>Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.
Murder is both specifically unlawful (which is debatable in this case, even if we don't want it to be), and specifically premeditated (which it almost certainly is not). So I'd say murder is probably not accurate in common law jurisdictions, especially U.S. jurisdictions.
No, "malice aforethought" does not, in modern US usage, actually equal premeditation; there are four distinct states all held to be encompassed within "malice aforethought" [0]:
i. Intent to kill,
ii. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv. Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought#United_Sta...
If it's impossible to get justice because the killer was wearing uniform what's the value in the judgements of justice system? If so many cases of behaviour that would lead to a conviction, don't, that conviction loses starts to lose some of its meaning. If an officer is so rarely convicted for murder, at what point does it remain meaningful to use the word 'murder' to mean a legal conviction where a police officer is concerned?
Or do we look at the stats and say that police are incapable of committing murder. "There is no murder in paradise" as Stalin is reputed to have said.
(I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here but there is a massive problem)