Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 May 16

= May 16 =

name this crime
Let's imagine (unrealistically I hope) that you do a round of Russian Roulette in reverse: you load one bullet into a revolver, spin the cylinder, point the gun at another person, and pull the trigger. As expected (i.e. it happens with 83.333...% probability), the hammer falls on an empty chamber. You refrain from repeating the stunt, i.e. you only pull the trigger once, but of course you get arrested anyway.

Question: what do they charge you with? Attempted murder doesn't seem right, since if you wanted the person dead, you would have loaded 6 bullets or kept shooting or whatever: instead, what you did had only 16.666...% chance of firing the gun. Reckless endangerment on the other hand doesn't seem to go far enough, since the danger created wasn't a side effect of something you did for an unrelated reason (e.g. drunk driving). Endangering the other person was the whole point of the action. Also, is it different depending on the probability of the gun going off? Like if it's 40%, 60%, or maybe 5% or even 1%.

This is partly a legal and partly philosophical question, but I'm obviously not seeking legal advice since I have no wish to do anything like this. It's abstracted from stories I've been seeing in the news, about people doing stuff that is imho ethically comparable but with different details. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As part of your research, you might be interested in Commonwealth v. Malone from 1946. Two boys were playing the variant you describe and one was killed. They were convicted of second degree murder and the conviction was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Our summary of the court's reasoning:"The court used common law analysis to determine that a game of Russian roulette evinced malice and recklessness towards a very serious risk, thus fulfilling the mens rea required for depraved heart murder despite the fact that the killing of the specific victim was unintentional." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yeah, that is the case where the gun actually goes off though. I'd expect a different charge if the defendant had pulled the trigger and nothing happened. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Who's going to file charges? And what is the law in that specific state? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aggravated assault?--Khajidha (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In many jurisdictions, reckless endangerment (sometimes called by a different name) is a crime. The precise definition, criminal class, and punishments, will differ per jurisdiction, but playing reverse Russian roulette without the outcome of actual physical harm will very likely fit any of these definitions. --Lambiam 10:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the UK, my guess is that the offence would be Possession (of a firearm) with intent to endanger life under Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but the recommended range is from 4 to 22 years. There is a lesser charge under the same act of Possession with intent to cause fear of violence, but I suppose that pointing a loaded gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger would rule that out. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In Canada, my non-expert opinion is that this comes under aggravated assault. From section 268 of the Criminal Code: "Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant".  (Section 244 also provides that "Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, to endanger the life of or to prevent the arrest or detention of any person"; it doesn't give this crime a short name, but the section is titled "Discharging firearm with intent".  But I doubt that pulling the trigger on an empty chamber would count as "discharging".) --184.147.181.129 (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think intent to fire the gun exists in that picture. The gun had only 1/6 chance of shooting and 5/6 chance of just going click.  So not shooting is the far likelier and expected outcome.  On the other hand the person did something ridiculously dangerous and malicious.  It goes beyond reckless endangerment, which after all implies recklessness, i.e. not caring about the consequence: see Recklessness (law).  That article mentions "intentional wickedness" which is what this is (I found the article just now).  I guess "intentionally wicked endangerment" is what I'm looking for, though I'm not sure such a concept exists.  Anwyway, thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But what does "fire" mean? Pulling the trigger when there is a possibility that a bullet may be discharged may qualify. I suspect this would have to go up the appeals ladder. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Menacing appears to fit the circumstances.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merely looking at someone in a threatening way is "assault" - how much more so is pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger?  If you punch them that's "assault and battery."   My first thought was "conducting an illegal lottery."   There's guidance on this at .   There appear to be restrictions on large lotteries and they don't appear to be allowed for private profit.   So when Magic Radio introduced a competition in which listeners text "WIN" to the station which results in two pounds being added to their phone bill (which presumably gets sent on to Magic) and puts them in the draw to win 125,000 pounds that set me wondering.   Is it legal?   They only need 62,500 to play to break even.   Also, I believe that the "spotting the ball" competition in print media was discontinued because the picture offers no clues as to the location of the ball. 91.125.11.65 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Advertisements on money?
Years ago, I came up with the idea of printing advertisements on money. The money would still be issued by the state, not by private institutions, but private institutions would be able to pay to get their advertisements printed on money, which would still be fully legal tender. This idea never got past this simple "would be nice" stage.

Now would this work, and would it be a good idea? Would there be legal reasons preventing it? Or, has it already been done somewhere? J I P &#124; Talk 15:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The front page of English Wikipedia quite often features articles about American legal tender commemorative coins, sometimes promoting a regional exhibition. However the goal is not promotion by circulation but financing the promoted thing (or the promoter) by the markup on the coin sale price.
 * JP Koning seems to have never dealt with the issue. He may find it interesting though. --Error (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In the United States, "Use and reproduction of U.S. currency for advertising purposes [is] prohibited under federal law" (section 475 of the U.S. Criminal Code) (Gotta love the website for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: moneyfactory.gov.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from the legalese ("...writes, prints, or otherwise impresses upon or attaches to any such instrument, obligation, or security, or any coin of the United States, any business or professional card, notice, or advertisement, or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title"), that includes writing on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "It is illegal to deface [UK] banknotes by printing, writing or adding words, letters or figures." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What I was thinking was if the laws were changed so that advertising in money was legal so that the state would sell advertisement space on the money it issues, not so that private institutions themselves just stuck advertisements on money. If such a scheme were to exist, would it work in practice? J I P  &#124; Talk 00:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me consult my crystal ball. I see ... a sign. It says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He's asking "Would it work?" There's no way to know until someone tries it. A fairer question is "Could it work?" And the answer is... there's no way to know until someone tries it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Scottish banknotes (though they aren't legal tender) are essentially adverts for the issuing banks. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, someone is already doing this: https://www.massivemediainc.com/ads-on-money I have no idea how effective it is (and judging by earlier replies, might not even be legal). Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of commemorative coins, and several countries issue commemorative banknotes. (Hmm, anyone want to create a disambiguation page?) I think that's the closest you'll get to advertising on "money". Anyway who uses cash these days?--Shantavira|feed me 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bad idea, and should remain in the "would be nasty" category. If the advertized service or product is commercial, this would inevitably create the impression – regardless of how emphatic any disclaimers are – that the state endorsing the banknotes also endorses the product. This then creates unfair competition, unless the product is a total monopoly and has no competition, but then, undoubtedly, many will feel that the corporation behind the product is evil, creating ill will for the state. If, however, the ad is non-commercial but concerns a laudible goal, the public will feel the state should not be so stingy as to ask money for the advertisement. --Lambiam 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good reply, the kind of reply I was looking for. As I had only had the idea, I hadn't known how it would work. I had just been imagining it would help the economy by allowing the state to get more money. Apparently the idea would do more harm than good. J I P  &#124; Talk 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Such things have been done in the past with stuff like Private currency, though in the modern world in most countries private currency is illegal, though there are sanctioned local currencies that have some of the same features as private currency. Insofar as these local currencies serve as a means to increase commercial activity at specific businesses, they are at least "advertising adjacent" even if they aren't strictly speak advertisements themselves.  There are also trade tokens which are a sort of currency I guess as well, though these skirt currency laws by clearly stating that they are not legal tender, and are only intended to be used in the business in question, cannot be traded for cash, etc. etc.  -- Jayron 32 13:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A peripherally relevant circumstance is that by some definitions, postage stamps are – or are treated as – legal tender, and commercial firms who purchased postage stamps in quantity for correspondence purposes would sometimes "brand" them with a perforated pattern, often the firm's initials, called by philatelists a "perfin." However, this was primarily to discourage their employees from using a company-bought stamp for their own private correspondence, or to thwart larger scale thefts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

King Robert of Naples executing his daughter and son-in-law
According to our article about King Robert of Naples, he had his illegitimate daughter executed for eloping with an Albanian nobleman, Andrea I Thopia. See here for details. I am struggling to find anything about this in academic sources. Royal filicide seems rather unlikely, to say the least, for 14th-century Catholic Europe. It also goes against what is known of Robert's character and his reputation. I would appreciate if someone else could weigh in and look this up, in Italian and French as well if possible, for we may have a giant hoax here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Our page Andrea I Thopia gives a reference ([1]), to which someone has added "". However, the cited book states:
 * This supports the claims made, so if this is a hoax, the renowned author of the book, Guy Stair Sainty, and perhaps even its publisher, the esteemed Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado, a state agency that also publishes the official gazette of the Kingdom of Spain, are in on the hoax. --Lambiam 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The anecdote also appears in a second source : “As for Karl Thopia, his parents were Andre Thopia and an illegitimate daughter of the Neapolitan king Roberto, who had both of them executed: Hopf, Chroniques, table 11.6 (532), and Schwennicke, Stammtafeln 3.3 (1985), no. 410” Hopf as far as I know wrote in the 19th century in Germany while Schwennicke is a modern author.70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The anecdote also appears in a second source : “As for Karl Thopia, his parents were Andre Thopia and an illegitimate daughter of the Neapolitan king Roberto, who had both of them executed: Hopf, Chroniques, table 11.6 (532), and Schwennicke, Stammtafeln 3.3 (1985), no. 410” Hopf as far as I know wrote in the 19th century in Germany while Schwennicke is a modern author.70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Royal filicide seems rather unlikely, to say the least, for 14th-century Catholic Europe"? Reflect that Robert's son Charles d'Artois who became grand chamberlain for Robert's successor, his granddaughter Queen Joanna I, was executed for murdering her cousin Andrew of Hungary to whom she was betrothed. Such murders were par for the course – the somewhat bloody series A Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones), is inspired by events in (Catholic) Britain and France in just this period.
 * As for Robert's execution of Hélène and Andrea, their unsanctioned union likely upset Robert's plans for marrying her to someone else for diplomatic gain, and may have given Albania unwanted claims and/or influence on his own Kindom of Naples. Royal marriages were always about international politics, which always had to override personal sentiments for the security of the realm(s) involved, and Robert might justifiably have viewed it as a matter of treason. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentencing your half-uncle to death for killing your husband is hardly comparable to executing your daughter for marrying without permission. Yes, I can see how an elopement could have irked him, but I do not see Robert murdering his child over it. He does not exactly share the reputation of Ivan the Terrible. Lambiam, I have noticed the reference to Guy Stair Sainty. I can tell that you consider him credible enough but he is not a historian; Wikipedia itself does not define or categorize him as such. "The esteemed Boletín Oficial del Estado" is not an academic press, and the Angevins are not the subject of the book. When writing the article about Robert's illegitimate son, I cited this book, which does not list the daughter Robert supposedly executed among his children. It lists only two illegitimate children, a son and a daughter who were executed after Robert's death for their part in the conspiracy against Andrew. Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sentencing your half-uncle to death for killing your husband is hardly comparable" – considering the suspicions that Joanna had actually commissioned her husband's killing in the first place, making the execution (by modern standards) a cold-blooded cover-up, a comparably ruthless attitude would seem to be evinced in both grandfather and granddaughter.
 * As for the matter of Hélène's defying him over her marriage, you "do not see Robert murdering his child over it." This suggests to me that you have no grasp of the likely political realities and personal mindset of a 14th-century monarch, and/or little appreciation that people living over 600 years ago had different outlooks from those of the 21st century. I have no stake or interest in this particular byway of history, but I get irritated when historical personages are assumed to have blatantly anachronistic standards, and historical interpretations are thereby warped to fit. [/rant :-)]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an unnecessarily patronizing comment. I have a fairly good grasp of the personal mindset of 14th-century monarch and of Robert in particular, having read biographies of him by Jean-Paul Boyer, Samantha Kelly, and Darleen N. Pryds. They describe him as patient and merciful and cite contemporaries describing him as gentle, traits which would be as incompatible with filicide in the 14th century Italy as they are today. Can you cite an academic historian specializing in the Angevin period who mentions this honour killing? I honestly hope your argument is based on more than your idea of moral standards of 14th-century Italians because I wish to resolve this. Surtsicna (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is left to resolve? Several reliable sources have been cited that discuss the executions.  It seems the only thing left to resolve has to do with you being emotionally prepared to accept what the reliable sources have said on the matter.  Insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, that's not an issue we need to deal with.  Multiple reliable sources present a consistent narrative, and as noted below, no other reliable sources have presented an alternative perspective.  Seems fairly well resolved to me.  -- Jayron 32 12:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, I would have expected an administrator to know better than to remark on editors' personality. Multiple reliable sources can present the same narrative and still be wrong. In this case, neither of the sources is an academic publication specializing in either Robert or his family. And yes, more reliable sources have presented alternative perspectives, which I have cited. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is possible that the source on which Sainty bases this (presumably Karl Hopf's Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit, which Sainty cites elsewhere) is wrong, but that is a far cry from this being "a giant hoax". We go by what reliable sources say, and the cited source qualifies. While filicide may not have been the order of the day, it is not unheard of, and its relative rarity seems (to me) by itself not sufficient cause to seriously question the story. If anyone manages to find a RS presenting a version of Thopia's (or his wife's) demise that is incompatible with the one presented now, it should be added as a reference, noting the existence of different versions. --Lambiam 11:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna did ask for French or Italian or primary sources, so it is worth tracking down where Hopf got it, since both the sources provided in this thread seem to rely on him. The Mladjov source I mentioned above used a French edition of Hopf which I found here but I’m having trouble finding the reference since I don’t seem able to see all pages. Anyone else having better luck? The p. 532 Mladjov refers to is probably an annotated family tree, based on the pages visible on either side of it – but none of those other family trees show sources. Searching the book for Thopia/Topia only pulls up a chapter that is in Italian (I think), written by D. Giovanni Musachio Despoto Dell’Epiro and I don’t think it mentions the incident? Perhaps someone who can read Italian can make more of it. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, right after posting that found an English translation of Gjon Muzaka/Giovanni Musachio’s memoir: . Here’s the story: “I wish to inform you that the town of Durrës belonged to Lord Andrew Thopia. You should also know that King Robert, who was the King of Naples, sent one of his bastard daughters to the Prince of Morea for wife, but a great storm rose at sea and drove her ship towards the said town of Durrës where she remained for several days. During this time, Lord Andrew fell in love with the said lady and she with him, and they agreed to live together. And so they did, and had two sons. The first one was called Lord Charles and the second one Lord George. You should also know that at this time King Robert invited his daughter and his son in law to Naples and murdered the two of them for what they had done.” So now we’ve got down to an account from 1515 (two centuries after events) that has been repeated in Hopf and the two modern sources above (Sainty and Mladjov) that are citing Hopf. Does that resolve enough for you Surtsicna? I don’t think I have the skill to find contemporary sources but perhaps others here do. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but I do not think that resolves it either. As I said in my opening comment, I am looking for academic sources, i.e. peer-reviewed secondary sources, specializing in either Robert or his family. What we have mentioning this murder so far are casual remarks in books that primarily explore something not related to Robert or the Angevins. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)