Text 14451, 123 rader
Skriven 2008-04-24 00:17:36 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 14390 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Jeff,

On Tuesday April 22 2008 22:50, you wrote to me:

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

 JS>     Not sufficiantly enough it doesn't.

You don't get it do you? You say you are subject to Dutch law when you enter
Dutch territory, but I do not think you have thought it trough. You are not
subject to Dutch law as *you* read it, you are subject to Dutch law as *we*
read it. It does not matter if *you* believe merely owning the gun is
insufficient indication of intent, it is what the Dutch court will consider
sufficient evidence of intent.

Just like in the case of menno Blom. What matters was what the US court
considered sufficient evidence of intent.

 JS> I might have a gun in my possesion for several reasons. None of them
 JS> having anything to do with killing someone.

And Meno Blom may have come to the US for several reasons, none of which have
anything to do with sex. In fact he claimed the purpose for his visit was to
attend the wedding of a friend.

 JS> The key would be what action did I take that showed intent? Merely
 JS> having a gun in my possesion is... Merely having a gun in my
 JS> possesion.

And merely meeting a 50 year old police man in the lobby of a hotel is ...
merely meeting a fifty year old poliman in the lobby of a hotel..

That defence did not keep Menno Blom out of jail because US law says that it is
a criminal offence to come to the US with the intent to have sex with a minor
and meeting with the police man is considered proof of that intent.

And so if the US can make laws like that, so can we. If we make a law says you
as a gun owner coming to the Netherlands is proof of intent, than that is proof
of intent for the court. You can cite NRA propagande until you see blue in the
face, but that is not going to keep you out of jail.

 RW>>> For starters, guns don't have the range to reach Holland from
 RW>>> the 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
 MV>> fourteen year old. It does not matter if the attempt can not
 MV>> succeed. it is the intent that counts....

 JS>      See how stuck in a rut you are? In this instance there was no
 JS> actual 14 year old.

So even if he had intent, he could not have carried it out. That defence did
not keep him out of jail and so neither will your defence that you do not
actually carry the gun when stepping on Dutch soil.

 JS> But Blom's intent demonstrated by his action based on that intent is
 JS> what was illegal.

Same for you as a gun owner stepping on Dutch soil.

 JS> He wasn't arrested for THINKING about having sex with a minor now was
 JS> he?

Actually from my POV that is exactly what happened. But the court did not take
my opinion into account. They judged according to *their* laws and teheir
tradition. Just like you opinion of gun ownership will not matter when you step
on Dutch soil. You will be judged by a Dutch court according to Dutch laws and
Dutch tradions. And if those laws and traditions say that owning a gun and
firing it - anywhere in the world - is sufficinet evidence for intent to maim
or kill, then that is how the court will rule. No matter what you think about
that.

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

And in my hypothetical case, so will you when you step on Dutch soil.

 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
 MV>> real victim, so can The Netherlands.

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

And the exact same thing will apply when you as a gun owner and firer steps on
Dutch soil. You will be arrested on Dutch soil for breaking Dutch law.

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

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

 JS>      If a US citizen while in the Netherlands had demonstrated his
 JS> intent to kill a Dutch citizen through his actions.

You have. By owning the gun, having fired it and then come to The Netherlands.

 JS>      I have fired a gun many, many times over the years. Not once (I
 JS> am happy to say) did I aim at or try to kill anyone.

And neither did Menno Blom ever have sex with a minor. Not ius The Netherlands
and not in the US. Yet he spend two years in a US jail.

 JS> My confession of having fired a gun is only proof that I have indeed
 JS> fired a gun. Nothing more.

That is how you see it. When you come to The Netherlnds you wil be subject to
Dutch law and they will see it different.


Cheers, Michiel

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