>Ok here is goes if you insist....
>
>>>>It's still an arguable point though as to what constitutes killing with or without cause. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your family, the law allows that you might kill the intruder to end the threat. However, if you were to end the threat by overpowering the person, and then while he is laying on the ground, shoot him through the head, the law would take a very dim view indeed. In other words, once the threat is neutralized, the further act of killing becomes, in the eyes of the law, murder.
>
>Why fight when you can shoot and end it quickly? :)

If you're the type who walks around your home carring a gun, I guess.

>
>>>>
>>>>So; when a killer is captured and put into prison, always assuming the prison is properly run, and the legal system is properly run, is the threat then not neutralized? Why would the law consider that you are a murder if you kill a defenseless person once he is neutralized, but the law itself is not a murderer having committed essentially the same act?
>
>Fine, Let the guilty rot in jail and never ever let him back out. Have him do some real work while he's there.
>But if you want to give the victim and the family closeure....

I guess that depends on the family. There are those who would not feel that killing somebody is closure. I agree, of course, that there are those who would.

>
>
>>>If you agree that there is a distinct difference between "killing" and "murdering", then we're 97% there.
>>
>>Forgive me, but while that was an interesting attempt to sidestep my question, it didn't work.