Text 33507, 212 rader
Skriven 2009-06-20 17:40:40 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 33494 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Michiel.

20 Jun 09 17:11, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

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

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

 MV>>> There was nothing to prevent.

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

 MV> What children? Where are the children that Blom molested?

    Any one of the children that have suffered the sexual exploitation
at the hands of adults. And I don't mean just Blom. Catching molesters
before they can get a hand on children save the children from having to
experience molestation, rape, or exploitation.

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

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

   Not even a close comparison Michiel.

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

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

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

    Then the cop suceeded. The cop provided the opportunity and Blom was
caught in the act of trying to have sex with a child. Which is also
against the law here. Blom made the decision to come to the US and break
the law here. His choice, his responsibility.


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

 MV> Wrong.

   Hardly. Blom came to the US with the desire to have sex with a
child. Blom communicated with someone he thought was a child. Blom
sent pictures of himself to this "Child". He obviously thought he
he was communicating with a child. Blom arrainged a meeting with this
"Child". These were all Blom's actions in trying to satisfy his sexual
desires regarding children.

 MV>  The child exists in your mind and those who prosecuted him.

   Your attempts in trying to blame everyone but Blom for HIS
actions isnt working Michiel. Blom made the decisions and acted upon
them and was held responsible for them.


 MV> The child did not exist in the mind of Blom.

    And I suppose Blom told you this? Get real Michiel. Just who do
you think Blom thought he was trying to have sex with? A cop? A guy
with a short skirt and a frilly blouse? <g> If Blom was only interested
in having sex with an adult. There would have been many an opportunity
at home I would presume and besides having sex amoung consenting adults
is not illegal here.

   Otherwise *I* would have been jailed long, long ago. <g>

   Blom thought he was going to meet and have sex with a child. His
actions clearly illustrate that Michiel.


 MV>  If you reproach Blom for not familiarising himself with US law en
 MV> assuming that things in the US are the same as in The Netherlands - as

   My point was that it only makes sense for someone when traveling abroad
to make sure that their intended actions will be legal in the country that
(s)he travels to. That is assuming that one doesn't let their sexual desires
for children blind them to acting with common sense.


 MV> I seem to recall you did - you
 MV> can not at the same time claim that in Blom's mind there was a child.

    Thinking that Blom was going to meet a child and caring about if his
actions would be legal are two seperate things Michiel. And you know that.


 MV> Not if you want to stay consistent. No in Blom's mind he was going to
 MV> meet a young woman, not a child.

    Yup, a young women of about 14. Them is children here Michiel.

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

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

    What do you call doing your best to shift the blame for Blom's
actions and decisions to anyone and everyone but Blom. His decision,
his responsibility. Now you suppose that Blom thought something else
entirely. Does make it easier for you doesn't it? Too bad it is only
what you WANT to believe. I and talking about what Blom did, his actions
and his decisions. You are talking about what you THINK he might of
thought or THINK he might have meant.


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

    Possibly in the Netherlands Michiel. But we are not talking about
the Netherlands are we?? Your attempts to try to apply YOUR attitudes
and YOUR laws is meaningless and pointless.


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

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

    Notice how often you suppose, say what might have been, what must have
happened, what probably happened? You can SUPPOSE all you want to Michiel.
That doesn't change anything regarding what actually happened.


 MV> I can accept that people who violate US law on US soil are subject to
 MV> Us law enforcement. No matter where they come from. I can accept that
 MV> your laws and methods of law enforcement are different from ours. I
 MV> can accept your definition of "child molestor" is different from ours
 MV> and that you therefore call Blom a child molestor.

   That is good and I respect that Michiel. But that then begs the question
on why we are discussing Blom at all then. He violated the law here per it's
definition here in the US. He was then arrested, charged, and convicted for
the crime which he commited here.

   I understand that you do not agree with the law in question here and I
can accept that. But that doesn't change what happened. Nor would my opinion
of a law in say the Netherlands. My opinion wouldn't matter there so why
waste my time?


 MV>  (In return I expect
 MV> you to accept that our definition of "gun addict" is different from
 MV> yours and that I therefore I call you a gun addict.) I can accept that
 MV> you prefer to prevent things from happening rather than act after the
 MV> fact.

    And I can, and certainly do accept that. Just another example that
differant countries have differant definitions and look at things in
differant ways. That fact doesn't make either country wrong. Just
differant.

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

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

    And if Blom had not decided to come to the US for that purpose OR if he
chose to satisfied his desires there at home. No US law would have been
broken. Blom's contact with a US LEO didn't break any law here that I
know of. It is when Blom decided and actually came to the US that a US
law was broken.

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

    And you are certainly free to have that opinion.


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

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

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)