera video. They said he died in a car crash. They should go on trial.
Now I'm not saying Chauvin wasn't wrong. But not for the crimes he was convicted of.
Personally I think there was a solid case for manslaughter.
That said, I would have been satisfied if he could have been fired in a way that would guarantee he could never work in law enforcement anywhere else.
Unfortunately police unions have made in nearly impossible to make the firing of a cop stick absent a criminal conviction.
Personally, I think he's revolting.
Yeah, but his conviction smells a little kangarooish.
AJ
his conviction smells a little kangarooish
There's a reason why we don't do mob rule, and we're supposed to be a nation of laws. There's already been a juror said that the only reason they voted to convict was to avoid more riots. Which still have already happened.
Change of venue, show the evidence, and when the jury acquits, either let the city burn to the ground or actually go in there with water cannons and explain that the mob behavior is against the rules of civilization.
Change of venue
Wouldn't help. Nothing to stop the protestors/rioters from going where ever the trial is happening.
Nothing to stop the protestors/rioters from going where ever the trial is happening.
The old western line, 'We gonna give you the fairest trial anyone ever had before we hang you!'
Coddle the idiots and this is what you get.
Coddle the idiots and this is what you get.
I don't disagree with that, but just letting Chauvin go wouldn't have been right either.
And as I said, to the extent that the fair trial problem was threats from the rioters, a change of venue wouldn't help.
Missing the point somewhat.
He did deliberately kill someone - taking around nine minutes to do so - in a public place, nothing accidental about it. That is supposed to be acceptable? Or was your "coddle the idiots" referring to the cops involved?
He did deliberately kill someone - taking around nine minutes to do so - in a public place, nothing accidental about it. That is supposed to be acceptable? Or was your "coddle the idiots" referring to the cops involved?
Written police procedure was followed. In the event of a hostile environment, you secure the prisoner. A knee in the middle of the shoulder blades (the only time it was directly upon his neck was when Chauvin was simply adjusting position) is what you do because the prisoner was being uncooperative with police and there is a hostile crowd.
Remember, what you don't see on the cell phone and you DO see in the body cam is them trying to simply put him into the back of the squad car. He wouldn't get in, then he flopped between the seats. Under the 'old' system, that's when he (Floyd) would have been lit up. Whack him a couple of times with the baton, get your ass in the car NOW, and then he dies from his drug overdose in the back of the squad car. Instead, they bring him out and lay him on the ground, face down.
Keep in mind a few things. Floyd passed a counterfeit $20 bill, which is a felony. Floyd was 6'6" tall, 240 lbs., and was a football star in high school - Chauvin is 5'9", 140 lbs. Floyd had a violent criminal history - five years for assault and robbery, numerous other arrests and convictions for armed robbery and drug offences. He did have a heart condition, but he also was high on fentanyl and meth. Criminals KNOW that if they say "I can't breathe", not only does EMS have to be called (which is was), but due to lawsuits, police will frequently move the cuffs from behind your back, to the front - giving the person being arrested more of an opportunity to either fight or attempt escape.
"I Can't Breathe" is and was no more than the most recent "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". In both cases, the perpetrator of the crime ended up dead, a policeman's life is ruined, and the media got to show lots of violence and rioting on TV that shouldn't have ever happened in the first place.
There was a long standing history between Floyd and Chauvin.
https://thesource.com/2020/06/10/george-floyd-and-derek-chauvin-had-history-of-tension-according-to-their-former-co-worker/
Follow that link up and you'll find the CBS report verified. Chauvin and Floyd worked security at a club together prior to Chauvin becoming a cop.
Point being, there was in fact previous animus between them. There is much more at play than what the video showed.
there was in fact previous animus between them.
I agree, they had issues in the past. Not arguing that. Doesn't change that Floyd's behavior prior to and during his arrest is what led to his death.
Man Two for Chauvin, because there's still three more police officers up for trial, and the threat of riots CANNOT be used to determine their guilt or innocence. (The sentence is simply my opinion. The suspect died in his custody. He deserves punishment for that, as he is partially - not totally - at fault. But not what he got, so of course he's going to appeal.)
He deserves punishment for that, as he is partially - not totally - at fault. But not what he got, so of course he's going to appeal.)
We have to disagree on that. Previous animus is required to sell the harsher charges in the eyes of the law. It was there. Intent to kill Floyd, that is much harder to prove. Motive is established with the animus, intent is mostly supposition based on the video. Once the "can't breath" statement was made, further action on Chauvin's part can be construed as intent to kill.
If there was no intent, then it's manslaughter.
Intent equals murder charge.
Once the "can't breath" statement was made, further action on Chauvin's part can be construed as intent to kill.
The 'can't breathe' statement was first made when they had Floyd on the sidewalk near his van. Then again when he resisted getting into the back of the police car, LONG before he ended up on the ground. They even told him they'd roll the windows down, so he could get air, if he'd get into the police car and cooperate.
It's that last that people don't quite grasp. You cooperate with the police officer, you don't end up on the ground, or tased, or shot. At that point when he has put you in handcuffs, or is attempting to do so, you do NOT have the legal right to physically fight back. That's when you settle things in court.
Chauvin's actions are in my eyes indefensible. You can argue until hell freezes over and that will not change. Especially in light of the fact he has already been declared guilty.
Man Two for Chauvin, because there's still three more police officers up for trial, and the threat of riots CANNOT be used to determine their guilt or innocence. (The sentence is simply my opinion. The suspect died in his custody. He deserves punishment for that, as he is partially - not totally - at fault. But not what he got, so of course he's going to appeal.)
FWIW, in a case in the UK with many similarities, a police officer was recently found guilty of the manslaughter of black ex-England footballer Dalian Atkinson and sentenced to eight years.
AJ
Isn't he appealing?
I think so. One of the jurors was at a march wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt. He said he was in DC for a Martin Luther King Jr. march and he didn't remember wearing the shirt. Yeah right. So Chauvin has grounds for an appeal.
But the result will be the same in the next trial. I don't know if he's guilty, but he can't get a fair trial.
How about you specifically address the idea of previous animus rather than deflecting onto another ramble?
Doesn't the video trump eyewitness testimony?
The prosecutor used a still from the video that showed the cop's foot off the ground. So the prosecutor claimed the cop used his weight to put pressure on Floyd's neck. But when you see the video, all the cop was doing was shifting. His foot was off the ground for a split second. You can't always believe what you see.
In the USA, murder does not necessarily mean the killing was intentional
Actually, in the US, generally yes, it does. Even 2nd degree murder requires intent to kill in the moment.
Without intent to kill, it's manslaughter, not murder.
There is only one significant exception to murder requiring an intent to kill, and that is the felony murder rule.
If someone dies while you are committing a felony crime, you can be charged with murder under the felony murder rule. You don't even have to be responsible for the death.
You are robbing a bank, and a cop shows up and shoots a bystander. Felony murder for you.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/
In the USA, murder does not necessarily mean the killing was intentional cf George Floyd.
There are different types of murders.
1st degree murder is planned. That's what an assassin would be convicted of.
But there's 2nd-degree murder, manslaughter, and others. The cop wasn't convicted of 1st-degree murder.
I would think that until you have killed at least on person intentionally, you would not be an assassin. All your other attempts could fail, but you would not be one. No admittance to the union.
an assassin
I went to Oglaf this morning, and the little blurb (for me, since it does change) was funny.
"I'm an assassin, but I consider myself a storyteller. I specialize in surprise endings."