

I think it is fair to label something as an assassination if the death is actually only a means to an end and not the end itself. For example a prince assassinates his father to become king. The true goal is becoming king, but in order to do that the prince needs to kill the king, but the killing itself is not the end goal.
So most politically motivated murders are assassinations, because the death itself is a means to other ends.
When the intention is just to kill the person then it’s just murder. Both murder and assassinations are homicides. When the attack isn’t planned, at least legally, it is considered manslaughter. So the only possible definition left is that an assassination is a killing that serves an end instead of being the end itself. Thats were I got it from, working logically through the definitions.
But just in case: https://www.britannica.com/topic/assassination
We are pretty much arguing the same position, my definition was just a little broader because I think limiting it to “prominent persons” is a little hazy. Was the CEO that Luigi supposedly killed a prominent person? I can’t even remember their name and I certainly don’t know their face so I wouldn’t consider them prominent. I’d argue this is the case for most people in regards to that case. Yet the fact of the matter is that that situation was also an assassination.