So, you are wanting to argue about semantics then, yeah. The meaning people ascribe to words. You are asserting one meaning but it’s not the only meaning, as your own source explores. Did you even read the article you linked to?

Stating someone is a murderer is a direct accusation and as the article you linked to states, it might be grounds for defamation. But especially if it’s not an organization that would just rather settle its not clear suing against even a direct accusation would be successful.

But that’s also different from describing a person’s death as “a murder”. Saying you believe a person’s death was a murder or is best described as a murder isn’t clearly grounds for defamation at all.

In addition, as your article states, even if we’re talking about direct accusations “legal standard” isn’t the only understood meaning:

> If we assume for now that the term "murder" refers to the intentional killing of another person without justification, a private person may look at the situation and reach the conclusion the officers acted without justification when they shot and killed Breonna Taylor…

> Additionally, it could be argued that the gist of being called a murderer isn’t an accusation the officers committed the crime of murder. Rather, the essence of the accusation is that the officers intentionally shot at Taylor and her boyfriend, killing Taylor for no good reason.

> Many people genuinely believe there was no justification for killing Taylor, even if it is determined there was a justification under the law.