Text 14465, 124 rader
Skriven 2008-04-23 17:13:35 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 14381 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
23 Apr 08 01:23, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy,

 MvdV> 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 or
 MvdV>>> kill Dutch citizens with a fire arm.

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

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

You just took a few breaths to make that statement, therefore according
to the law I just invented, you owe the US government $1000 for breathing.
Silly? So is your premise.

 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.

 MvdV> Actually yes.

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

 MvdV> So? Menno Blom could never have succeeded in carrying out his
 MvdV> intention to have sex with a fourteen year old.

From Holland! Which is why he traveled to the US to act out his
'intentions', which you just admitted he had in mind. It isn't against the
law to phish for sexual offenders online here. It is against the law to
cross any US or state border to act out what you started online.

 MvdV> There was no fourteen year old. It does not matter if the attempt
 MvdV> can not succeed. it is the intent that counts....

In Blom's case, intent was proven when he crossed the US border and two
states' lines, then got off the plane in Chicago and made a phone call to
the so-called 14yo to setup a meeting for sex. That act showed his 'mens
rea' criminal intent. Whether or not the 14yo actually existed, is
irrelevant.

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

 MvdV> The question was not if it would stand up in court. That was the
 MvdV> premise.

You cannot base a premise on something as silly as that. Just as silly as,
if not more so, than the premise that a US law requiring everyone to pay a
'breathing tax' could be enforced anywhere around the world, except in
the USA...

 MvdV> If the US can make laws that can put someone to jail who
 MvdV> never violated any law in his own country and who never hurt any
 MvdV> real victim, so can The Netherlands.

Now you owe the US government $10,000. You've breathed long enough. Stop
breathing now, before you go broke.

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

Since it couldn't happen, the premise is flawed and that's all there is
to say about it.

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

There is no answer to that question, since the premise is flawed.

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

 MvdV> You yourself have confessed to  firing guns on several occasions.

Where have I written that down and what official witnessed it? Then, prove
that I have those firearms you think I have. Hearsay does not stand up in
court, not even in Holland.

 MvdV> According to your own words in the van der Sloot case, a confession
 MvdV> is proof.

You have no confession that I deliberately pointed a gun in the
direction of Holland.

This is all moot anyway, since the practicallity of your premise is
flawed.

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

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

Yes, with the fickleness of falty premises...

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)