Text 33932, 416 rader
Skriven 2009-06-29 12:08:20 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 33879 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Michiel.

29 Jun 09 10:51, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 MV> On Monday June 22 2009 22:14, you wrote to me:

 MV>>> I beg to differ. Here gun addicts are considered dangerous. They
 MV>>> can kill people with their guns. That is why we have made laws
 MV>>> to restrict gun addicts. But we do not go so far as to lure gun
 MV>>> addicts people from other countries into our jurisdiction so
 MV>>> that they can be stopped too.

 JS>>      If it was a matter of coercing then I might agree with you.

 MV> It is not a one or zero situation Jeff, it is a sliding scale, Ranging
 MV> from doing nothing on the one hand to physical force on the other.
 MV> With influnece, persuasion, seduction en coercion in bewteen.

    For the purposes of defining a law some "lines" have to be
established. Definitions of what is permitted and what is not
permitted in the enforcement of a law. If a LEO makes the
opportunity available and does not coerce or otherwise does not
provide the potential lawbreaker a free choice to decide on their
own. Then I don't see where they have crossed the line.


 JS>> But if I was looking online for a particular type of gun and
 JS>> found one for sale at a surprizing price in your country. And
 JS>> based on my comunication with the seller over there I decided to
 JS>> travel to your country to purchase said gun. To my suprize I
 JS>> found myself arrested when I tried to complete the transaction
 JS>> with whom I had thought was a gun seller. Would not I be as
 JS>> guilty as anyone else domestic or foreign that did the same
 JS>> thing?

 MV> That depends on your state of awareness....

   True. And it would only make common sense that I check the legality
of my intended action prior to entering the foreign country. That is
assuming that my desire has not clouded my use of common sense.


 MV> Let me first stress that this is a hypothetical. Wd do not have laws
 MV> that allow us to set traps for people wanting to buy guns. Of coiurse
 MV> laws are not static and I suppose we could make such a law if we
 MV> wanted. D would we are discussing is how this law would be
 MV> interpretated and enforced if we had one.

 MV> If you were caught by an agent provocateur, what would you be guilty
 MV> of?

   That would depend on the law in question I was deciding to violate. Here
the agent provocateur is usually a member of a LEA and operates under the
procedural guidelines of the law being enforced.

 MV> The intent to buy a gun and kill someone with it?

   That would depend on the buying of a gun being illegal as I assume that
the killing of someone would already be illegal there.

 MV>  On the one hand it could be argued that you must have something evil
 MV> in mind, why else would you want to buy a gun?

   There are a number of uses that do not involve killing. I could not see
a law that punished someone for what they were thinking of doing. In the
case of buying a gun I could very well have bought a gun for something
other than to kill someone. The point where a law could be broken is when
I act based on the intent I had for puchasing the gun.


 MV>  (hand)Guns are designed for the purpose of killing.

   My 44 magnum that I own I bought for hunting animals as it is legal for
say hunting deer here in my state. It is more efficient when hunting at
close range.

   My 9mm I use for self defense. While my intent is and would never be
to kill anyone I do accept the fact that that could happen given the right
series of events. If I fear for my family's lives I will defend them to
the best of my ability.

 MV>  You must have some evil plan and you must know that you
 MV> sre doing something wrong.

   In your eyes maybe Michiel, but not in mine. Guns are things that DO
very much require a significant responsibility for their safe use. And I
don't think that EVERYONE should be allowed to possess them. Here there
is a right to own. But that depends on one's mental state as well as one's
criminal record.


 MV> There is something wring in your mind and
 MV> you must be stopped.

    Wouldn't that depend on the reason I decided to buy a gun? I would
imagine that most buy guns for reasons that do not involve killing
someone. But I am sure there is a small percentage that do buy or steal
guns to rob or kill. It is those that get the publicity and suggest that
gun ownership is a bad thing.

 MV> OTOH, you grew up in a totally different culture. You are raised with
 MV> the idea that it is not guns that kill people, it is people that kill
 MV> people.

   Correct. By itself a gun is a device, an inanimate object. An object
that requires a person to decide for what purpose it will be used. The
gun also requires a person to pull the trigger. The gun by itself doesn't
decide to shoot or what to shoot at. If the attitude of people is changed
then the existence of guns is irrelevant.


 MV>  Fopr you guns are just tools like any other tool. For you
 MV> buying a gun is no different than buying a lawn mower. In your mind
 MV> there is nothing wrong in buying a gun. In YOR mind you did nothing
 MV> wrong. So how can we convict you for a mind cime if it does not exist
 MV> in your mind?

    Intent is the key factor Michiel. Here the owning and possesion of a
gun is not illegal. So I therefor would not feel guilty in buying a gun
if I fealt the need. Those that do desire to possess a gun for robbing or
killing someone usually don't bother with legally buying a gun. They just
buy it illegally or steal it.

 MV> Ignorance of the law is no excuse but it *is* an attenuating
 MV> circumstance and courts here take that into account.

   Here, ignorance is not a legal defense. But intent has to be proven
to have existed.

 JS>>    There is a difference between making something available and
 JS>> coercing or forcing someone. Giving them little if any choice
 JS>> other than to break the law.

 MV> Side form coercion by physical force, there is undue influence,
 MV> prsuasion and seduction. And a lot more that can be used to make
 MV> someone do something he/she would not have done otherwise.

 JS>>>>    Hardly. Blom came to the US with the desire to have sex with
 JS>>>> a child. Blom communicated with someone he thought was a child.

 MV>>> No, Blom ciommunicated with what IN YOUR PERCEPTION was a child.

 JS>>     What was blom charged with Michiel?

 MV> That he was charged with is, it not proof that what he was going to
 MV> meet what a child IN HIS MIND.

   If I see what looks like an apple in a store for sale and I go in the
store and buy that apple. What is there to suggest that I thought that it
was really a grapefruit?

   You, I, or anyone can suppose what WE think Blom thought. The available
evidence suggests that it was a child. Since that was what was being
presented to Blom. I doubt Blom came to the US to have sex with a middle
aged cop.

 JS>> Was he charged with trying to have sex with a adult (18+) or even
 JS>> a young adult (16-18)? No, he was charged with trying to have sex
 JS>> with a child. Otherwise Michiel he likely wouldn't have been
 JS>> charged with any crime. He responded and was trying to take
 JS>> advantage of the opportunity he saw to meet and have sex with a
 JS>> CHILD.

 MV> No. he responed to the opportunity to have sex. Period. The child
 MV> exists in your perception. That is not proof that Blom percieved it as
 MV> a child too.

   Was Blom being presented with an adult? No Michiel, he was being presented
with a child and THAT is what he responded to. If he had come to the US to
have sex with an adult no crime would have been commited.


 JS>>  That percieved CHILD is what attracted him

 MV> You keep presenting is as an adult/child situation. Did it never occur
 MV> to yo that Blom may not have seen it that way at all? Did it never
 MV> occur to you that he just responded to the opportunity to heve sex and
 MV> never gave the matter of age any thought at all? As I heve bene trying
 MV> to explain toi you over and over again: here we do not think sex with
 MV> a foutrteen year ol is a big deal. It happens all the time and here we
 MV> do not think of it as child molestation if it is gving willingly by a
 MV> sexually mature 14 year old. Did it never occur to you that Bom had no
 MV> idea that he ws doing something wrong?

 JS>>    If indeed he thought the person who presented themselves as a
 JS>> child was in fact an adult.

 MV> Why do you assume he gave the matter any thought at all?

 JS>>  Why would he have continued to try to meet with that person.

 MV> Becaue he was offered sex and wanted sex...

 JS>>  Blom responded to what age he percieved the person to be.

 MV> Conjecture. I say he responded to the opportunity to have sex. Period.

   Sex? Yes, but with someone of what age? The advertized age of the person
he was to meet was 14. Did Blom have ESP? Did he know that the child was
not indeed a child. If that was the case then why would he have gone through
with the meeting. Your suppositions Michiel are not supported by the reality
of what happened and Blom's actions in the matter.

 MV>>> Blom was encouragede to make that decision.

 JS>>     Then you agree that HE made the decision?

 MV> Yes, he made the decision, but it was not his decison alone. His
 MV> desion was influenced. He was lured ti the USa uner falkse pretences.
 MV> We call that a trap.

   Yes, his decision was indeed influenced by the possibility of meeting
a child. Or at least the child he was expecting to meet.

 MV>>> http://www.shodka.net/files/candy_christensen_06_145.jpg

 MV>>> It all depends on what you call a child Jeff. To me - and
 MV>>> presumably to Blom as well - the girl in the picture above is
 MV>>> not a child.

 JS>>      Umm....<Bam!!> Me either. <g> But then she is 21 years old.

 MV> You think so? That may be a fatal mistake. She could very well be
 MV> fourteen Jeff, there are lots of fourteem yeear olds. looking like
 MV> that.

   Yup, according to several sources that I checked she is 21 years old.
I wouldn't have stated so otherwise.

Candy Christensen
Arizona State University

AGE: 21
HAIR COLOR: Blonde
HEIGHT: 5ft 9in
WEIGHT: 137

 JS>>     My point is Michiel that the cop presented themselves as a
 JS>> child.

 MV> The cop mentioned his age. 14 years. That Blom perceived that as a
 MV> child is conjecture.

   His actions in responding to the advertized age of a 14 year old child
says otherwise Michiel.

 JS>> Otherwise, what's the point?

 MV> The point was to present Blom with something he found attractive so
 MV> that he wuld come into the jurisdiction of the cp, so that he could
 MV> arrest him.

 JS>>  Blom responded to what he thought was a child.

 MV> No Blom responded to something he found attractive. Something which IN
 MV> YOUR MIND is a child.

   In the mind of the current law here Michiel 14 years is a child. That is
what he responded to. He didn't respond to an adult.

 JS>>  I doubt the adult cop was presenting themselves as an
 JS>> adult women. Otherwise again, what's the point?

 MV> The cop could very well have presented himsself as a willing
 MV> fourteenyear old young women. I suspect he did.

 MV> Such as this one:

 MV> http://www.shodka.net/files/candy_christensen_06_145.jpg

   The problem is Michiel that your example of a 14 year old child
is in fact 21 year old adult. Even without knowing her age I would
have guessed her age to be over 18 and possibly over 20. She (Dressed)
doesn't look like any 14 year old I have seen.


 MV> Do you not think that would have attrackted any healthy young man?

    Of course. Pictures of adult women have attracked men for as long
as I can remember. But we are not talking about adult women. Try this
picture:

http://www.ouijabrd.com/images/Morgan_Featherstone.jpg

She is:

       Birthdate October 20, 1994 (1994-10-20) (age 14)
       Birth location Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
       Height 175.5cms
       Eye colour Blue
       Hair colour Blonde
       Skin colour Fair
       Ethnicity Caucasian

   If I were to see her advertizing herself as an adult I would immediately
have my doubts and wonder what her real age was.



 JS>>>>  <g> If Blom was only interested in having sex with an adult.
 JS>>>> There would have been many an opportunity at home

 MV>>> You do not know that and it is beside the point.

   It is beside your point because you have decided what Blom thought
regardless of what he might have actually thought. His action indicate
what he thought. I can't help it if you refuse to accept anything that
doesn't support your idea of what someone wanted.

 JS>>     Are there not enough women over there?

 MV> As a matter of fact there is a surplus of males in the younger age
 MV> group. The trend reverses above 50 because women on avarage live
 MV> longer, but young males who are not all that attactive can have
 MV> difficulty finding a mate. Blom obviously was not very bright or else
 MV> he owuld have realised that the offer was too good to be true. Blom
 MV> could very well have been one of the young malse that was unable to
 MV> find a mate.

   I understand what you are saying Michiel. And that may of also been
true in Blom's case. But the fact of the matter is that Blom didn't
respond to a adult women. He responded to a 14 year old girl (Or so he
thought).

 MV>>> No, they do not. One can argue that he was out to have sex, but
 MV>>> his actions do not at all illustrate that what he was after was
 MV>>> sex with what HE thought of as a child.

 JS>>     Are you deliberately missing the obvious? Sure he was out to
 JS>> have sex. The question is with a female of what age.

 MV> It is you who are missing the obvious.

 JS>>  You say it was with a womem. I say it was with the age presented
 JS>> by the cop.

 MV> So where is the contradiction?

    The contradiction is that he responded to the age that the cop
represented themself to be (14 Yr). The cop didn't represent themself
to be an adult women.

 JS>>    If you represent yourself online as a 14 year old girl. And I
 JS>> respond to you and have the desire to get together with you. Am I
 JS>> likely to think of you as a adult or am I more likely to think of
 JS>> you as the age you present yourself to be? Blom responded to the
 JS>> age he thought the child was.

 MV> NO NO NON NO. Ar you really unable to understand that Blom thought he
 MV> was dealing with a fourteen year old women?

   The key point here is that here in the US where Blom came to meet the
14 year old girl. Girls of 14 years are legally considered children. Blom
responded to a child as defined here where he traveled to. The standards
there for a 14 year old do not apply.

 MV> Yes I know, in YOUR mind a fourteen year old is a child. That does not
 MV> mean Blom also percieved a fourteen year old as a child.

   But as I have already stated. Here a 14 year old IS a child. Here where
he traveled to have laws which are based on differant standards. Was it not
Blom's responsibility to know or even care about the legality of his action
in the country that he traveled to?


 MV>>>  Here we do not ahve such a narrow minded view. Blom was
 MV>>> "here" when the cop set his trap. Blom was here when ne chatted
 MV>>> with "Dana". Blom was here when he send the video. All those
 MV>>> actions are not proof that he thought he was dealing with a
 MV>>> child.

 JS>>     Then I ask you again. What image was presented to Blom?

 MV> A willing fourteen year old female?

    Which is a child HERE.

 JS>>  What would have been the point of an adult cop pretending to be
 JS>> an adult?

 MV> I did not say the cop pretended to be an adult. here is that digital
 MV> thinking again. The cop presented himself as a fourteen year old
 MV> willing female. The "willing female" part was the bait. The fourteen
 MV> year old part the excuse for the arrest.

 MV>>> That is right, I am blaming the cop's actions for what happened
 MV>>> to Blom.

 JS>>>> His decision, his responsibility.

 MV> It was a trap.

 MV> And you know what? It was what made me decide to never accept an
 MV> invitation to come to the US. If it is apparently officially OK to
 MV> mislead people in order to get them arrested, how do I know I will not
 MV> become the victim of the same tactic? How do I know I will not be
 MV> arrested for something I never thought of as illegal? There is no way
 MV> I can know if LEOs are allowed to feed me false information.

   That would depend on if you wanted to get together with a child
here as defined by the laws here. Blom should thought with his more
intelligent head and stayed home and had sex with a 14 year old there
where it seems to be ok. According to what you would suggest people
should believe.

 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)