[srtjstjsj]

The idea of "died by suicide" is that it presents it as more like succumbing to a disease, not blaming the deceased. It puts the focus on loss of life, not the taking of life.

Not quite analogous, but if someone has epileptic seizure and falls and cracks their skull and dies, we don't says they threw themselves to the ground, even though their own brain caused them to go off balance and fall.

[meowface]

I think "died by suicide" is a good phrasing; I'd prefer that to "took their own life" or "committed suicide".

But, yeah, as you say, that's not a good analogy. Barring a scenario like extreme drug influence or a total psychotic fugue, suicide is still generally an intentional or mostly intentional act, even if it may be an impulsive one. If you shoot and kill someone in a crime of passion, you're absolved of some blame, but not all of it. It may be the potentially deeply regrettable intentions of someone who's in a very bad state of mind, but unfortunately a lot of decisions a lot of people make fall into that category.

For me, the important bit is the clear, grave consequence ("killed"). My goal isn't to suggest blame should be put on anyone. I don't think such a term would work in English, but if there were something like "were killed by themselves" or "auto-killed", I would've said that, instead.

My intention was to just prevent sugarcoating it and hopefully slightly reduce the chance that a suicidal person might read it in an abstract or idyllic way. "Died", "passed away", "life taken", "perished", "succumbed", "departed", "deceased", and even "suicide" just don't have the same gravitas as "killed". I know that's partly because "killed" implies intentionality, but I think it's also because it also encompasses the visceral act of it truly happening. And the word itself has a visual and verbal harshness to it. It's not just that they were here and now they weren't; they were killed.