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

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:
...

>> >>> 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.

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

Non sequitur. Stalin's NKVD arrested lots of people. You might as
well argue that anyone who thinks the police should sometimes arrest
people regards Stalin's Great Purge as good and efficient government.

In a quick search, I didn't see anything about agents provocateurs
in the Great Purge. Accounts focused more on direct methods. If
you'll say something about how the NKVD used such agents, I might
be able to make some comparison with American undercover police, not
that I'm an expert.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 26/04/2024 at 14:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 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
>

- I shall say this only once.
- Pardon.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:40:46 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>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.

Wha? The "sensibilities" factor is based on whether or not the
visible presence of solicitation by a prostitute shocks or offends the
viewer. Those that are shocked or offended by this are not appeased
by the fact that the women have required health checks and pay taxes.
You made the statement that "This is a difference of sensibilities (US
v Europe)" regarding the presence of prostitutes soliciting on the
street implying that Europeans are shocked and offended by this but
Americans are not.

Some European countries allow the visible solicitation by prostitutes,
so it doesn't seem that there is a difference.

Prostitution is legal in some part of Nevada, by the way. Rather than
a window on a public street, the prostitutes work in licensed
brothels. They are required to have health checks. Both the brothel
and the prostitute are subject to being taxed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

On 26/04/2024 11:53, occam wrote:
> 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.)
>

My apologies, the link appears to be merely a discussion of the movie.
There are clips, but I cannot find the whole movie. (Unless you want to
torrent the movie, though this is illegal.)

Jerry Friedman:
> 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?

I say no. There's a case for that, but I think they would need to
be higher-ranking than ordinary officers. A chief of police, yes.
(Incidentally, I've never heard of a case of that happening, at
least not in a place large enough for the term "chief" to be used.)
--
Mark Brader | "How, you may ask, did the mind of man ever excogitate
Toronto | anything so false and foolish? The answer is that the
msb@vex.net | mind of man had nothing to do with it..." --A.E. Housman

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On 2024-04-26 15:06:29 +0000, occam said:

> On 26/04/2024 11:53, occam wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
>
> My apologies, the link appears to be merely a discussion of the movie.
> There are clips, but I cannot find the whole movie. (Unless you want to
> torrent the movie, though this is illegal.)

That explains why I couldn't find the film at that link.

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

On 26-Apr-24 15:15, jerryfriedman wrote:
> 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:
> ..
>
>>> >>> 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.
>
>> Yes, certainly, if you regard Stalin's great purge
>> as good and efficient government,
>
> Non sequitur.  Stalin's NKVD arrested lots of people.  You might as
> well argue that anyone who thinks the police should sometimes arrest
> people regards Stalin's Great Purge as good and efficient government.
>
> In a quick search, I didn't see anything about agents provocateurs
> in the Great Purge.  Accounts focused more on direct methods.  If
> you'll say something about how the NKVD used such agents, I might
> be able to make some comparison with American undercover police, not
> that I'm an expert.

Not agents provocateurs perhaps, but there were a great many people who
sought to secure their own safety, and personal advantage, by denouncing
others. It seem to be a common feature of extreme authoritarian regimes.
The same thing might happen near you, if Trump gets his way.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
> 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.
>
Great Strides??
That's a new on on me.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26-Apr-24 14:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 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.

??
In responding to Occam's "characters are assassinated"
I was referring to a character (in a book - later a film) who was
(almost) assassinated.

Some people do care very much about spoilers that might ruin a thriller
for them.

After all, no-one would go to see "The Scottish Play" if they already
knew that M****** dies in the final act.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2024-04-26 12:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Great Strides??
> That's a new on on me.
>
Perhaps they are dressed in old-style trousers.

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world;
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

On 2024-04-26 07:39, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
>>> Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and
>>
>> prosecuted? accused of crime by state
>
> Sorry, procecuted.
>

Heh. prosesuted?
--
Things that I hate: lists, irony, lists, repetition, inconsistency.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:10:17 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>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/
>

That discusses the murders in the context of warning about a
wider range of abuse.

I don't know if the US has a lot fewer immigrants from those
cultures or if those problems have remained invisible for some
other reason.

Considering the range of abuses, I'm sure we have SOME.
Well, they don't get discussed under that name.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, at 19:58:48, Sam Plusnet posted:
>On 26-Apr-24 14:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 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.
>
>??
>In responding to Occam's "characters are assassinated"
>I was referring to a character (in a book - later a film) who was
>(almost) assassinated.
>
>Some people do care very much about spoilers that might ruin a thriller
>for them.
>
>After all, no-one would go to see "The Scottish Play" if they already
>knew that M****** dies in the final act.
>
You are St*f*n R*m AICM5P. But how are we to know that M*****f and
M*****h are completely different characters? Well, obviously, look them
up on the ***, commonly known as the W**** W*** W**.
--
Paul W

Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 26-Apr-24 15:15, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> 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:
>> ..
>>
>>>> >>> 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.
>>
>>> Yes, certainly, if you regard Stalin's great purge
>>> as good and efficient government,
>>
>> Non sequitur.  Stalin's NKVD arrested lots of people.  You might as
>> well argue that anyone who thinks the police should sometimes arrest
>> people regards Stalin's Great Purge as good and efficient government.
>>
>> In a quick search, I didn't see anything about agents provocateurs
>> in the Great Purge.  Accounts focused more on direct methods.  If
>> you'll say something about how the NKVD used such agents, I might
>> be able to make some comparison with American undercover police, not
>> that I'm an expert.

> Not agents provocateurs perhaps, but there were a great many people who
> sought to secure their own safety, and personal advantage, by denouncing
> others.

In same cases, the advantage was being executed without further
torture.

> It seem to be a common feature of extreme authoritarian regimes.
> The same thing might happen near you, if Trump gets his way.

It happens all the time here, and apparently in your country too.
I think you call it King's Evidence these days. Of course it's
supposed to be limited to people who have demonstrably committed
crimes. Trump's lawyers will undoubtedly argue that it's causing
some of the witnesses against him to perjure themselves.

--
Jerry Friedman

msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> 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.

Can you not imagine a situation where more than one state's view on
an event may be relevant, and that plurality of views do not align?

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On 26/04/2024 20:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Great Strides??
> That's a new on on me.
>

You should keep a dictionary by your bedside.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/make-great-strides

On 26/04/2024 16:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:40:46 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Wha? The "sensibilities" factor is based on whether or not the
> visible presence of solicitation by a prostitute shocks or offends the
> viewer. Those that are shocked or offended by this are not appeased
> by the fact that the women have required health checks and pay taxes.
> You made the statement that "This is a difference of sensibilities (US
> v Europe)" regarding the presence of prostitutes soliciting on the
> street implying that Europeans are shocked and offended by this but
> Americans are not.

A short guide to laws: they invariably emerge out of the sensibilities
of a people and the prevailing morality of the times.

A law cannot be couched purely in terms of sentiments. It must be
specified in terms of actionable concepts. Health and taxes are two
such concepts. Murder, treason, adultery, slander ... are some others.
Alas, electing a moron for a President is not amongst these. (It should
be.)

Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:

> msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> > 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.
>
> Can you not imagine a situation where more than one state's view on
> an event may be relevant, and that plurality of views do not align?

Or even the same state at different times,

Jan

In article <l92498Fd8onU1@mid.individual.net>,
me@yahoo.com says...
> >>> 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.)
> >>
> >
> > My apologies, the link appears to be merely a discussion of the movie.
> > There are clips, but I cannot find the whole movie. (Unless you want to
> > torrent the movie, though this is illegal.)
>
> That explains why I couldn't find the film at that link.

I believe Netflix is remaking The Day of the Jackal..
new version might be available that way?

Janet

In article <HISWN.377$JxS3.120@fx10.ams1>, not@home.com
says...
> Subject: Re: Murder and assassination
> From: Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:> > On a lighter note, I
understand that modern sex robots are making great
> > strides towards replacing the human professional.

> Great Strides??

"Large trousers" ??

> That's a new one on me.

Bad news for incels, or any chaps of limited prowess in
the trouser department/bedroom.

Janet

In article <l93nkoFkglhU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam@nowhere.nix says...
>
> On 26/04/2024 20:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Great Strides??
> > That's a new on on me.
> >
>
> You should keep a dictionary by your bedside.
>
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/make-great-strides

In future, perhaps people will just keep a sex robot by
the bedside.

Janet

In article <HPSWN.378$JxS3.81@fx10.ams1>, not@home.com
says...
> Subject: Re: Murder and assassination
> From: Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>
> On 26-Apr-24 14:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> > 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.
>
> ??
> In responding to Occam's "characters are assassinated"
> I was referring to a character (in a book - later a film) who was
> (almost) assassinated.
>
> Some people do care very much about spoilers that might ruin a thriller
> for them.
>
> After all, no-one would go to see "The Scottish Play" if they already
> knew that M****** dies in the final act.

"Don't tell 'em, Pike"

Janet

In article <6bbo2j5niopkf5ppldvg1i5qb30dbieges@4ax.com>,
rich.ulrich@comcast.net says...
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:10:17 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
> >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/
> >
>
> That discusses the murders in the context of warning about a
> wider range of abuse.
>
> I don't know if the US has a lot fewer immigrants from those
> cultures or if those problems have remained invisible for some
> other reason.
>
> Considering the range of abuses, I'm sure we have SOME.
> Well, they don't get discussed under that name.

Honour based deaths in USA are probably invisible among
the vast number of US homicides.

Janet

In article <l93vc3FllfeU1@mid.individual.net>,
occam@nowhere.nix says...
>
> A short guide to laws: they invariably emerge out of the sensibilities
> of a people and the prevailing morality of the times.

In Europe, and politically advanced societies.

More conservative political systems/ societies are
still up in arms to defend any risk of updating their
ancestors' sensibilities.

Janet