It is not a "convenient definition" of the word murder. It is what the word actually means. There is no discussion to be had here because you will not acknowledge it.
> It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide
In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them.
This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution
This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications
I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.
I did acknowledge your one small uninteresting point about the word murder.
I am "glossing over" your justification chain because while it is [unfortunately] legally relevant, it fails to capture the pertinent details of the situations. Specifically, the ICE officers in question seemed eager to embrace these justifications for how they can summarily execute people who are frustrating them rather than engaging in deescalation and restraint expected of supposed "public servants". And no, this dynamic certainly did not start with Trump (eg the multitude of incidents of local police officers summarily executing Blacks). But like everything with Trump it's been cranked to 11.
But sure, "there is no discussion to be had". That was basically the warning of my original comment, about your original comment full of leading questions, to others. In general I do understand there are plenty of people in other countries chanting "Death to America(ns)!" who will not be reasoned with. Easy to do when it's not your own society on the line.
> It's obvious that the laws have been defined such that they absolve government agents who commit intentional homicide
In specific situations, yes. Those situations are of extreme relevance to the situation and you are being intellectually dishonest by glossing over them. There is no discussion to be had here because you skip over them.
This is the exact same way that the laws have worked for decades if not centuries before Trump, both in the USA and across the entire developed world. Your argument depends on falsely pretending that this is somehow specific to Trump's governance or to ICE under that governance. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> you have been repeatedly justifying the summary execution
This language amplifies the exact thing I object to, and of course you know it. This is trolling. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
> If you don't like the cognitive dissonance from a direct truth that doesn't meander through a chain of comforting justifications
I experience no cognitive dissonance, because what you call a "direct truth" is objectively nothing of the sort; it is simply your dishonest framing that ignores things I have repeatedly explained to you. There is no discussion to be had because of this.
Just to make sure: I do. not. care. if a police officer kills someone who presented what that officer reasonably perceived as a lethal threat to that officer. The law in many places says this is legal, and has said so for a very long time; and I agree with that law and think it is good and just; and I can see very clear and severe negative consequences for society of not having such law (in essence: a near-complete inability to prevent or prosecute violent crime). When you use language like "murder" to refer to this, you are ignoring common definitions understood by the general public as well as those understood by law; and you are doing it specifically to try to make me feel differently about this. It is purely an emotional appeal. It is not an argument, and it does not even attempt to address the reason why the laws are written as they are.