At least in the US, Law is really defined by court precedents, not by some stupid wording.
This is a good thing. Imagine a "Don't murder anyone" law. Without a court to decide what that actually means, I could argue that if I put a timer on a bomb, I didn't murder anyone - the bomb did the killing, and I didn't even trigger it directly. How is a bullet any different except that the delay is shorter? Dumbass didn't get out of the way, I say. No different than someone standing in the middle of a highway. The english language isn't like a programming language - its remarkably open to interpretation as to meaning, hence the need for courts to define what the law means through actual examples.
But the statutes very specifically cover the cases above with wording like "took action to deliberately cause the death of another".
The courts have made the definition even stricter, by allowing things like the death penalty and abortion. Although the individuals involved in those acts deliberately caused the death of someone, it doesn't count as murder.
How can anyone be expected to obey the law if it is not absolutely clear about what your obligations are? Overly general laws that the courts can deal with "later" are a grave danger to society.
This is a good thing. Imagine a "Don't murder anyone" law. Without a court to decide what that actually means, I could argue that if I put a timer on a bomb, I didn't murder anyone - the bomb did the killing, and I didn't even trigger it directly. How is a bullet any different except that the delay is shorter? Dumbass didn't get out of the way, I say. No different than someone standing in the middle of a highway. The english language isn't like a programming language - its remarkably open to interpretation as to meaning, hence the need for courts to define what the law means through actual examples.
IANAL