Well, this isn't an ethics forum, but Dave is right, as you are too. Not all consequentialist theories are utilitarianism. It's true that utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that makes the most people happy (so you get to kill one person if by doing so, you can save 5). An example is the doctor with five patients who needs various transplants, A pure utilitarian could kill one healthy person, harvest their organs and save the other five. But is that the basis for an ethics that we want? Hence consequentialism, which takes in all consequences, (not just the greatest happiness for greatest number) including the fact that you've killed an innocent person.
You are talking about classical utilitarianism ala Bentham and John Stuart Mill, while Dave is talking about a wider and more realistic consequentialism.
In any case, I trust the English problem is solved.