[cornyNetHandle]

They both killed the guy. The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone. Anyone who does this and tries to claim that they couldn't possibly know that the risk is deadly, is either lying or lacks basic reasoning skills.

[linuxkerneldev]

> They both killed the guy.

A good way to check logic is to test the statements against other scenarios.

> The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone.

What if we apply your reasoning to politicians that lied in order to enable invasions of other countries? Does that mean they also committed mass murder and war crimes? If no, then please explain what is the difference? If yes, then why are the politicians not charged?

What if we apply your reasoning to the same exact scenario but instead of it having been false, this was where there was an actual armed attack and a victim had been made to open the door and then been shot within seconds by the policeman? In that scenario, would you not say that the policeman had committed an act of murder or at least gross negligence leading to murder?

[cornyNetHandle]

Some politicians are guilty of mass murder and war crimes under exactly the circumstance you give. And part of the reason those from more powerful countries are not charged is they have made every effort to put themselves above international law. For instance, Bush Jr signed the Hague Invasion Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... - to guard against this very risk.

edit - And in your second scenario, that would be negligence causing a homicide. It wouldn't be murder unless there was an intent to kill the hostage.