How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?

Answer 1

Other questions to keep you up at nite:

Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

who was the first to see a cow and think "i wonder what will happen if i squeeze these dangly things?"

Where did Cain get his wife?

Who's cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "s" in it?

How young can you die of old age?

If the police arrest a mime, do they have to tell him that he has the right to remain silent?

If your name was Wil, can you join the army if even they say "fire at will"?

If a black box is never damaged during a plane crash, why don't they make the plane out of the same material as the black box?

Why is it when we talk to God, we're said to be praying, but when god talks to u we're schizophrenic?

Is the speed of Light, Warp 1?

Why do you have to "put your two cents in" but it's only a "penny for your thoughts?

Answer 2

They have to be a political or other strategically important individual. Also they usually have an ideological or political agenda, and regards the target as an obstacle to furthering his agenda.

"According to The American Heritage Dictionary, to assassinate is "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons."[1]

Unlike some topics, such as terrorism, wherein there is a substantial grey area and often bitter controversy between which specific instances qualify or even what standards should be used, the "common sense" classification of assassination stated at the outset of this article seems to stand with few objections. However, this does open larger issues concerning interpretation, notably regarding attempted killings by those with other motives. For instance, should a murder be considered an assassination only if the victim is a political leader or public figure hostile to the agenda of the killer, or should the term include killings where the assassin's primary motivation is based solely on the victim's status as a celebrity in order to attract attention to his cause or for purely personal reasons?

Notable instances in which this definitional problem has come into effect include the attempt on the life of United States President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, who was determined subsequently to have serious psychological problems and publicly stated his intent was to get the attention of actress Jodie Foster rather than make any political statement. The killing of former Beatle John Lennon posed a similar problem — despite Lennon's outspokenness on many liberal political issues, his killer does not seem to have been more than an unstable fan. The use of the term "assassination" to describe Lennon's murder is a matter of some additional debate, since Lennon was primarily an entertainer, not a political figure, and it could be argued that describing his killing as an assassination is no more appropriate than, for example, using the term to describe the murders of singers Selena Quintanilla or Marvin Gaye. The issue is further complicated by the fact that although Lennon was likely as outspoken politically as Reagan (and certainly as famous), Reagan was an elected official at the time, possibly requiring different criteria for Lennon's case.

One can take one of three positions (note that this consideration is of necessity strictly based upon language, not law): that the killing of someone only for political, moral, or ideological reasons constitutes an assassination (hence neither Reagan nor Lennon were the victims of assassins' attacks, while Ford was), that the killing of someone serving in politics or public office counts (thus Reagan's and Ford's attackers were would-be assassins, while Lennon's killer was not), or that anyone with a significant level of political involvement would be an assassination victim in the event of their murder (in which case all three instances would be assassinations or attempts).

While it must be acknowledged that attempting to read a person's thoughts is both imperfect and somewhat antithetical to the nature of such an issue, for the purposes of this article, the first, most conservative definition is taken. Although it is likely that the second is the most popular, the first is technically the most correct, and the third is generally considered to be too general in application. Therefore, all assassinations or attempts mentioned in the article will strictly follow the guidelines outlined at the outset to prevent confusion."

Answer 3

Assassins have notoriety, so anyone could be eligible for the status.

An Assassin is a murderer who is politically motivated.

Assassin may also refer to

Hashshashin, the historical Muslim sect of Alamut
Hitman, a murderer who is motivated by money

Assassination is the deliberate killing of an important person, usually a political figure or other strategically important individual. An assassin or the assassin's employer usually has an ideological or political agenda, and regards the target as an obstacle to furthering his agenda. Other motivations may be money, as in the case of a contract killing, revenge, or acts of espionage at the request of a government. Assassination, along with terms such as terrorist and freedom fighter, is often considered to be a loaded term.

Some governments use the euphemism targeted killing as the name for the controversial strategy to save their citizens' lives whereby anticipated acts of terrorism are prevented by assassinating a person deemed to be related to those acts.

Answer 4

I think that a lot of times the term assassination is used to describe a murder that was committed for a political purpose, though that may not be a technical definition.

Answer 5

Last time I checked there was no official unit of measurement for how "important" you have to be for your murder to be considered an "assassination;" you just have to be famous. To be fair, I've never actually checked.