First, prejudicial wording, attempting to influence the answer by the wording of the question, establishing a disputed event in the question. So I won't answer that.
That doesn't affect my argument anyway, which is that the federal courts have ruled exactly as they should have given the law. Any other ruling would have been judicial activism.
Nice to know that murder by the state does not affect your view of the law allowing it.
If you are antirepublic, what are you doing here?
I think you need to leave!
Well, then there now - let me rephrase the posters question for you :
"Do you think refusing someone food and water, by any means, including by mouth, constitutes murder?"
(Greer did issue an order that NO ONE was to feed her by mouth - or even give her ice chips or a wet wash cloth on her mouth to relieve the drying and cracking of her lips...