Text 33879, 222 rader
Skriven 2009-06-29 10:51:55 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Jeff,

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 to
 MV>> restrict gun addicts. But we do not go so far as to lure gun
 MV>> addicts people from other countries into our jurisdiction so that
 MV>> they can be stopped too.

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

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

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

That depends on your state of awareness....

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

If you were caught by an agent provocateur, what would you be guilty of? The
intent to buy a gun and kill someone with it? On the one hand it could be
argued that you must have something evil in mind, why else would you want to
buy a gun? (hand)Guns are designed for the purpose of killing. You must have
some evil plan and you must know that you sre doing something wrong. There is
something wring in your mind and you must be stopped.

OTOH, you grew up in a totally different culture. You are raised with the idea
that it is not guns that kill people, it is people that kill people. Fopr you
guns are just tools like any other tool. For you buying a gun is no different
than buying a lawn mower. In your mind there is nothing wrong in buying a gun.
In YOR mind you did nothing wrong. So how can we convict you for a mind cime if
it does not exist in your mind?

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

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

Side form coercion by physical force, there is undue influence, prsuasion and
seduction. And a lot more that can be used to make 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?

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

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

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

 JS>  That percieved CHILD is what attracted him

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

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

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.

Becaue he was offered sex and wanted sex...

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

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

 MV>> Blom was encouragede to make that decision.

 JS>     Then you agree that HE made the decision?

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

 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 not
 MV>> a child.

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

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

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

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

 JS> Otherwise, what's the point?

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

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

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

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

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

Such as this one:

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

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

 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.

 JS>     Are there not enough women over there?

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

 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 have
 JS> sex. The question is with a female of what age.

It is you who are missing the obvious.

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

So where is the contradiction?

 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 you
 JS> as the age you present yourself to be? Blom responded to the age he
 JS> thought the child was.

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

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

 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?

A willing fourteen year old female?

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

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

It was a trap.

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



Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)