On 25/04/2024 18:17, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:43:02 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2024 15:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:01:16 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/04/2024 14:59, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [hiring hitmen]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>>>>>>>> are charged with a different offence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>>>>>>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>>>>>>> every year or so.  Every one was caught when the person being hired
>>>>>>> turned out to be an undercover cop. (That does not speak to the ones
>>>>>>> who were not caught.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>>>>>> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>>>>>
>>>>>> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>>>>>> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do. 
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. You are getting into murky ('subjective') waters here.
>>>>
>>>> The parallel I can think of here is prostitution and soliciting. I have
>>>> heard of women cops dressing as prostitutes and soliciting men, only to
>>>> arrest the potential offender, just as the monetary transaction is
>>>> completed.
>>>
>>> The undercover officers do not solicit the men.
>>
>> Oh? Loitering on street corners where prostitutes normally hang out,
>> dressed as prostitutes, is not soliciting?
>
> No, not in itself. To be "soliciting", the person has to expressly
> offer sex for money or money for sex.
>
> South Orange Blossom Trail is a major street on the south side of
> Orlando. It's a street on which prostitutes do stand on corners. It's
> also a street with bus stops at the corners. Some loiter on the
> corners waiting for a bus, and some loiter on the corner waiting for a
> John. In this town, the loitering time might be much longer for a
> bus.
>>
>> In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
>> street for joes.
>
> "Joes"? In the US, the term is "John" or "Johns" for men who pick up
> prostitutes. Average Joes don't do that.
>
> I would question the validity of any law that makes it illegal to
> stand on a street corner. There has to be some overt action (ie: an
> offer to perform sex for money) to be a criminal act.
>

This is a difference of sensibilities (US v Europe). It is the same
difference that makes Americans look at Trump and call him 'Mr.
President' while Europeans laugh at the man and call him a ludicrous
little cunt, which he is.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:15:07 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2024-04-24 23:13:28 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 25/04/24 02:42, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-24 15:52:01 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:
>>>
>>>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>, Steve
>>>> Hayes <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being,
>>>>> for any reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to
>>>>> the office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in
>>>>> one's official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>>
>>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors
>>>> cannot execute people.
>>>
>>> Though they sometimes think they can, especially if the victim
>>> doesn't adhere to the True Religion.
>>
>> Sometimes it's not about religion. Now and then I hear of a murder being
>> described as a "gangland execution".
>
>Last night we watched an Iranian film called Loi de Téhéran (Law of
>Tehran). It ended with simultaneous hanging of about ten men in a row
>of stalls. A depressing end to a depressing film.

That reminds me, I saw a film set in the Near East in which
the plot involved an "honor killing."

A young lady had been raped by the local aga (IIRC?). Her
family did not have power and prestige to do anything to him,
so they were expected to kill HER in order to clear THAT stain
on the family honor. Instead, her brother smuggled her into
the big city so she could disappear.

Further recollection -- I think that "honor killing" was used to
describe a case that caused some controversy in Italy, maybe
in the 1980s. An extended family of immigrants from the Near
East had a cousin/uncle who was raping young women. A
dozen men-folk of the family talked it over ("tried and convicted"
him) and decided that they needed to apply their traditional justice.
So they killed him. Italy put the lot of them on trial for murder.
I heard of the controversy, but never of its resolution.

--
Rich Ulrich

occam wrote:

> On 25/04/2024 13:45, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:40:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/04/2024 06:30, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>
>>> How does this square up with the 'The Assassination of John Lennon'
>>> (Book title, see elsethread).
>>
>> Did anything of his killer's motives come out at the trial that might
>> suggest that he was killed because of what he was rather than because
>> of who he was? Was he seen as representing something, or being a
>> symbol of something?
>>
> He (the murderer) I believe was psychologically deranged and 'he heard
> voices inside his head' ... . In a different time period, he would have
> been following God's command.

There's nothing in Wikipedia about that, though it does say that
when he pleaded guilty, he said that God wanted him to do so.
According to the article, what he's said over the years about his
motive hasn't been very consistent--wanting to be notorious, envy of
Lennon, anger at him for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus
and for singing "Imagine no possessions" while living in lusury.

--
Jerry Friedman

Rich Ulrich wrote:

> That reminds me, I saw a film set in the Near East in which
> the plot involved an "honor killing."

Honor killing has taken place in Denmark. In 2005 an 18-year old girl
was killed (shot 6 times) by her brother. Her 'crime' was that she had
married a boy of Danish ethnicity. The brother shot the boyfriend too,
but he survived.

Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and
convicted, but actually more family members were behind the action, the
mother for one. The father got life because he was the prime person
behind the killing. The brother got 16 years which normally is the
longest penalty in Denmark for murder.

The family was based in Copenhagen (I think), but the couple was traced
to Slagelse where the killing took place.

The case shocked the whole country. We hope that the trial will make
people think twice.

There is only one previous similar case. I don't know when that
happened.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 25-Apr-24 14:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:01:16 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 23/04/2024 14:59, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [hiring hitmen]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>>>>>> are charged with a different offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>>>>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>>>>> every year or so.  Every one was caught when the person being hired
>>>>> turned out to be an undercover cop. (That does not speak to the ones
>>>>> who were not caught.)
>>>
>>>> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>>>> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>>>
>>>> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>>>> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>>>
>>> Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do.
>>
>> I disagree. You are getting into murky ('subjective') waters here.
>>
>> The parallel I can think of here is prostitution and soliciting. I have
>> heard of women cops dressing as prostitutes and soliciting men, only to
>> arrest the potential offender, just as the monetary transaction is
>> completed.
>
> The undercover officers do not solicit the men. An arrest is made
> only when the men solicit the woman by making a specific expresssed
> offer to provide money for sex.

That might be the theory, and if all police officers are paragons of
absolute virtue then it might even be the practice.

However imagine the situation of an officer, half-dressed, standing on a
filthy street, in terrible weather, perhaps for several hours.
The temptation (sic!) to 'cut to the chase' by doing a little soliciting
would be tremendous.
>
> To appear to be a prostitute by appearance is not solicitation.
> Thinking that is parallel to the concept of it not being rape because
> of what she was wearing.
>>
>> Now, how much provocation is dressing up as a prostitute? Fishnet
>> stockings, short skirts, boots, the lot - what is the threshold that
>> constitutes 'sufficient provocation'.
>
> The "She was asking for it" rape defense.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 25-Apr-24 8:37, occam wrote:
> On 25/04/2024 09:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:01 -0000 (UTC),
>> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>,
>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
>>>> any reason.
>>>>
>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>
>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>> execute people.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Imprisonment (or should one call it inmateisation nowadays?) can also
>> be an execution, if it is done in execution of a court sentence.
>>
>> Wills are also executed.
>>
>>
>
> And characters are assassinated.

Which brought to mind:

"The day of the Jackal" - but De Gaulle survived due to his habit of
kissing men on the cheeks.

(Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone.)

--
Sam Plusnet

On 25-Apr-24 10:46, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:01 -0000 (UTC),
>> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>,
>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
>>>> any reason.
>>>>
>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>
>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>> execute people.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Imprisonment (or should one call it inmateisation nowadays?) can also
>> be an execution, if it is done in execution of a court sentence.
>>
>> Wills are also executed.
>
> And completely innocent Tasks as well,

I understand it is also important in Diving Competitions.

--
Sam Plusnet

After serious thinking occam wrote :
> On 25/04/2024 18:17, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:43:02 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2024 15:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:01:16 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/04/2024 14:59, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [hiring hitmen]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>>>>>>>>> are charged with a different offence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>>>>>>>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>>>>>>>> every year or so.  Every one was caught when the person being hired
>>>>>>>> turned out to be an undercover cop. (That does not speak to the ones
>>>>>>>> who were not caught.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>>>>>>> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>>>>>>> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>>>>>>> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. You are getting into murky ('subjective') waters here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The parallel I can think of here is prostitution and soliciting. I have
>>>>> heard of women cops dressing as prostitutes and soliciting men, only to
>>>>> arrest the potential offender, just as the monetary transaction is
>>>>> completed.
>>>>
>>>> The undercover officers do not solicit the men.
>>>
>>> Oh? Loitering on street corners where prostitutes normally hang out,
>>> dressed as prostitutes, is not soliciting?
>>
>> No, not in itself. To be "soliciting", the person has to expressly
>> offer sex for money or money for sex.
>>
>> South Orange Blossom Trail is a major street on the south side of
>> Orlando. It's a street on which prostitutes do stand on corners. It's
>> also a street with bus stops at the corners. Some loiter on the
>> corners waiting for a bus, and some loiter on the corner waiting for a
>> John. In this town, the loitering time might be much longer for a
>> bus.
>>>
>>> In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
>>> street for joes.
>>
>> "Joes"? In the US, the term is "John" or "Johns" for men who pick up
>> prostitutes. Average Joes don't do that.
>>
>> I would question the validity of any law that makes it illegal to
>> stand on a street corner. There has to be some overt action (ie: an
>> offer to perform sex for money) to be a criminal act.
>>
>
>
> This is a difference of sensibilities (US v Europe). It is the same
> difference that makes Americans look at Trump and call him 'Mr.
> President' while Europeans laugh at the man and call him a ludicrous
> little cunt, which he is.

Oh, we manage to do both at the same time. Don't you have Presidents
and Premiers and Mayors in Europe?

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:45:09 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 25/04/2024 18:17, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:43:02 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2024 15:33, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:01:16 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/04/2024 14:59, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [hiring hitmen]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>>>>>>>>> are charged with a different offence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>>>>>>>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>>>>>>>> every year or so.  Every one was caught when the person being hired
>>>>>>>> turned out to be an undercover cop. (That does not speak to the ones
>>>>>>>> who were not caught.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>>>>>>> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>>>>>>> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. You are getting into murky ('subjective') waters here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The parallel I can think of here is prostitution and soliciting. I have
>>>>> heard of women cops dressing as prostitutes and soliciting men, only to
>>>>> arrest the potential offender, just as the monetary transaction is
>>>>> completed.
>>>>
>>>> The undercover officers do not solicit the men.
>>>
>>> Oh? Loitering on street corners where prostitutes normally hang out,
>>> dressed as prostitutes, is not soliciting?
>>
>> No, not in itself. To be "soliciting", the person has to expressly
>> offer sex for money or money for sex.
>>
>> South Orange Blossom Trail is a major street on the south side of
>> Orlando. It's a street on which prostitutes do stand on corners. It's
>> also a street with bus stops at the corners. Some loiter on the
>> corners waiting for a bus, and some loiter on the corner waiting for a
>> John. In this town, the loitering time might be much longer for a
>> bus.
>>>
>>> In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
>>> street for joes.
>>
>> "Joes"? In the US, the term is "John" or "Johns" for men who pick up
>> prostitutes. Average Joes don't do that.
>>
>> I would question the validity of any law that makes it illegal to
>> stand on a street corner. There has to be some overt action (ie: an
>> offer to perform sex for money) to be a criminal act.
>>
>
>
>This is a difference of sensibilities (US v Europe). It is the same
>difference that makes Americans look at Trump and call him 'Mr.
>President' while Europeans laugh at the man and call him a ludicrous
>little cunt, which he is.

Well, there's a turn. The discussion has been about whether or not a
provocatively dressed woman loitering on a street corner is guilty of
a criminal offense sans any other illegal action.

Instead of addressing that, you chose to play the Trump card in a
sweeping generalization about the difference in sensibilities of
Americans compared to Europeans.

"Sensibilities" is a word I associate with one's inclination to be
shocked or offended by something. Contrary to what you seem to
conclude, I don't think all Europeans are shocked when seeing a street
corner loiterer or that no Americans are offended at the sight. Some,
certainly, but not a nationalistic characteristic.

Your use of "cunt" is closer to a nationalistic characteristic where
there is a difference.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:45:09 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>> South Orange Blossom Trail is a major street on the south side of
>> Orlando. It's a street on which prostitutes do stand on corners. It's
>> also a street with bus stops at the corners. Some loiter on the
>> corners waiting for a bus, and some loiter on the corner waiting for a
>> John. In this town, the loitering time might be much longer for a
>> bus.
>>>
>>> In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
>>> street for joes.

This doesn't appear to be true. As I understand it, prostitution is
legal in the European countries of Belgium, Germany, Netherlands,
Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Turkey.

I don't know how those countries regulate how a prostitute can connect
with a customer, but not all impose conditions that exclude the
connection made by a prostitute that is a pedestrian by a customer in
a vehicle?

I do find that in Switzerland there are specified zones in which
street solicitation is not illegal and other zones where it is a
fineable offense.

I didn't bother to find out what is allowed in the other European
countries.

>This is a difference of sensibilities (US v Europe).

You claim that street corner loitering with intent offends the
sensibilities of Europeans, but it's OK if the woman loiters in the
window in the European countries of the Netherlands and Belgium?

It's the "where" they're doing it, not "what" they're doing?

On 2024-04-25, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-23, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>
>> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >
>> >> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> [hiring hitmen]
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>> >>> >are charged with a different offence.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>> >>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>> >>> every year or so. Every one was caught when the
>> >>> person being hired turned out to be an undercover cop.
>> >>> (That does not speak to the ones who were not caught.)
>> >
>> >> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>> >> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>> >
>> >> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>> >> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>> >
>> > Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do. If an
>> > undercover cop infiltrates the Mafia and is offered money to murder
>> > someone, I don't see the problem with accepting that evidence.
>> > If someone lets it be known that they want to hire a hit man and
>> > an undercover cop applies for the job, that seems all right, maybe
>> > a little less. If someone is complaining about someone else and
>> > an undercover cop offers to solve the problem permanently for a
>> > reasonable fee, though, that sounds like what American law calls
>> > entrapment.
>> >
>> > But I don't know how the FBI got away with Abscam, q.v.
>>
>> I think it's probably OK to try things like that on people in
>> positions of power (legislators, judges, LEOs) because not only should
>> they be held to higher standards of behaviour than ordinary people but
>> they are also capable of doing a lot more harm if corrupt than
>> ordinary people are.

(FWIW, while the FBI is testing others, some other agency should be
testing FBI agents (as LEOs).)

> Yes, certainly, if you regard Stalin's great purge
> as good and efficient government,

Huh? Stalin was undoubtedly one of the most corrupt & illegitimate
leaders of the 20th century.

--
I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe

On 2024-04-25, Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:09:08 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
><gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>> execute people.
>>
>>The Danish word for "execution" is "henrettelse". It was used in a case
>>where two robbers were busy robbing a bank when it was discovered by a
>>man in a car. He drove his car before the escape car to prevent the
>>robbers from escaping. One of them took out his gun and shot the man
>>through the wind shield.
>>
>>Is that plain murder for you?
>
> It is for me.
>
> But interestingly enough the Afrikaans word for "execution" (in the
> sense of carrying out a death sentence on a convicted criminal) is
> "teregstelling", which means "rectification" -- righting a wrong, as
> it were.

That sounds like a euphemism, but then so is this sense of
"execution".

--
rise to claim Saturn, ring and sky

On 2024-04-25, Mark Brader wrote:

> Steve Hayes:
>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>
> Garrett Wollman:
>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>> execute people.
>
> No, you're attempting to make a political point. Murder involves
> *unlawful* and intentional killing. So by definition, an action
> "authorized by a state" cannot be murder.

Well, doesn't it depend on the legitimacy of the state in question?
Many (most?) of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were legal
according to laws passed by the Nazis. Were they not murders?

--
My Shangri-La beneath the summer moon
I will return again

On Thursday, Adam Funk queried:
> On 2024-04-25, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-23, jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:28:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [hiring hitmen]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yabbut I think in that case the hitman is charged with murder but you
>>>>>>> are charged with a different offence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe thirty years ago, I used to read about arrests
>>>>>> made for attempting to hire a hit. They would come up
>>>>>> every year or so. Every one was caught when the
>>>>>> person being hired turned out to be an undercover cop.
>>>>>> (That does not speak to the ones who were not caught.)
>>>>> Strictly forbidden, in these parts.
>>>>> (and should be forbidden everywhere)
>>>>> An undercver cop like that is an 'agent provocateur'.
>>>>> Stalin's KGB used lots of them,
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me it depends on how much provoking they do. If an
>>>> undercover cop infiltrates the Mafia and is offered money to murder
>>>> someone, I don't see the problem with accepting that evidence.
>>>> If someone lets it be known that they want to hire a hit man and
>>>> an undercover cop applies for the job, that seems all right, maybe
>>>> a little less. If someone is complaining about someone else and
>>>> an undercover cop offers to solve the problem permanently for a
>>>> reasonable fee, though, that sounds like what American law calls
>>>> entrapment.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't know how the FBI got away with Abscam, q.v.
>>>
>>> I think it's probably OK to try things like that on people in
>>> positions of power (legislators, judges, LEOs) because not only should
>>> they be held to higher standards of behaviour than ordinary people but
>>> they are also capable of doing a lot more harm if corrupt than
>>> ordinary people are.
>
> (FWIW, while the FBI is testing others, some other agency should be
> testing FBI agents (as LEOs).)
>
>
>> Yes, certainly, if you regard Stalin's great purge
>> as good and efficient government,
>
> Huh? Stalin was undoubtedly one of the most corrupt & illegitimate
> leaders of the 20th century.

So you're agreeing with Jan's point?

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:33:32 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>>The Danish word for "execution" is "henrettelse". It was used in a case
>>>where two robbers were busy robbing a bank when it was discovered by a
>>>man in a car. He drove his car before the escape car to prevent the
>>>robbers from escaping. One of them took out his gun and shot the man
>>>through the wind shield.
>>>
>>>Is that plain murder for you?
>>
>> It is for me.
>
>Okay. I think that what makes some people call it "execution" has to do
>with the 'simple' and coldblooded way it is done - much like an
>impassionate executioner - except that it is hard to be cold-blooded
>even for an executioner, but that is another matter.

I think it was originally "execution-style" killing.

And I believe that related mainly to death be shooting. In the case of
execution by firing squad, the victim would be bound and therefore
shot while unable to run away.

I read somewhere that in the USSR death sentences were sometimes
carried out by a shot to the back of the head, and so that was also
sometimes called "execution style", and now the "style" seems to have
been dropped.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 2024-04-25 20:22:04 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:

> On 25-Apr-24 8:37, occam wrote:
>> On 25/04/2024 09:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:01 -0000 (UTC),
>>> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>,
>>>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
>>>>> any reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>>
>>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>>> execute people.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Imprisonment (or should one call it inmateisation nowadays?) can also
>>> be an execution, if it is done in execution of a court sentence.
>>>
>>> Wills are also executed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And characters are assassinated.
>
> Which brought to mind:
>
> "The day of the Jackal" - but De Gaulle survived due to his habit of
> kissing men on the cheeks.

I live in hopes that I can see that film again, but I fear it's
unlikely to be on television: for some reason -- I can't think why! --
it has never been popular in France.
>
> (Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone.)

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> South Orange Blossom Trail is a major street on the south side of
>>> Orlando. It's a street on which prostitutes do stand on corners. It's
>>> also a street with bus stops at the corners. Some loiter on the
>>> corners waiting for a bus, and some loiter on the corner waiting for a
>>> John. In this town, the loitering time might be much longer for a
>>> bus.
>>>>
>>>> In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
>>>> street for joes.

> This doesn't appear to be true. As I understand it, prostitution is
> legal in the European countries of Belgium, Germany, Netherlands,
> Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, and Turkey.

and Denmark. We only prohibit thirdparties from making a profit from the
work of the sexworkers, and we prohibit people from persuading people to
become prostitutes.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 26/04/2024 01:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:45:09 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> You claim that street corner loitering with intent offends the
> sensibilities of Europeans, but it's OK if the woman loiters in the
> window in the European countries of the Netherlands and Belgium?
>
> It's the "where" they're doing it, not "what" they're doing?
>

Neither. It's the "how". When soliciting is done via 'shop windows'
these professionals are accountable. Health checks, and taxes - to
mention just two criteria.

As for the "what", there is no getting away from the oldest profession.

On a lighter note, I understand that modern sex robots are making great
strides towards replacing the human professional.

On 26/04/2024 09:25, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-25 20:22:04 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:
>
>> On 25-Apr-24 8:37, occam wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2024 09:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:01 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Steve Hayes  <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
>>>>>> any reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution".  An execution is
>>>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>>>> execute people.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Imprisonment (or should one call it inmateisation nowadays?) can also
>>>> be an execution, if it is done in execution of a court sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Wills are also executed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And characters are assassinated.
>>
>> Which brought to mind:
>>
>> "The day of the Jackal" - but De Gaulle survived due to his habit of
>> kissing men on the cheeks.
>
> I live in hopes that I can see that film again, but I fear it's unlikely
> to be on television: for some reason -- I can't think why! -- it has
> never been popular in France.

On YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCfzZFTd7Q

(I know it's not the same as in the cinema, but this is the new normal.)

>>
>> (Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone.)
>
>

On 25/04/2024 20:39, jerryfriedman wrote:
> occam wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2024 13:45, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:40:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/04/2024 06:30, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>>
>>>> How does this square up with the 'The Assassination of John Lennon'
>>>> (Book title, see elsethread).
>>>
>>> Did anything of his killer's motives come out at the trial that might
>>> suggest that he was killed because of what he was rather than because
>>> of who he was? Was he seen as representing something, or being a
>>> symbol of something?
>>>
>>  He (the murderer) I believe was psychologically deranged and 'he heard
>> voices inside his head' ...  . In a different time period, he would have
>> been following God's command.
>
> There's nothing in Wikipedia about that,

<smile> Do I need to spell it out Jerry?

1-

> it does say that
> when he pleaded guilty, he said that God wanted him to do so.

2-

> his
> motive hasn't been very consistent-

3-

> wanting to be notorious,

4- anger at him [Lennon] for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus

5-
> for singing "Imagine no possessions" while living in luxury.

QED </smile>

In article <v0eato$3600a$1@dont-email.me>,
gadekryds@lundhansen.dk says...
>
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> > That reminds me, I saw a film set in the Near East in which
> > the plot involved an "honor killing."
>
> Honor killing has taken place in Denmark. In 2005 an 18-year old girl
> was killed (shot 6 times) by her brother. Her 'crime' was that she had
> married a boy of Danish ethnicity. The brother shot the boyfriend too,
> but he survived.
>
> Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and
> convicted, but actually more family members were behind the action, the
> mother for one. The father got life because he was the prime person
> behind the killing. The brother got 16 years which normally is the
> longest penalty in Denmark for murder.
>
> The family was based in Copenhagen (I think), but the couple was traced
> to Slagelse where the killing took place.
>
> The case shocked the whole country. We hope that the trial will make
> people think twice.
>
> There is only one previous similar case. I don't know when that
> happened.

There are 10 to 15 "honour based" killings a year in
UK.

https://safeguardinghub.co.uk/honour-based-abuse-the-
facts/

Janet

On 25/04/2024 at 20:28, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
>> That reminds me, I saw a film set in the Near East in which
>> the plot involved an "honor killing."
>
> Honor killing has taken place in Denmark. In 2005 an 18-year old girl
> was killed (shot 6 times) by her brother. Her 'crime' was that she had
> married a boy of Danish ethnicity. The brother shot the boyfriend too,
> but he survived.
>
> Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and

prosecuted? accused of crime by state
persecuted? harassed with ill-treatment

> convicted, but actually more family members were behind the action, the
> mother for one. The father got life because he was the prime person
> behind the killing. The brother got 16 years which normally is the
> longest penalty in Denmark for murder.
>
> The family was based in Copenhagen (I think), but the couple was traced
> to Slagelse where the killing took place.
>
> The case shocked the whole country. We hope that the trial will make
> people think twice.
>
> There is only one previous similar case. I don't know when that
> happened.
>

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT BE A SNICKERPUSS.

Chris Elvidge wrote:

>> Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and
>
> prosecuted? accused of crime by state

Sorry, procecuted.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 25-Apr-24 8:37, occam wrote:
> > On 25/04/2024 09:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:52:01 -0000 (UTC),
> >> wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <ph2h2jhstdmu3hu76m21bjg0gjdunmaioh@4ax.com>,
> >>> Steve Hayes <hayesstw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
> >>>> any reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
> >>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
> >>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
> >>>
> >>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
> >>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
> >>> execute people.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> Imprisonment (or should one call it inmateisation nowadays?) can also
> >> be an execution, if it is done in execution of a court sentence.
> >>
> >> Wills are also executed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And characters are assassinated.
>
> Which brought to mind:
>
> "The day of the Jackal" - but De Gaulle survived due to his habit of
> kissing men on the cheeks.
>
> (Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone.)

Who cares? it is historical -fiction-,
not having anything to do with any actual events.
Only the initial setting, with the OAS attempting to kill the Gaulle
actually happened.

You may as well consult 'Allo 'Allo
for information about the French Resistance.

Jan

Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:01:22 +0000, jerry.friedman99@gmail.com
> (jerryfriedman) wrote:

>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:54:39 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>This week I learned the difference in French between "meurtre" et
>>>>"assassinat": "meurtre" is any old homicide; "assassinat" is
>>>>premeditated murder, i.e. intentional murder. It seems to me in in
>>>>English "murder" and "assassination" don't differ in the same way: if
>>>>you kill your your next-door neighbour then that's a murder, but if you
>>>>kill a well-known public figure, such the Prime Minister, then that's
>>>>an assassination. In other words the difference related to the identity
>>>>of the victim rather than to the intent to kill. Am I right? Is that
>>>>how others see the difference between murder and assassination?
>>
>>> In MyE "murder" means the intentional killing of any human being, for
>>> any reason.
>>
>>Including capital punishment, war, and self-defense?

> If you want to be pernickety (AmE persnickety) about it, insert
> "unlawful and" before "intentional".

I do want to be persnickety. This is a.u.e.

> But I regard capital punishment as legalised murder, and have
> reservations about war as well.

OK.

>>
>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>
>>Well put, as Peter Moylan said, but is there an exception for military
>>personnel, police officers, etc., killed in the line of duty?

> In a just society, any human being who kills another would be
> prosecuted. In law there are concepts like justifiable homicide (for
> example if self-defence can be proved), and "culpable homicide" (BrE =
> manslaughter) where there was no intention to kill.

> The street where we live is a cul-de-sac, and one day my wife
> witnessed the end of a police car chase. The suspect was trapped,
> pulled out of the car he was driving (probably not his) and
> handcuffed. One of the younger policemen was urging "Let him go so we
> can shoot him trying to escape." His senior colleagues ignored his
> request, but did not reprimand him for making it, so it was clearly
> part of police culture.

Maybe they saved the reprimand for later, when they were in private
and not worried about keeping the suspect under control--though a
reprimand in front of you would have been good public relations.

> So I have reservations about police claims of "justifiable homicde"
> when they shoot suspects.

I'll bet it's more justified sometimes than others.

But I was asking persnicketily about the opposite. When police
officers is killed in the line of duty, that is, in their official
capacity, is that assassination?

--
Jerry Friedman