Text 15333, 321 rader
Skriven 2008-05-14 14:13:20 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15304 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Jeff,

On Tuesday May 13 2008 11:14, you wrote to me:

 MV>>  Well, Menno Blom could never have had sex with an American girl
 MV>> from behind his computer in The Netherlands.

 JS>     That wasn't what he was charged with doing now was it?

Just like you will not be charged with firing your weapon in the US. It will be
used as evidence of your evil intentions though. Just like what Blom wrote from
behind his keyboard in The Netherlands was used as evidence at his trial in the
US.

 JS>>>      The differance that you can't avoid Michiel is that in the
 JS>>> Blom case a US law was broken.

 MV>> And if we make a law that says coming to The Netherlands while
 MV>> owning and having fired a gun is against the law, then you will
 MV>> break that law when you come to The Netherlands. What is the
 MV>> difference other than that the latter has not happened yet?

 JS>      Given your scernario. I would simply not travel to the
 JS> Netherlands.

That assumes you were aware of the existence of the law. But how would you
know? Since it is so hard to convince you such a law could exist, I doubt you
would know about it if we did not have this conversation.

 JS> In the Blom case he chose to travel to the US to commit his crime.
 JS> There is little doubt in my mind that he knew what he wanted, and was
 JS> determined to get it regardless of it being illegal in many countries
 JS> including where he chose to go.

I don't buy that. I do not believe for a minute that Menno Blom went to the US
in the knowledge that he would be breaking the law. No, he was trapped by the
cop. The cop invited him to the US, but neglected to tell him he was about to
do someting illegal. So he thought it was all right. After all, a nice American
girl had invited him.

 JS>>>      Your scenario beyond being silly could not be effectively
 JS>>> enforced

 MV>> Why could it not be enforced?

 JS>      You are suggesting that the Dutch LEA's are going to arrest
 JS> everyone foreign and Dutch alike that have ever owned or have ever
 JS> fired a gun?

Everyone they can catch. Just as US LEOs arrest every foreigner that they think
they can prove that has come to the US with the intent of having sex with a
minor.

 JS> a) How will they determine ownership?

By a method similar to that used against Menno Blom?

 JS> b) How will they determine who has ever fired a gun?

By a method similar to that used against Menno Blom?

 JS> c) Where will all the people be incarcerated?

Where does the US incarcerate all the people they catch on entering the US with
the intent to have sex with a minor?

 JS>>>  and would have next to chance of ever being a law anyway.

 MV>> I thought the same when I first heard about the American law
 MV>> regarding coming to the USA with intent to have sex with a minor.
 MV>> I was wrong.

 JS>     You might want to check the laws in other countries.

Many countries have crazy laws that I would not believe could ever have been
adopted if I only used common sense.

 JS> More and more countries are agreeing on a common idea regarding the
 JS> protection of children and the preemptive efforts to catch people
 JS> involved in child sex tourism.

Yes and international agreements will be made to cover it. But OTOH I think you
will find that many countries will be less enthousiastic to cooperate with the
US in this and many other respects. People do not have the idea that they will
get a fair trial in the US.

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

 JS>>>      That would work also.

 MV>> It did not work for Menno Blom.

 JS>      But then he did break your imaginary Dutch law now did he? He
 JS> did break and existing US law did he not? For which he was arrested.

As you will be when we adopt the UAGL and you come to The Nentherlands.

 JS>>>      We are making the assumption that that was his first
 JS>>> attempt.

 MV>> Presumed innocent until proven guilty....

 JS>      By the judicial system maybe. People judge anyway that they
 JS> choose. I am not saying that that is usually fair. Just that that is
 JS> the way people are.

In the US maybe. Not here. There is not a shred of evidence that Menno Blom
ever hurt a child.

 JS>>> By the time that child sex offenders are caught and arrested
 JS>>> they have usually molested a number of children already.

 MV>> By the time gun offenders are caught and arrested they have
 MV>> usually molested a number of people already.

 JS>      Weak analogy. Guns are a thing, a tool, something that people use
 JS> for a number of purposes.

Yeah, I heard this "guns do not kill people" propaganda. It will not make an
impression in a Dutch court. Keep in mind that it is not you that the
prosecution needs to convince, it is the judge, or the jury, depending on the
system, that has to be convinced.

 JS>      People having guns has resulted in lower crime rates and the
 JS> deaths related to guns has dropped in recent years since the easing of
 JS> gun laws here. Reality doesn't seem to support your argument there
 JS> Michiel.

Look beyond you own backyard when you apply statistics. Crime rate in the US is
*much* higher than here in The Netherlands.

 MV>> And you reject my example because you choose to believe that it
 MV>> would never happen...

 JS>      If you mean my view of the likelyhood of me firing a gun here and
 JS> hitting a Dutchman in the Netherlands? Yup.

You can not hit someone in The Netherland form the US. But firing the gun can
be used as evidence of intent. Just like what Blom did in The Nerherlands was
used as evidence of intent in his trial in the US.

 MV>> Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about the Blom case. I was
 MV>> wrong.

 JS>      Don't you think that Blom should have taken the law more
 JS> seriously?

What I think is that he should never have been approached by the cop in the
first place. Blom had broken no law when he was approached by the cop.

The one who broke the law was the US cop who used a method of law enforcement
that is illegal in the country where his target resided.

 JS>>>     Menno Blom broke a US law and was arrested on US soil.
 JS>>> Sounds like a logical conclusion to an illegal act.

 MV>> As will happen to you when we adopt the UAGL (Universal Anti Gun
 MV>> Law) and you come to the Netherlands.

 JS>      That is assuming that I choose to knowingly break the law like
 JS> Blom did.

I do not believe Blom willingly and knowingly borke the law. He was trapped
into doing so.

 MV>>>> I think that the US girls were safe from Menno Blom.

 JS>       Thanks to the efforts of the US LEA's. Yes they are.

They were just as much in danger as Dutch citizens are endangered by your guns.

 MV>> So you now say that the people caught in sting operations are put
 MV>> in jail not for what they did, but for what they *could have
 MV>> done* when allowed to remain free.

 JS>      They are arrested for what they are trying or conspiring to do
 JS> based on their own actions.

And of course what actions are incriminating will be unilaterally decided by
the law makers. And so we can do the same. The UAGL does just that.

 MV>> Well, what is stopping other countries from doing the same to gun
 MV>> owners for what they could have done when allowed to remain free?

 JS>     Common sense and a more realitic view of the world.

Common sense did not stop the US from laying traps for people in other
countries that had not broken any law.

 MV>>>>  By the same token *you* may think the Dutch people are safe
 MV>>>> from your action, but if the Dutch court rules otherwise then
 MV>>>> you go to jail.

 JS>>>      That would depend on me breaking a Dutch law on Dutch soil.

 MV>> As I told you, you would be breakin our UAGL.

 JS>     And if I chose not to set foot on Dutch soil?

Then you would go free. But the assumption was of course that you did not know
about the law and came to The Netherlands (on your own or invited by an
undercover cop).

Just like Menno Blom did not know about that riciculous US law about inent to
have sex with a minor.

Jeff have you actually ever travelled outside North America?

 JS>     Or are you going to try to force your Dutch laws on other
 JS> countries? <g>

No, we will just have an undercover cop make you an offer that is to good to
refuse and not tell you that you will break the law if you accept it.

 JS>>>     Hardly. Once AGAIN. The differance is that Blom broke a REAL
 JS>>> US law and was REALLY arrested.

 MV>> The only difference is that you are not arrested yet.

 JS>      What is the penalty for breaking imaginary laws again?

What was the penalty for intent to have sex with an imiginary minor?

 JS>>>     Does that mean that the US could have a law that says that
 JS>>> if someone enters the country and has ever jerked off that they
 JS>>> could be arrested for sexual conduct?

 MV>> Sure why not? What is stopping them?

Your answer?

 MV>> We were already deep into stupidville when the US made a law
 MV>> against coming to the US with intent to have sex with a minor and
 MV>> started enforcing it through international sting operations.

 JS>      What international sting operation?

A US cop laid a trap for a Dutch citizen residing on Dutch soil where he had
broken no law.

 JS> A US law was violated and a suspect was arrested on US soil.

Only after the trap had closed. When the cop laid his trap no law - Dutch or US
- had been broken.

 JS>  What is international about that?

A US cop laying a trap across an ocean.

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

 JS>>>>>      But at who?

 MV>>>> At who were Menno Blom's actions directed?

 JS>>>     A 14 year old girl.

 MV>> That did not exist.

 JS>      Please read for comprehendsion. Blom's attempts and actions in
 JS> trying to have sex with a minor child were and are illegal in the US.

He was not in the US when the trap was laid.

 JS> You or I are not required to agree with the law. That IS the law for
 JS> which Blom was arrested, charged, and found guilty.

And the saem will happen if we adopt our UAGL. You do not have to agree with it
and you do not have to be convinced that you have broken it.

 MV>> Remenber that conspiring to use a gun against a person is illegal
 MV>> in The Netherlands.

 JS>     If this is the best reponse you can come up with Michiel I see no
 JS> point to further discussion on the matter.

Neither see I. I see that there is no way that I can convince you that what
happened to Blom was unfair and a hostile act against a Dutch citizen.

 JS>>>     Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, states the
 JS>>> following:

 MV>> Yeah, I know all about that silly law by now...

 JS>      Laws that help to protect children from being abused, exploited,
 JS> or sexually molested are not silly.

Bullshit. What awas done to Menno Blom did bot help to protect children. It
just upped the score on the police man's record.

 MV>> Killing or maiming a Dutch citizen.

 JS>      And how is that demonstrated by the owning of a gun? What
 JS> particular Dutchman was I threatening to kill or maim?

Once more: the one to be convinced is the judge or the jury: not you.

 MV>> And if the court rule that your intentis proven by your
 MV>> confession of having owned and fired a gun, then you will be
 MV>> convicted.

 JS>      If such a law were to exist. The matter would be moot as I would
 JS> be aware of the law and avoid visiting the Netherlands.

Dream on. It is impossible to know every law of even one's own country. Let
alone of a foreign country.  One has to rely on some common sense. And if laws
go against common sense, accidents will happen.

 JS>      If Blom had be thinking with his big head instead of his little
 JS> one he would probably be a free man.

If the cop had just left him alone, nothing would have happened.


Cheers, Michiel

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