Text 33659, 152 rader
Skriven 2009-06-23 21:17:52 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 33597 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Michiel.

22 Jun 09 23:37, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 MV> On Saturday June 20 2009 19:02, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>> "Hey there little girl, I'm a child molestor. Want to have
 JS>>>> sex?". Come on Joe.

 MV>>> I do not see you introduce yourself as a gun addict. Why is that
 MV>>> Jeff?

 JS>>     I don't need guns.

 MV> Denial is a typical reaction of addicts when confronted with their
 MV> addiction. We have been through this before. In my POV you are a gun
 MV> addict. Of course you see it different, so you do not introduce
 MV> yourself as one.

    It's not a matter of D'Nile Michiel. I do not have any particular desire
or need to have or to own more guns. The guns I have each have a purpose.

 MV>>> I will give you a hint. Blom did not introduce himself as a
 MV>>> child molestor because by OUR definition he is not. And he was
 MV>>> here when he introduced himself.

 JS>>    So I understand better.

 MV> What is there to understand? In this country one is not a child
 MV> molestor until one has actually done something to a child. Where is
 MV> the child that Blom molested?

   But once again we are NOT talking about your country. How you or the
laws there see what happened is irrelevent since it was a US law that
was broken WHILE the person was on US soil.


 JS>> An adult there who desires and acts upon those desires to have
 JS>> sex with a child of say 10-14 years is legal and approved of
 JS>> there?

 MV> Why do you change the rules on the fly? Why do you now say "10-14
 MV> years"?

    A child is a child is a child. Be them 1 or 14 years of age. Let's
stick with a 14 year old if you feel the need.

 MV> Let me say this. (But you already knew this) Sex with a fourteen year
 MV> is not illegal if the parents do not object.

    There maybe. But then AGAIN we are not talking about the laws or
legal definitions there ARE we? Why not try to stop judging everyone
bad if they differ from your opinion of what is right or correct?

 JS>>>>    May the cop thought a child molester is a child molester.
 JS>>>> Regardless of who they are or where they may be from.

 MV>>> And where it went wrong is that he included "no matter where
 MV>>> they are".

 JS>>     It shouldn't matter where they are or what country they come
 JS>> from.

 MV> It should matter where they are.

    Your right. It does matter where they are. And Blom was in the US
when the US law was violated

 MV> It matters if they are in a country where they are not child
 MV> molestors.

    As long as they are in that country they may very well not be
considered child molesters. BUT, if they travel to another country
where because of their actions or behaviour they could easily be
considered a child molester.


 MV> If the cop still goes after them
 MV> despite the fact that where they are they are not child molestors,
 MV> they are putting their laws above that of another country. That is a
 MV> breach of souvreignty.

    That would only apply IF US authorities attempted to enforce a US
law on foreign soil. That was not the case as you well know Michiel.

 JS>> What should matter is if and when a US law is broken on US soil.

 MV> Blom was not in US soil and so had not broken any law there when the
 MV> cop laid his trap.

   There was no trap set for Blom. There was no plan to trick Blom to
break the law there or here. Blom made the decision himself to satisfy his
desires. And violated US law while trying to do so.


 MV>>> What if we took the same stance towards gun addicts? What if
 MV>>> Dutch cops started actively hunting gun addicts in the US? (gun
 MV>>> addicts by our definition of course) What if they started luring
 MV>>> gun addicts to come to Dutch territory and then throw them in
 MV>>> jail for being a gun addict?  What would you say if that
 MV>>> happened to a US citizen? What if it happened to a friend? Your
 MV>>> son?

 JS>>     If someone from the US came there and broke a gun law there
 JS>> then that person should be held responsible for their actions and
 JS>> the their violation of the law there.

 MV> You are not answering the question.

   Yes I am Michiel. You just refuse to hear that which differs from your
sense of what is right.


 MV>  Which was what you would think if Dutch cops started actively hunting
 MV> American gun addicts in America (like you) and lured them into Dutch
 MV> jurisdiction in oredr to get them behind bars?

   Which I might accept IF I traveled there and broke a Dutch gun related
law. A Dutch law would have no juristiction on US soil. And an American
who legally owned guns in the US would not be breaking any Dutch law while
on Dutch soil. (Assuming they had no guns in their possesion while on Dutch
soil). Your attempt at twisting things failed again.


 MV> I did not expect you to answer that because the honest answer of
 MV> course would be that you would not like it at all.

   What one likes and what one is willing to accept can be two very differant
things. Would I like being arrested? Of course not. Could I accept it if I
had willfully broke a law there? Yes.

   I know, it's not what you wanted to hear (Read).


 MV>  But if you admit that, you would implicitly admit that I have good
 MV> reason to be pissed off about what happened to Blom.

   And that is your choice Michiel. But then again your getting pissed
doesn't really affect or change anything now does it?


 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)