Text 34375, 96 rader
Skriven 2009-07-08 20:01:32 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 34356 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Michiel.

08 Jul 09 10:46, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 MV> On Saturday July 04 2009 04:57, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>>  If so that leaves me a non-addict. Sorry Michiel. Here some
 JS>>>> are gun collectors.

 MV>>> By YOUR definition. HERE I aplly MY definition.

 JS>>    And if I lived there your definition would be relevant. But I
 JS>> live here Michiel where our definitions apply.

 MV> So let me get this straight... When determining if you are a gun
 MV> addict, it is US rules that apply because you - the subject of the
 MV> assessment  - live in the US.

   The point is Michiel that YOU use your rules and apply those rules
to people that are from other countries. Other countries where other
rules and a differant culture could very well apply. Would my judging
you based on the rules here be any less wrong? I see the ways there as
being differant and not automatically wrong.


 MV> On the other hand...

 MV>>> Yes the cop presented himself as 14 year old. But why should
 MV>>> that have given Blom the idea that the cop was presenting
 MV>>> himself as a child when HERE a 14 year old is not a child per
 MV>>> se.

 JS>>    The cop was presenting themself as a 14 year old which IS a
 JS>> child here.

 MV> When it comes to determining if Blom was a child molestor, it it US
 MV> rules that prevail because the cop - the maker of the assessment - was
 MV> in the US.

   When on US soil? Yes. American rules and laws should not apply to those
who are on foreign soil. The US laws were not applied to Blom until he
chose to travel to the US where the laws then did apply.

 MV> It appears that whatever foot the shoe is on, it is always US rules
 MV> that prevail.

   Again yes, to those here on US soil. Be them Americans, or foreigners
while on US soil.

 MV> Can you think of a situation - any border crossing situation - where
 MV> it would NOT be US rules that prevail?

    The same would and should apply if an American were to cross the border
to either Mexico or to Canada. Once across the border the rules and laws of
that country should apply. Here the same sometimes applies to people from
differant US states. Something in one state isn't always legal in another
state. That is why it is prudent that one makes sure that their intended
action is legal where they are planning on traveling to.

 JS>>    Regardless of what Blom thought regarding the age of the
 JS>> presented person. He traveled to this country to meet someone who
 JS>> IS a child here.

 MV> You keep forgetting or ignoring that Blom should never have been the
 MV> subject of US law enforcement in the first place.

    Why does it matter Michiel? Blom chose to contact someone appearing to
be a child. If that were all that happened there would have been no crime
commited as he was still on his home soil where US laws would not apply.
But, that is not where it ended is it? Blom chose to travel to the US
where US laws and definitions apply. His crime was commited after he was
on US soil.


 MV>  He was HERE when the LEO got involved. Had he not become the subject
 MV> of US law enforcement, Blom would not have come to that hotel in
 MV> Chicago. He could not have come because he would not have known where
 MV> to go.

   Would that have prevented him from contacting a REAL child in the US? He
showed everyone that his desire to be with a 14 yer old was greater than his
concern about the legality of his actions in a foreign country. Again he did
his thinking using the wrong head and that got him into trouble.


 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)