@SonnyOrdell I am trying to be constructive here. While claims are only explicit, I think discussing that fact is of less importance than making you understand we don't want the implicit stuff, so I am trying to use your language. Even then, look at the bold bit of my comment... how can you see that and think I am saying the opposite? :-)

Its the fact that a) I disagree that claims are only explicit. If you and the mods want to assume that for the site I think it should be stated somewhere, hence my question. b) Say I agree with Borror0 and that I actually mean assumption, then you are disagreeing saying only explicitly stated assumptions can be the basis of a question, no?

I agreed with you, the on purpose statement would be a motivation question. The justfied statement would not be however, and could be answered on this site (obviously with a more notable and real life case however)

The point is that there is an assumption/implicit claim with the use of the word murdered, in that the shooting was not justified. It isn't stated explicitly, so then according to you it isn't suitable for this site. From what I understand Borror0 is OK with such questions.

It is a fine question to ask, yet it got dismissed and downvoted. Which I don't understand seeming as there is something to discuss and the mods don't necessarily agree yet.

I ask on meta because I want clarity for future questions and I think clarifying the situation would be useful to future posters.

@SonnyOrdell I'm not OK with those questions. I'm opened to the possibility of being OK with those questions. I see the validity of Sklivvz's argument. I'm just not sure if all of his premises are correct, yet, due to lack of evidence. Hell, I suspect he will be proven right, but until then I'm opened to the possibility that he will be proven wrong.

OK, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.

I know. I'm only clarifying.

I don't expect people to read minds.

OK