Text 15099, 134 rader
Skriven 2008-05-11 00:57:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 14765 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Jeff,

On Wednesday April 30 2008 21:52, you wrote to me:

 MV>> Ok, so how about the following.

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

 JS>      If I came to the Netherlands with a handgun in my posession.

No, you leave your fire arms at home.

 MV>> You owe fire arms.

 JS>      Yes, I own fire arms.

 MV>>  You do fire them on occasion.

 JS>      Yes I do. There's an indoor firing range less than a mile away
 JS> that I visit occasionally.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 MV>>  Surely you must have fired in an easterly direction on occasion.

 JS>      Probably.

Right.

 MV>> So you pointed at Dutch citizens and dicharged the weapon.

 JS>      Here's where your scenario looses all believability and becomes
 JS> silly.

Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about the Menno Blom case.

 JS>  What is the effective range of the best, most powerful gun
 JS> (Rifle/handgun) that you know of? The Barret 50cal has a range of
 JS> about 2100 meters (6890 feet). The distance between Minneapolis, MN
 JS> and Amsterdam, Netherlands is about 4149.0 miles (6677.0 km).

So your defence is that you could never have actually hurt a Dutch citizen
because while you were in the US you were out of range and while you were in
The Netherlands you did not bring the gun.

Well, Menno Blom never actually had sex with a US girl. He could not have.
While in The Netherlands, he was "out of range" and when he was in the US, the
girl did not exist, it was a LEO imposing as a girl. That did not keep him out
of jail.

 JS>     If we are going to discuss this you have to be a whole lot more
 JS> realistic there Michiel.

So you say the scenario is unrealistic. Exactly my thoughts when I first heard
about the Menno Blom case. How can anyone possibly get into jail for something
that he did while in his own country where it is not against the law and which
he did not do in the country where he was arrested? But Menno Blom went to
jail.

Point is that if the US can make laws that are unrealistic in the eyes of Dutch
people, then The Netherlands can make laws that are unrealistic in the eyes of
American people.

 JS>     If I fire any handgun or rifle in the the general direction of the
 JS> Netherlands. There is NO expectation of the bullet traveling much more
 JS> than a mile. I think that all Dutch citizens there are safe and need
 JS> not worry.

I think that the US girls were safe from Menno Blom. Apparently the US court
ruled otherwise and send him to jail. By the same token *you* may think the
Dutch people are safe from your action, but if the Dutch court rules otherwise
then you go to jail.

 MV>> By that you commited sevarel crimes and they were directed
 MV>> against Dutch citizens.

 JS>      Only in your mind Michiel. Only in your mind.

Like Menno Blom's crimes only existed in your mind?

Menno Blom went to jail becuase by US law coming to the US and meeting a
policeman in the lobby of a hotel is sufficient evidence of a crime.

By the same token if Dutch law says that coming to The Netherlands while owning
a gun and having fired it  - no matter where the gun is kept - is sufficient
evidence for a crime, then to jail you wil go.

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

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

 JS>      But at who?

At who were Menno Blom's actions directed?

 JS>  Was I aiming at a target 100 meters away or at something or someone
 JS> else? The action has to clearly show intent.

If US law says meeting with a policeman in the lobby of a hotel is proof of
intent, then meeting with a policeman in the lobby of a hotel is proof of
intent.

If Dutch law says coming to The Netherland while owning a gun and confessing to
having fired it, is proof of intent, then it is proof of intent.

 JS> If I aim a gun at someone. There is reason to believe that I intended
 JS> to harm or kill that person. If I fire a gun with no apparant intent
 JS> to shoot at anyone. Then the action did not show or suggest intent.

If the court rules there was intent because the law says so, then there was
intent. No matter what you say. Like Menno Blom was convicted, no matter what
he said in defence.

 MV>> You still think it is ok if you get arrested for that when you
 MV>> set foot on Dutch soil?

 JS>      If I set foot on Dutch soil with the intent to shoot someone
 JS> there and I either bring a gun or aquire a gun there. If I were
 JS> arrested while acting out my intention then I should be arrested.
 JS> Dutch law is Dutch law and should be applied equally and fairly to
 JS> all.

Of course it should apply to all. *Everyone* owning a gun outside The
Netherlands and confessing to having fired it will be arrested when stepping on
Dutch soil.


Cheers, Michiel

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