CZ Talk:Citizen/V1-N1

Really, the death of Bhutto should be called assassination, as she did not "pass away" as the text implies. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:40, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I swear, I haven't drunk a single drop yet. --Robert W King 12:44, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Also, I'm not so sure that it should be labeled an assassination yet; there was no autopsy performed of the body to determine if a bullet had indeed been inside of her skull, and the police pretty much seized her after she arrived at the medical examiners. IMO, the jury is still out even though there is video evidence that has the quality of the zapruder film. --Robert W King 12:47, 31 December 2007 (CST)

The NYT said yesterday that an autopsy showed that her skull was fractured by the force of the blast that threw her against the lever on her sunroof. If that isn't an assassination, I don't know what it could possibly be called. "Accidental death"?

As far as I've read today, there has been no official autopsy (the body has not been exhumed), so I would just call it "death"; whether it was accidental (say, an attempt to escape the blast or gunfire), or purposeful/assassination (she was actually shot). --Robert W King 13:20, 31 December 2007 (CST)

A man from Mars, reading "death" could easily think that she passed away peacefully from old age. I think that in this case that there is simply too much causal correlation: there are bullets fired into her; there is a powerful blast that kills twenty people; she dies. As Emerson famously wrote, "If you see a trout swimming in a barrel of milk, there is presumptive evidence that the milk was watered." Hayford Peirce 13:24, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Is there a phrase for implying "caused death" as a result of an event enabler? --Robert W King 13:31, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Sure: "assassination". Or we could ask Larry, the resident Philosophy King.... Hayford Peirce 13:33, 31 December 2007 (CST)

My rationale is this: let's say you're taking photos near a cliff. Happily snapping away, someone opens up gunfire in your direction. You musjudge your surroundings and you fall to your doom. Are you "assassinated"? --Robert W King 13:48, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Yes. Please note the recent case of the 4 ppl in Atlanta who burlarized the house of the Washington Redskins football player. Three broke in and shot in him. He's dead. The dope who's sitting in the car, just being the driver, is gonna be charged with *murder*. Even though he didn't know anyone was at home and had nothing to do with it. Here in the Wild West of Tucson, where there are lotsa shootings like this, the dopes in the car are *always* charged with murder. Generally they cop a plea and turn evidence against the others, but the principle in law (at least in most places) is clear -- if you assist in some ways to someone else's death, you can be charged with a capital crime. Hayford Peirce 15:07, 31 December 2007 (CST)

assassination fits the case exactly. It seems unlikely the killer/bomber was trying to kill her driver and got her by mistake. Richard Jensen 15:12, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I'm not disputing that there is guilt by association; but if you end up doing something that ends your life as a result of trying to avoid dying at the hands of somebody else, is it really that secondary person's fault that you died? What if the would-be killer had missed and you hadn't fallen off the cliff? That certainly would be an "attempted" assassination, but who's fault is it if you slipped mistakingly and died? Is it the would-be assassin's? Maybe the phrase is "assassination by accident" or something to that effect. I'm just not sure it can be described purely as assassination since the original intent (to shoot you) failed. --Robert W King 15:14, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I don't know what sort of news you guys get in the USA, but it is 100% accepted in Pakistan and the rest of the world that this was an assassination. It is also clear that no post-mortem will be performed, and the party-workers of Bhutto say that it is clear that she was shot by an assassin before he commited suicide. They contest the claim of the Pakistani Ministry of Interior, which has very little medical basis. Think about it: is it normal not to have a post-mortem when the cause of death of a major political leader is disputed? The claims of the government are highly contentious and seem to be preoccupied with proving to the USA and others that Bhutto was at fault and not the security services. We do not accept biased political claims as fact: thus far, there is no reason to say that this was anything other than a political assassination, and the situation is almost certain not to change.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:44, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I realized on the way home that the term might be "involuntary manslaughter" but I doubt it would be the case. --Robert W King 16:04, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Bear in mind, Robert, that "assassination" is not a legal term. We do not need a court to reach this decision, whereas murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc are decisions of the coroner's court. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:15, 31 December 2007 (CST)

No coroner's courts in US of A. Grand juries and prosecuting attorneys make the decision about what to charge people with (more or less). Hayford Peirce 16:26, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I don't know the US legal system, but this is not about charging people with an offence. It is about establishing probable cause of death: surely the USA has the same principle as the rest of the world, which is that it leaves it to a coroner to determine the medical and legal cause of death?Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:14, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Yeah I feel stupid putting forth so much of an argument over two words I forgot, which probably don't even apply. Definately loss of face. --Robert W King 16:30, 31 December 2007 (CST)

It seems clear she was assassinated! A lot of us knew that was just a matter of time. Stephen Ewen 16:35, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Hey, Robert: you did a great job with this page. It is good to have a debate about important issues, and we all get it wrong sometimes [unhappily]. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:08, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I'm reminded of a weird debate on Wikipedia regarding the "mostly failed" assassination attempt on the Archduke at Sarajevo in 1914. There were four teams and the author wanted to stress they mostly failed (three failed to kill him, while the 4th succeeded.) Richard Jensen 17:33, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Even for Wikipedia that is weird beyond words! As our friends the Brits would say: I believe you, millions wouldn't, hehe....Hayford Peirce 18:41, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Bizarre, by any standards. Presumably, the Archduke partially died? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:12, 31 December 2007 (CST)

. Yes, but the kids at Wikipedia don't have any historical perspective. the broader question is whether the assassination of Ferdinand (and his wife) should be attributed to a group, or to a lone person. (I strongly reject the latter argument. It was always planned and executed as a group project. We had a similar issue here re 9-11 Attack. I think it was one planned attack (in several parts). This came up in insurance cases and courts ruled it was one attack -- tthat made $$ billions of difference in how much insurance paid out because EACH incident had a cap; if there were two incidents there would be two caps and payout = double.) Richard Jensen 20:31, 31 December 2007 (CST)