I’m not specifically saying that this particular case isn’t murder, but if the quote we’re all responding to is accurate then there’s explicitly a way it could be considered “not murder”. I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
Interestingly, I just saw a post claiming:
According to NY legal code, it is not murder if:
The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I’m not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be… interpreted liberally by a judge.
