The concept you're searching for is the self-defense doctrine.

but why

Just like you can't police if your not police

Well, murder and killing are two different things.

^

You can't kill if you're not in a war

but...WHY

Totz *can* kill when not in a war. >.>

Because war is inevitable and others will.. if you question this I'm not sure how far I even have to go to explain

But then it's considered murder unless there's a justification.

Sometimes killing can be justified

But it's hard to justify

Yes, then it's not murder.

It's killing. XD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

Roman Law principle of dominium

The key concept is 'state sanctioning'. The State is given a monopoly on force under the condition they adminster the laws fairly. Tje State then delegates that authority to soldiers as well as police

And off course in self defence it's not murder

Well thinking about it though

Isn't was self defence?

War

the only difference between murder and killing is that one is state sanctioned and the other is not

Of which the people have invested in the state in the first place.

To an extent. For the soldiers

yup

It's not an unfair way to look at it, save the hypothetical sans state.

Hmm

(Which is to say, conceptually, in Nature.)

I get the impression youre playing devil's advocate

correct

Little bit, but more probing for thought than entrapment.

sad that one thinks of examining an issue from it's antithesis (devil's advocate) is often intended to entrap

Well, it oft' is.

sad state of affairs we live in

free-market of ideas, indeed

Though, that tendency may very well derive from Nature as well - it's one of the first skills a wiley child picks up after language.

?

Attempting to entrap via devil's advocate as well as playing with authority..

It's a very primitive format. Yes. But it's there.

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepegun:588019479401726001>

that is certainly true in math and the human brain looks for discontinutiies; an idea is best examined at it's extremas