This is all fine and good, but it doesn't answer the question. If HAL is a toaster that accidentally killed it's users, it can't commit 'murder'. Point being,

This is all fine and good, but it doesn't answer the question. If HAL is a toaster that accidentally killed it's users, it can't commit 'murder'. Point being, HAL has to effectively be sentient to commit 'murder' otherwise the death is the responsibility of its makers in one way or another. The question is one of sentience. The author I think makes a mistake: "The first robot homicide was committed in 1981, according to my files ... a malfunctioning robotic arm pushed a repairman against a gearwheel-milling machine, which crushed him to death." What's the difference between a 'robotic arm' and a piece of machinery? None! A robot is just a piece of machinery. So it's really an existential question of conscience - if them machine doesn't have one, it can't be 'their fault' because there is no 'their' to begin with. Just some plastic and metal.