Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 August 12

= August 12 =

"murder with a deadly weapon"
What is "murder with a deadly weapon"? If it was murder, the weapon is deadly. Otherwise, why not to say simply "murder with a weapon"? 88.14.196.229 (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can murder someone without a weapon at all. Doing it with a deadly weapon means that you probably intended to kill, and had planned to do so if you had brought it with you to the crime scene, thereby obviating potential defences like heat of passion, self-defence, or accidental manslaughter. The term therefore has leagal significance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is likely a statutory definition that allows for the law to make distinctions, in terms of penalty, for different types of murder. Nearly every jurisdiction I know of defines different classes of "homicide", though they all do it differently.  Some jurisdictions may make a distinction between murders which use certain specific weapons, which are specifically classified as deadly by statute (guns come to mind right away).  That is, the law which defines "murder with a deadly weapon" as a crime will ALSO have a specific list of weapons it considered deadly which activate that classifications.  The law wouldn't likely be so vague as to allow for "murder with a deadly weapon" and then not define "deadly weapon", since lawyers would have a field day with casting doubt as to what a "deadly weapon" was.  Having a defined list gives less room for interpretation, so I would think it very likely such a list exists in the law.  -- Jayron  32  12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, a tuna-fish can in a bag is not a deadly weapon, even if I keep one at hand to use it as a weapon to kill people? And a 2 inch knife is possibly a deadly weapon, even if I use it as a tool? 88.14.196.229 (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Murder with a deadly weapon" is "murder with a deadly weapon, as defined by statute". The statute defines what is or isn't a deadly weapon. It's a list of objective criteria. The intention of the perpetrator is immaterial. All that counts is that the weapon conforms to the definition. If it does not, then it is not "murder with a deadly weapon" for the purpose at hand. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: "murder with a deadly weapon" yields about 148,000 Google hits, while "assault with a deadly weapon" yields about 1,450,000. Also compare x-"degree murder" at about 11,400,000 hits. I didn't even know "murder with a deadly weapon" was a charge.  Thanks for teaching me something new.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  15:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While just about any object could be used for murder, the difference, IMHO, is that a "deadly weapon" is one designed for the purpose of killing, such as a handgun. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Therefore: creative murders, who use a weapon of their own device, should be punished less severely that brutal murders with a mainstream weapon? 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.196.229 (talk)


 * Not necessarily; you don't know what the statutes call for in terms of penalty. They various statutory penalties are usually in a range, and the ranges likely overlap; thus a "crime of passion" committed with a handgun may be classified as "murder with a deadly weapon" and have sentencing guidelines of 25 years (minimum) to life w/o parole (maximum).   A heinous, premeditated murder where somebody strangled the victim with their bare hands and mutilated the body may be classified as "murder without a deadly weapon" and may have sentencing guidelines of 15 years (minimum) to life w/o parole (maximum).  The former case may get the 25 year minimum, while the latter may get the life maximum.  In many U.S. states, there are additional penalties for crimes commited with firearms, for example; so even if it isn't worded as "with a deadly weapon", and has another wording, crimes commited with guns are given an additional mandatory sentence (say 5 or 10 extra years); this doesn't preclude judges/juries from giving the maximum penalty if the crime, of its own accord, is heinous enough to mandate it.  -- Jayron  32  22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What is relevant is not the design or plausibility of the weapon as such but only whether its use implies premeditation. In the case of the tuna-fish-can-in-a-sock swinging killer, the fact that he put the cans in a sock would be adduced as evidence of premeditation, even moreso than someone who picked up a knife at hand. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How is a tuna fish can going to be, in general, a better (i.e. more surely fatal) murder weapon than a shotgun? In any case, deterrence is a common reason for increased sentences, and it makes a lot more sense to deter people from shooting other people than to deter people from using fantastical schemes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Criminal law has nothing to do with judging the relative effectiveness of weapons, nor, unless you take certain progressive legal theories as given, anything to do with deterring certain types of murders versus others. The law doesn't even say, "You shall not kill."  (Think about that!)  It simply specifies that killing someone under certain circumstances will be defined as a certain type of crime and be subject to certain penalties.  What is relevant here is the fact that premeditated murder (1st degree) is considered a worse crime than unpremeditated murder (2nd degree).  The act of putting the cans in the sock means you stopped and had time to consider what you were doing.  The state rightly looks upon that as showing that even with the ability to consider your actions you went ahead and deliberately killed someone rather than acting without deliberation in the heat of passion and that you are therefore a greater threat more deserving of merciless punishment.  It strikes me as ever more bizarre that people concern themselves not with the criminal's volitional act but with the physical description of the rock in his hand.  Weapons don't murder people, people do. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct English
I am not a native speaking person, therefore I need som help. I am working on a template, which shows the royal warrants a company (Steinway) has got. I am thinking about making the headline of the template this:

"Selection of Steinway's Royal and Imperial Warrants of Appointment".

I have not published the template into Wikipidia yet, but you can see the template on my personal user page: User:Peoplefromarizona. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no comment to make about your template but I would suggest that your example sentence might be better as "... and holds a royal warrant by appointment to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom." This is the style that is used on 2 seperate articles in my possession. (I know, personal research!) On second thoughts you could look here Richard Avery (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments, Richard Avery. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't we use a more neutral form, one that doesn't suggest that we're all royalists? --Trovatore (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not able to create one by myselves. My English is not that good. But if you have another way to say it than "Selection of Steinway's Royal and Imperial Warrants of Appointment", please let my know. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My objection was not to that part, but to the Her Majesty part. With no prejudice to Elizabeth R herself, who I'm sure is a lovely person, I object to ascribing "majesty" ex officio to the holder of the British throne. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? It's the normal style. Its usage does not imply that the person or entity using it is a royalist. DuncanHill (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are enumerating royal styles, yes, it's the normal style. Using it in this context, when you could just as easily drop Her Majesty Queen ... of the United Kingdom and just leave Elizabeth II, seems excessive and fawning. --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very strongly that this information can be included in template form without breaking WP:SPAM and WP:UNDUE. A single sentence in one article should be plenty. Encyclopedias summarise. It's not their job to draw undue attention to such trivia. That's what advertising brochures are for. Hans Adler 10:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a problem. The template Template:British Royal Warrant holders, that shows royal warrants of some companies, was created on July 11, 2007. As I can see the template has never been nominated for deletion, and WP:SPAM and WP:UNDUE have never been discussed on the talk page of the article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)