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).

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".

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

>
>> "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.

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

--
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 07:32:26 +0000, Steve Hayes said:

> 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.

When I was about 10 I was in a church in Fowey where there was monument
of some kind with an inscription saying that it had been given by the
executors of someone or other. I was quite puzzled by this as I thought
that "executors" meant "executioners" and I couldn't understand why the
executioners would put a monument in a church.

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

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.

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

On 25/04/24 18:08, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> When I was about 10 I was in a church in Fowey where there was
> monument of some kind with an inscription saying that it had been
> given by the executors of someone or other. I was quite puzzled by
> this as I thought that "executors" meant "executioners" and I
> couldn't understand why the executioners would put a monument in a
> church.

I've come across someone saying "What's the point of being an executive
if you don't get to execute anyone?"

Sorry, I've forgotten the source.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Le 25/04/2024 à 08:35, Steve Hayes a écrit :
> Bertel Lund Hansen 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.
>
> 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.

Gangland murders in Marseilles are routinely described as 'règlements de
compte', the settling of accounts.

2024 is still in its adolescence. The list for other years is
impressively long (death is clearly /a drug on the market/):

'Liste de règlements de comptes à Marseille et sa région' -
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_r%C3%A8glements_de_comptes_%C3%A0_Marseille_et_sa_r%C3%A9gion>

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.

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

Jan

Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> 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.

So you think that 'judicial murder' is a contradiction in terms?

Many will disagree with that,

Jan

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,

Jan

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.

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'.

>

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 25/04/24 18:08, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > When I was about 10 I was in a church in Fowey where there was
> > monument of some kind with an inscription saying that it had been
> > given by the executors of someone or other. I was quite puzzled by
> > this as I thought that "executors" meant "executioners" and I
> > couldn't understand why the executioners would put a monument in a
> > church.
>
> I've come across someone saying "What's the point of being an executive
> if you don't get to execute anyone?"
>
> Sorry, I've forgotten the source.

[another one]
General Dreedle tried to,
but he too found out that he couldn't,
despite being a general rather than a mere executive,

Jan

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:16:18 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Le 25/04/2024 à 08:35, Steve Hayes a écrit :

>> 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.
>
>Gangland murders in Marseilles are routinely described as 'règlements de
>compte', the settling of accounts.

That financial metaphor sounds as though it is related to the (US
gangland?) "liquidation".

In the Cape Town archives in South Africa earlier deceased estate
accounts were split and filled in three series:

1. Death Notices
2. Wills
3. Liquidation and Distribution Accounts.

And that's all the memorial a lot of dead people leave, and if they
didn't have enough property sometimes they didn't even leave that.

--
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 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:37:01 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>> Wills are also executed.
>>
>>
>
>And characters are assassinated.

+

--
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 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?

--
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 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.

In article <v0c3ms$2jati$1@dont-email.me>,
peter@pmoylan.org.invalid says...
>
> 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".

Not uncommon in Glasgow, and available at a very
reasonable price. Apparently.

Janet.

In article <v0d3f7$2t6u1$1@dont-email.me>,
peter@pmoylan.org.invalid says...
>
> On 25/04/24 18:08, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > When I was about 10 I was in a church in Fowey where there was
> > monument of some kind with an inscription saying that it had been
> > given by the executors of someone or other. I was quite puzzled by
> > this as I thought that "executors" meant "executioners" and I
> > couldn't understand why the executioners would put a monument in a
> > church.
>
> I've come across someone saying "What's the point of being an executive
> if you don't get to execute anyone?"
>
> Sorry, I've forgotten the source.

We are just about to update our Wills.

When our children were minors, the appointed Executor of
our Wills was our trusted lawyer; when he retired John and
I became Executors for each other. In the new Wills, our
adult sons will be the Executors.

Janet

Le 25/04/2024 à 12:38, Steve Hayes a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Gangland murders in Marseilles are routinely described as 'règlements de
>> compte', the settling of accounts.
>
> That financial metaphor sounds as though it is related to the (US
> gangland?) "liquidation". [...]

Strange. There's no accounting for some people.

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.

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.

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?

In Europe this practice is illegal. As is picking up prostitutes on the
street for joes.

occam wrote:

> Now, how much provocation is dressing up as a prostitute?

Women (and other human beings) are allowed to dress pretty much any way
they like [1] without risking any sort of attack or abuse. That ought to
be evident.

[1] within the limits of decency - which vary by society and time.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

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.

From the robber's point of view: The driver had committed a crime
(blocking their way), and that crime is punishable by death.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Janet wrote:

> We are just about to update our Wills.
>
> When our children were minors, the appointed Executor of
> our Wills was our trusted lawyer; when he retired John and
> I became Executors for each other. In the new Wills, our
> adult sons will be the Executors.

I haven't made a will because my two daughters will inherit the lot
automatically (50-50). I might choose an executor in a will, but if I
don't, my daughters can. And if they don't, one will be appointed.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

occam 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).

Maybe it doesn't. Book titles are sometimes chosen for click-bait value.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

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.

I had to laugh at your "dressed like a prostitute". If that's a
crime, then most major female entertainers would be arrested when they
step on stage. Taylor Swift, for example, would have a rap sheet
instead of multiple awards.