Text 14390, 136 rader
Skriven 2008-04-22 22:50:16 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 14381 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Michiel.

23 Apr 08 01:23, you wrote to Roy Witt:

 MV> Hello Roy,

 MV> On Tuesday April 22 2008 10:48, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> Ok, so how about the following.

 MvdV>>> You come to The Netherlands - invited by an undercover cop or
 MvdV>>> on your own initiative - and are arrested for intent to maim
 MvdV>>> or kill Dutch citizens with a fire arm.

 RW>> You haven't shown any intent, so we can dispense with it here and
 RW>> now.

 MV> You have the gun. That shows intent. According to this new Dutch law I
 MV> am contemplating.

    Not sufficiantly enough it doesn't. I might have a gun in my possesion
for several reasons. None of them having anything to do with killing
someone. The key would be what action did I take that showed intent?
Merely having a gun in my possesion is... Merely having a gun in my
possesion.

    There may be local police issues that may apply to the possesion of
gun though.


 MvdV>>> You owe fire arms. You do fire them on occasion. You admitted
 MvdV>>> to it yourself. Surely you must have fires in an easterly
 MvdV>>> direction on occasion. So you pointed at Dutch citizens and
 MvdV>>> dicharged the weapon. By that you commited sevarel crimes and
 MvdV>>> they were directed against Dutch citizens.

 RW>> Actually no.

 MV> Actually yes.

 RW>> For starters, guns don't have the range to reach Holland from the
 RW>> US,

 MV> So? Menno Blom could never have succeeded in carrying out his
 MV> intention to have sex with a fourteen year old. There was no fourteen
 MV> year old. It does not matter if the attempt can not succeed. it is the
 MV> intent that counts....

     See how stuck in a rut you are? In this instance there was no actual
14 year old. But Blom's intent demonstrated by his action based on that
intent is what was illegal. He wasn't arrested for THINKING about having
sex with a minor now was he? Or did Blom decide to travel to the US to do
more thinking about minors? Did he respond to opportunities provided him
only because of his THINKING about sex with children? What prior history
did he have regarding sex with minors?

   One can think about any number of things. Things that they would like
to do or accomplish. Until one takes action those thoughts are just that,
thoughts.

   Blom wasn't arrested for his thoughts or dreams or fantasies. He was
arrested for his actions which were illegal.


 RW>>  so even if there was intent, any charges brought would be
 RW>> laughed out of court...

 MV> The question was not if it would stand up in court. That was the
 MV> premise. If the US can make laws that can put someone to jail who
 MV> never violated any law in his own country and who never hurt any real
 MV> victim, so can The Netherlands.

     Think about what I am saying here Michiel. The US can and has made laws
that can put someone in jail for BREAKING the law. The laws apply to crimes
commited on US soil. The point is that the crime was commited and then the
accused was arrested. On US soil! The fact that the action may have not been
illegal in the person's home country is irrelevant. They were NOT in their
home country.


 MV> The question was not if you think this could happen, the question was
 MV> what would you say if it did happen.

 MV> So what would you say if an American citizen was arrested on arrival
 MV> in The Netherlands and put in jail for intent to maim or kill Dutch
 MV> citizens with a fire arm?

     If a US citizen while in the Netherlands had demonstrated his intent
to kill a Dutch citizen through his actions.  Then he should be arrested
and held responsible for his actions. The point is that the laws of a
country should apply equally to everyone currently in that country. The
same principle should apply here in the US. Our laws should apply equally
to everyone while they are in this country.

 RW>> you arguements are slowly but surely becoming weaker and soon
 RW>> your arguements will be swallowed by the vortex you're creating
 RW>> with them.

 JS>>>>     Although they are related, an arrest is based on action and
 JS>>>> not intent.

 MvdV>>> Right, the action was firing the gun.

 RW>> How did the Dutch authorities know he fired a gun?

 MV> You yourself have confessed to  firing guns on several occasions.
 MV> According to your own words in the van der Sloot case, a confession is
 MV> proof.

     I have fired a gun many, many times over the years. Not once (I am
happy to say) did I aim at or try to kill anyone. My confession of having
fired a gun is only proof that I have indeed fired a gun. Nothing more.


 RW>> I have no fear of being arrested for your fairy tale on Dutch
 RW>> soil. Any charges stemming from what I did in the US won't stick.
 RW>> Any prosecutor who brought such charges would be laughed out of
 RW>> court.

 MV> You forget that on Dutch soil it is Dutch law that applies, not US
 MV> law. And our laws are not static. We can change them. At whim. Our
 MV> whim.

     Then what's the point? Your starting to head down the road to
Sillyville with this discussion.


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

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

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)