Murder: A Good Catch

One of you emailed your story with this addendum:

I don't understand why it is called murder if the man who actually killed Kevin Blohm hasn't been convicted in court. In AP style it says "Do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain." So I did not use the word murder in my story and referred to the so called murderer as a robber. Also, what takes more precedence calling him a robber because of the robbery or a murderer because of the murder? Does killing with a knife count as murder since an armed robbery would?

Good questions, all. First, you are correct in that AP Style, under homicide, murder, manslaughter says this:

Homicide is a legal term for slaying or killing. Murder is malicious, premeditated homicide. Some satets define certain homicides as murder if the killing occurs in the course of armed robbery, rape. ect. Manslaughter is homicide without malice or premeditation.

A person should not be described as a murderer until convicted of the charge.

Unless authorities say premeditation was obvious, do not say a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain.

And that's a good general rule of thumb. But in this case, circumstantial facts in the case certainly do point toward the death being at the hands of another, and not a suicide or accident. So it would be proper to call this a murder, though it wouldn't be incorrect to follow the AP Style rule here (and I'll even bump up your grade a bit for being so thoughtful as to look it up).

However, if and when an arrest is made in this case, AP Style is absolutely correct that you don't call the suspect a murderer until convicted. Until then, he or she is an alleged killer or something like that, with strong emphasis on alleged.

You bring up a very interesting question as to whether the criminal in this case is a robber or killer. If clearly only one person was involved I would guess it would be either-or, with perhaps a slight preference for killer since that's the more heinous of the crimes.

But in this case, it's unclear whether one or two people were involved. We know which one is alleged to be the robber; we don't know which of the two appears to be the killer. Yes, since the killing took place during an armed robbery, both may be legally culpable for the killing. But as journalists we're not trying to identify who may be charged with what; we are trying to identify who did what, in terms of literal actions.

Finally, under legal terms using any sort of a deadly weapon is considered armed robbery. It can be a gun or a knife or a bomb or something that state law considers to be a deadly category of weapon.