Text 33613, 267 rader
Skriven 2009-06-22 22:14:16 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Kommentar till text 33581 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Michiel.
22 Jun 09 18:02, you wrote to me:
MV> Hello Jeff,
MV> On Saturday June 20 2009 17:40, you wrote to me:
MV>>> Like the people that will be killed by one of your guns if you
MV>>> are not stopped? C'mon Jeff, the children in the US were in no
MV>>> more danger to be molested than the people in The Netherlands
MV>>> are in danger of being killed by your guns.
JS>> Not even a close comparison Michiel.
MV> I beg to differ. Here gun addicts are considered dangerous. They can
MV> kill people with their guns. That is why we have made laws to restrict
MV> gun addicts. But we do not go so far as to lure gun addicts people
MV> from other countries into our jurisdiction so that they can be stopped
MV> too.
If it was a matter of coercing then I might agree with you. But
if I was looking online for a particular type of gun and found one
for sale at a surprizing price in your country. And based on my
comunication with the seller over there I decided to travel to your
country to purchase said gun. To my suprize I found myself arrested
when I tried to complete the transaction with whom I had thought was
a gun seller. Would not I be as guilty as anyone else domestic or
foreign that did the same thing?
There is a difference between making something available and coercing
or forcing someone. Giving them little if any choice other than to break
the law.
And yes Michiel, I know you are probably going to say that such a
thing could never happen there.
JS>>>> Blom was trying to have sex with what he thought was a child.
MV>>> Wrong.
JS>> Hardly. Blom came to the US with the desire to have sex with a
JS>> child. Blom communicated with someone he thought was a child.
MV> No, Blom ciommunicated with what IN YOUR PERCEPTION was a child.
What was blom charged with Michiel? Was he charged with trying to
have sex with a adult (18+) or even a young adult (16-18)? No, he was
charged with trying to have sex with a child. Otherwise Michiel he
likely wouldn't have been charged with any crime. He responded and was
trying to take advantage of the opportunity he saw to meet and have
sex with a CHILD. That percieved CHILD is what attracted him and caused
HIM to decide to come to the US.
JS>> Blom sent pictures of himself to this "Child". He obviously
JS>> thought he he was communicating with a child. Blom arrainged a
JS>> meeting with this "Child". These were all Blom's actions in
JS>> trying to satisfy his sexual desires regarding children.
MV> Your repeated mention of the word "child" does not prove that Blom
MV> thought he was trying top have sex with a chikd. It only proves that
MV> YOU think he thought that.
The very same thing could be said of you Michiel. You are determined
to see things in a manner that supports your particular view. Regardless
of the reality of the situation. The reality being that Blom made the
decision to break a US law on US soil. And was held responsible for his
actions. Yet you try to shift the blame to anyone but him.
If it was an American who broke the same law would you be just as
determined to think him innocent. I hardly think you would.
MV>>> The child exists in your mind and those who prosecuted him.
If indeed he thought the person who presented themselves as a child
was in fact an adult. Why would he have continued to try to meet with
that person. Blom responded to what age he percieved the person to be.
JS>> Your attempts in trying to blame everyone but Blom for HIS
JS>> actions isnt working Michiel. Blom made the decisions
MV> Blom was encouragede to make that decision.
Then you agree that HE made the decision? Did he not have a choice?
Was he forced on the plane to the US? Was he forced to communicate with
the person in the US that he was desiring to meet?
MV>>> The child did not exist in the mind of Blom.
JS>> And I suppose Blom told you this? Get real Michiel. Just who
JS>> do you think Blom thought he was trying to have sex with? A cop?
JS>> A guy with a short skirt and a frilly blouse?
MV> I am npot a mind reader, so I can only guess. My guess is that he
MV> thought he was going to meet what was presented to him: a willing
MV> young female. Possibly something like this:
Niether am I a mind reader. Sometimes, even of my own mind. <g> But
instead of me guessing on what I think might have happened or what someone
might have thought. I spoke of what had happened and the action of those
involved.
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 presumably
MV> to Blom as well - the girl in the picture above is not a child.
Umm....<Bam!!> Me either. <g> But then she is 21 years old.
MV> THIS is a child:
MV> http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/1178/2910/f/9813-Kids-love-candy-1.j
MV> pg
Agreed.
My point is Michiel that the cop presented themselves as a child.
Otherwise, what's the point? Blom responded to what he thought was
a child. I doubt the adult cop was presenting themselves as an adult
women. Otherwise again, what's the point?
MV> And this:
MV> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1103/1414373213_90732b802d.jpg
MV> I have no indication that THOSE were on Blom's mind when he chatted
MV> with the cop.
But as you have already stated. You don't know and are only guessing
based IMO on what you already choose to believe.
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.
Are there not enough women over there?
JS>> Blom thought he was going to meet and have sex with a child.
JS>> His actions clearly illustrate that Michiel.
MV> No, they do not. One can argue that he was out to have sex, but his
MV> actions do not at all illustrate that what he was after was sex with
MV> what HE thought of as a child.
Are you deliberately missing the obvious? Sure he was out to have
sex. The question is with a female of what age. You say it was with a
womem. I say it was with the age presented by the cop.
If you represent yourself online as a 14 year old girl. And I respond
to you and have the desire to get together with you. Am I likely to think
of you as a adult or am I more likely to think of you as the age you
present yourself to be? Blom responded to the age he thought the child
was.
JS>> Yup, a young women of about 14. Them is children here
JS>> Michiel.
MV> But not HERE.
But as you have already stated. The law broken was a US law on US
soil. Your view of the law doesn't change what happened.
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 with
MV> "Dana". Blom was here when he send the video. All those actions are
MV> not proof that he thought he was dealing with a child.
Then I ask you again. What image was presented to Blom? What would
have been the point of an adult cop pretending to be an adult?
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
JS>>>> and was held responsible for his actions.
MV>>> I am not twisting any facts, it is you that are doing that.
Nice try. Why not admit that you have decided Blom innocent
regardless of the facts or the reality of the event? It's a US law
so it's GOT to be narrow-minded and wrong.
JS>> What do you call doing your best to shift the blame for
JS>> Blom's actions and decisions to anyone and everyone but Blom.
MV> That is right, I am blaming the cop's actions for what happened to
MV> Blom.
JS>> His decision, his responsibility.
MV> You keepo repeating that. Jeff you always claim your always try to
MV> look at things from both sides, but the reality is that you are
MV> totally blind to any other POV than your own.
MV> You keep saying "his decision, his responsibility" but you are totally
MV> blind to the fact that here we see things different. Here it is
MV> illegal to encourage someone to commit a crime. Here if one
MV> successfully encourages someone to commit a crime one automatically
MV> becomes an accomplice to that crime.
MV> Here if it is a cop that encourages someone to commit a crime, that
MV> automatically voids the case. The cop will be lucky if all he loses is
MV> his job.
That may very well be the case there Michiel. And a foreigner there
would and should be bound by any law that they break there. If I were
to travel there with the intent to break a law there. I should be held
responsible there just as much as if I broke a law here. It would be
my decision and my responsibility just as it was Blom's.
MV>>> You say the cop "merely provided the opportunity". An
MV>>> interesting note is that "providing opportunity" translates into
MV>>> "gelegenheid geven". It is a well known legal term for
MV>>> "providing opportunity for unlawful sex". "Gelegenheid geven" is
MV>>> illegal in The Netherlands. Seldom enforced these days, but
MV>>> illegal it is. Seems to me the cop was doing exactly that. Or
MV>>> pretending to do anyway.
JS>> Possibly in the Netherlands Michiel. But we are not talking
JS>> about the Netherlands are we??
MV> But of course we are. Blom was in The Netherlands when the cop laid
MV> his trap.
Was the law broken there or here? Was Blom charged for breaking a
law there or here?
JS>> Your attempts to try to apply YOUR attitudes and YOUR laws is
JS>> meaningless and pointless.
MV> Why? Are they any less than yours? It seems you are putting your laws
MV> and morals over ours. You keep saying that what was done to Blom was
MV> ok by your laws and morals, but you are totally blind to the fact that
MV> by our laws and morals it is far from OK. And Blom was here when the
MV> cop paid his trap. If we had our way, the cop would be in court as the
MV> accused.
MV> By your attitude you show that you have no respect at all for other
MV> country's law and morals. And I am sorry to say, but that attitude is
MV> typical American as your official representatives share it. It is one
MV> of the reasons many people do not like Americans. Too many of them are
MV> unable to see any other POV than their own. You pull dirty tricks on
MV> us.
Try reading what is stated Michiel. I have a number of times stated
that either country's laws are niether better or worse. They are merely
differant. Based on differant attitudes and viewpoints. Are your laws
worse because they are differant? Of course not. But then why do you
NEED to think that another country's law are worse because they happen
to be differant?
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)
|