Text 14308, 65 rader
Skriven 2008-04-21 20:58:50 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 14239 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Jeff,

On Saturday April 19 2008 14:29, you wrote to me:

 MV>>  Law enforcement has no business meddling with people who have
 MV>> not *done* anything.

 JS>      That is where I think we have the primary disagreement. LEA's
 JS> simply provide an opportunity.

Actually no. The LEO just *pretends* to provide opportunity. OTOH, they do a
lot more, they lay traps for people.

 MV>> The law of which  land? The law of the USA or the law of the land
 MV>> where they reside?

 JS>     That would depend on the location of the law being broken. If I
 JS> act in a manner that breaks a Swedish law. I should be just as quilty
 JS> regardless of whether I was in Sweden or the US at the time of the
 JS> action. If someone from Sweden breaks a US law. They should be held
 JS> just as responsible.

I take it then you would not object if the cop that laid the trap for Menno
Blom was somehow lured to come to The Netherlands under some pretence and
arrested on arrival. After all he did break Dutch law by applying an illegal
method of lwa enforcement against a Dutch citizen residing on Dutch soil. Two
years in prison would be a just sentence would you not say? After all that is
what he caused Menno Blom to go through. Tot for tat.

 MV>> Intent to have sex with a minor is not a violation of the law in
 MV>> most - if not all - European countries.

 JS>      I may not personally approve BUT I would to agree.

Then why did the cop not simply leave the foreigners alone? They had not broken
any law of the jurisdiction where they resided.

 MV>> By saying that action should be taken on their intent, you are
 MV>> imposing *your* laws and *your* morals on others.

 JS>     That is NOT what I am saying and you know it.

It *is* what it boils down to.

 JS>     Action on the part of a LEA should be taken upon the ACTION of
 JS> someone that breaks the law. It is the ACTION and not the intent that
 JS> breaks the law.

With that reasoning you can get a man arrested for anything. After all it is
*you* who makes the connection between the intent and an arbitrary action thgat
in itself is not an offence.

 MV>>  In that you are in the same class as Islamitic fundamentalists
 MV>> who want to impose the Sharia on the rest of the world.

 JS>     Ahh... Now you are going to resort to labeling people and
 JS> classifying them.

Going from your own writings...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)