Text 18733, 100 rader
Skriven 2011-05-14 17:35:09 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 18709 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: I wanna!
================
14 May 11 18:27, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MV>>>>> He had no intention of molesting a child.

 RW>> But he did...fyi, a 14yo, contrary to your opinion, is not a woman.
 RW>> Nor is she at liberty to legally consent to a sexual act.

 MvdV> Be that as it may be, in HIS perception having sex with a 14 yo is
 MvdV> not molest.

Actually it is. The law isn't there to keep the 14yo from having sex so
much as it is there to give the 30yo would-be sex offender something to
ponder before he molests the 14yo. That he is too stupid to understand the
law is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

 MvdV> So he can not possibly have had the INTENT to molest.

His actions speak louder than your words. He INTENDED to have sex with a
minor, which is why he traveled to Chicago in the first place.

 MvdV> Had sex taken place, then according to US law it would have been
 MvdV> molest, bu the molest would have been unintentional.

He wasn't arrested for molesting, he was arrested for his intent, which
in the manner in which he persued the 14yo is against the law.

He showed INTENT by crossing international and state borders to carry out
his intent. That's a federal offense under US Law.

 MvdV>>> Would he? Are you sure meeting the girl was not the main
 MvdV>>> purpose of his trip and the wedding was only an add-on

 RW>> So you admit that his purpose was to have sex with a 14yo girl.

 MvdV> I admit to no such thing. You are jumping to conclusions.

You have suggested that his intent was to meet the 14yo and that there was
never a wedding in his itinerary. One of you must be a liar.

 RC>>>> Your nation is full of evil perverts, the world would be safer
 RC>>>> if you all stayed behind your dikes and levee's.

 MvdV>>> Your nation is full of evil war mongering murderers.

 RW>> Your opinion, which means zilch in the greater scheme of things.

 MvdV> Which goes both ways...

Then don't continue to defend a criminal.

 RW>> There are a number of other acts that are prohibited between an
 RW>> adult and a person younger than the age of consent.  It is unlawful
 RW>> to show pornography to a minor or entice or abet a minor to engage
 RW>> in pornographic activities prior to the age of consent.

 RW>> Blom violated that US law in using the internet in sending pictures
 RW>> of his penis to the 14yo.

 MvdV> When he send those pictures he was in The Netherlands and therefore
 MvdV> not subject t US law.

It is against US law to send pornographic pictures over the internet to a
minor in the US, no matter where they originate. That the recipient is
also a minor means that he is in double jeopardy.

 RW>>  Had he stayed home, nothing would have come of this.

 MvdV> Had the cop not illegally reached out over national borders with
 MvdV> his dirty devellish claws, nothing would have happened.

The cop did everything within the law that he was allowed to do under US
and Illinois law. Had he missed dotting his Is or crossing his Ts, he
would have been reprimanded by the court and Blom would have gone free.

 MvdV>>> He may or may not have the intent to accept the invitation to
 MvdV>>> have sex, but if he had, in his mind it was not molesting a
 MvdV>>> child .

 RW>> Having sex with a 14yo is molesting a child, in the US or Holland.

 MvdV> See above.

Read for comprehension.

 RW>> Says the A#1 asshole from the perverted minor league country of
 RW>> Holland.

 MvdV> Ad homini will not convice anyone.

You're right. I don't need to say it, nor prove it, you do that all by
yourself.

                R\%/itt


 ..."We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail." - GWB


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)