Text 33494, 94 rader
Skriven 2009-06-20 17:11:32 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 33414 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Jeff,

On Tuesday June 16 2009 13:55, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>    And I would have no problem with that. That is the differance
 JS>>> between the two countries. Here the attitude is to prevent the
 JS>>> act from happening in the first place.

 MV>> There was nothing to prevent.

 JS>     Nothing to prevent?? How about the sexual exploitation of one or
 JS> more children?

What children? Where are the children that Blom molested?

 JS>  Childern that Blom would have exploited if he hadn't been stopped.

Like the people that will be killed by one of your guns if you are not stopped?
C'mon Jeff, the children in the US were in no more danger to be molested than
the people in The Netherlands are in danger of being killed by your guns.

 MV>> Blom was in The Netherlands when the cop made contact with him. Had
 MV>> the cop left him alone, he would not have come to that hotel in
 MV>> Chicago.

 JS>     Me thinks you have it backwards there Michiel. The LEO wasn't
 JS> trying to have sex with Blom.

Of course not. The cop never intended to have sex with Blom. The cop was trying
catch someone he could put behind bars. And for that he *pretended* to be a
young women who wanted to have sex.

 JS>  Blom was trying to have sex with what he thought was a child.

Wrong. The child exists in your mind and those who prosecuted him. The child
did not exist in the mind of Blom. If you reproach Blom for not familiarising
himself with US law en assuming that things in the US are the same as in The
Netherlands - as I seem to recall you did - you can not at the same time claim
that in Blom's mind there was a child. Not if you want to stay consistent. No
in Blom's mind he was going to meet a young woman, not a child.

 JS> If you keep trying to twist things so much you might end up hurting
 JS> yourself. All of you manipulation of the facts doesn't change the fact
 JS> that Blom made the decision to break the law and was held responsible
 JS> for his actions.

I am not twisting any facts, it is you that are doing that.

You say the cop "merely provided the opportunity". An interesting note is that
"providing opportunity" translates into "gelegenheid geven". It is a well known
legal term for "providing opportunity for unlawful sex". "Gelegenheid geven" is
illegal in The Netherlands. Seldom enforced these days, but illegal it is.
Seems to me the cop was doing exactly that. Or pretending to do anyway.

But you and I know very well that the cop did much more than "merely provide
opportunity". The cop did not passively wait in that hotel room for Blom to
come to him. It probalby started with the cop announcing himself as "Hi I am
Dana, I am 14 year old and I am available". Or words to that effect. And of
course it did not stop there. They chatted. Blom stated that "Dana" was
constantly steering the conversation towards sex. At some point the cop must
have given Blom an e-mail address. How alse could he have send the pictures? At
some point he must ave given him the name and address of the hotel. How else
could he go there?

You say it was Blom's decision and Blom's decision only to come to the hotel. I
say it was not a free and independent decision, the cop interfered in the
decision making process. The decision was influenced. The cop was trying to
make Blom take the wrong decision.

I can accept that people who violate US law on US soil are subject to Us law
enforcement. No matter where they come from. I can accept that your laws and
methods of law enforcement are different from ours. I can accept your
definition of "child molestor" is different from ours and that you therefore
call Blom a child molestor. (In return I expect you to accept that our
definition of "gun addict" is different from yours and that I therefore I call
you a gun addict.) I can accept that you prefer to prevent things from
happening rather than act after the fact.

I can accept all that. AS LONG AS YOU STAY ON YOUR OWN TERRITORY.

What I find totally unacceptable is that Blom became the subject of US law
enforcement in the first place. Blom was in The Netherlands when the contact
was made. He was not under US jurisdiction and he was not violating any laws.
Dutch or American. The cop had no business messing with him to begin with. He
should have stayed out. Period

But instead the cop interfered and thereby initiated a sequence of events that
led to Blom spending two years in jail. That is totally unacceptable.


Cheers, Michiel

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