Do you guys worry about what you post here?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everything posted or sent online is forever. This includes emails. It's not a bad idea to think, before hitting the send button, how that would sound when read to a grand jury filled with little old ladies. If you think it would frighten them (the "let God sort 'em out" kind of statement), it might be a good idea to go back and edit it.

Clearly, some folks think the ready, fire, aim process works for them.

In a self-defense situation, you have to survive the battle (the immediate fight) as well as the war (the subsequent legal actions). Planning for that now might be prudent.
 
As far as myself, let me just say that I love my politicians and bureaucrats, I fully and enthusiastically seek to comply with all their plans for me and eagerly look forward to enthusiastically complying with new plans. I think they do a wonderful job and all deserve promotions and raises. I think god guides them in all they do and say.

Blackfork, this is not sarcasm is it?
 
A while ago, I saw a program (possibly Dateline) that mentioned how a key part of the prosecution's case was built on the information discovered online.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused. What criminal case could be built where the only evidence is online posts? I presume you're thinking about a situation where a THR member is involved in a self-defense shooting and charged with murder/manslaughter, and they pull out select posts where the defendant stated he would shoot in hypothetical situations. I would think that no defense lawyer worth his salt would ever allow that into evidence, as it is not relevant to the case. The only relavant postings I could think of would be if you said you planned to shoot this particular person, and I've never seen anything like that from THR.

With that in mind, coupled with our society's penchant for civil suits, would you/do you change the content of your posts
Click to expand...

Most of the time no civil plaintiff will have the resources to find out what you post online, unless they are also a member of the same board and know your user name. Even then, the posts would have to be specific to the case.

Maybe one of the lawyers in the house can comment on the rules of evidence for civil & criminal cases.
 
If you do a search of the site, you will find that this question in various forms has been asked and answered many times. And that would be a No, it's a leading question
 
I have checked myspace pages and other public forums looking for threats or anything that can be used to show the mind set of a suspect.

So far in my cases I have not found anything that was useful, but I will always look because it will pay off for me one day.
 
Blackbeard...

Some years ago, I took a bat to some guys - one nearly died. The cops determined I was within my rights and no charges were filed. A couple of years later, I was sued for the incident by the guy who got a glimpse of the Reaper.

To shorten up the story, the defense attourney was allowed to introduce a witness who claimed he overheard me bragging about the incident to a friend of mine while he was hiding behind a fence. It wasn't true, of course, but it was allowed in court. They *will* try to dig up stuff on you, true or not, and it will be allowed.

After a three day trial, I won.

Biker
 
Biker, that "evidence" was specific to the case, even though it was made up. There's nothing we can do about made-up evidence. If you really had bragged about it online, in my non-legal opinion, that would be admissible.

P.S. Glad you won!
 
Blackbeard...

Luckily, the incident happened on my property and my HO's insurance paid for some fine lawyers. The jury was only out for 45 minutes and 30 minutes of that time was for lunch. Idaho jurors are naturally blessed with a great deal of common sense.

Biker
 
If they are going to use something that you have said online they can just as easily find someone that will say you have personally said the same thing to them face to face.

And by the way, I don't believe that would be hearsay evidence, but some of the lawyers will have to speak to that.
 
Being very innocent when it comes to the internet, having only recently gotten into anything other than news, I was shocked one day when, in researching gun stuff, I came across a link to myself on THR. I stated at the time that it made my hair stand on end and I felt like someone was coming in my back door.

I still get that feeling sometimes. In my case I have only had one exchange on here where I felt a member was deliberately misquoting my words to suit his own purposes. I have noticed that person does so frequently, so now I just ignore anything with that name on it. (I still have the tendency to use "he" but was recently taken to task for assuming all posters here are male.)

I do wonder though, if we have people coming on who do little other than inflame passions solely for the purpose of attempting to entrap members?
 
I sometimes wonder if there aren't ATF types that monitor gun boards to flesh out what they might feel is illegal or would lead them to illegal activity.

We all know the length DEA types will go to in seeking out narc crimes.

I see a lot of posts where some guy asks if he broke the law buy loaning or giving a gun away, or admitting to bring an AW into CA, etc.
 
Being very innocent when it comes to the internet, having only recently gotten into anything other than news, I was shocked one day when, in researching gun stuff, I came across a link to myself on THR. I stated at the time that it made my hair stand on end and I felt like someone was coming in my back door.
Click to expand...

LOL! I Googled myself once and the first hit out of the few that came up was a link to a letter to the editor I wrote that was published in a major newspaper. The letter was a passionate defense of the 2A RKBA, combined with some intense criticism of certain state officials (in RI, where I was living at the time) for their contempt for the Constitution.
 
Biker said:
After a three day trial, I won.
Click to expand...

And by "three day trial" what you really meant was "severe beating of the prosecuting attorney by a baseball bat", right? :neener:

Personally, I'm not worried about what the .gov might do, nor am I concerned with what a prospective employer might do. I've posted under this 'nym on different boards, one of which is really no-holds-barred; "when in Rome...." and all that.

I figure that if an employer doesn't want me because I've posted pretty raunchy poems online and would rather ignore the fact that I'm genuine, honest, compassionate, tested IQ of 130, hard working, witty, and (naturally) funny person, then that's their loss, not mine.

And if one post of mine in some forum somewhere gets quoted by a potential prosecutor someday in some fantasy future, I can come up with dozens of more posts and stories and anecdotes to say just the opposite.
 
I worry about the vigilantist statements, from armchair cops, I read from time to time on the firearm forums. I am sure if anything ever happened that my online statements will be reviewed. I am not worried about it. I strive to take a more sensible approach when it comes to what if's.
 
I'm careful in that I don't want to suggest any unsafe activity that might get someone hurt or promote an illegal one that could cause someone to be incarcerated.

I am honest about describing my circumstances, background and general geography. When my knowledge is lacking or partial on a subject, I try to say so.

I still fly the U.S. Colors in my front yard daily except for April Fool's Day when the U.N. flag comes out of the closet.
 
Last edited:
on-line words

I'm a little confused. What criminal case could be built where the only evidence is online posts?
Click to expand...

Blackbeard - the most likely candidate here would be conspiracy cases, although accomplice liability cases would be pretty common as well. I currently have a felony case, for example, charged solely based on a conversation, father allegedly telling son to do something (shoot a "nuisance" animal who turns out to be neighbor's pet, another THR favorite topic).

If they are going to use something that you have said online they can just as easily find someone that will say you have personally said the same thing to them face to face.
Click to expand...

Grizzley - you bet, and they do. Nearly every homicide I have handled, where the person remained incarcerated pretrial, involved the appearance of a snitch who claimed my client told him the details of the crime.

A little more info on the snitch system in the form of a pdf from the Center for Wrongful Convictions:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wron...temBooklet.pdf

Fact is, Free speech may be free, but it can cost you. The government can discover your forum names and research your posts (in one recent case, that was as simple as asking the defendant's room mate). The government can and does subpoena posts from Internet hosts.

I am seeing an increase of this type of research by investigators and prosecutors in criminal cases. Are on-line statements admissible under the rules of evidence? Are they or are they not hearsay?

Case by case, but on issues of intent, prior statements may well be admissible. Remember - admissions and declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay, where a person's statement may be used, when the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it, such as confessing to a crime, that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true.

I am teaching Federal Rules of Evidence next academic year, and I may include an assignment on on-line speech.

I think this is a lot like t-shirt slogans or bumper stickers - don't put something on there you would not want quoted in court in a shooting. Some agencies have policies regarding this.

For example, if you just stopped your car in the middle of the highway, stomped back and stuck a stainless S&W revolver under the nose of the driver you felt was tailgating you, it does not help your attorney much if you have a "Keep Honking, I'm reloading" bumper sticker on your pickup.

Ask me how I know the answer to that one! :rolleyes:
 
Interesting thoughts...

"As far as myself, let me just say that I love my politicians and bureaucrats, I fully and enthusiastically seek to comply with all their plans for me and eagerly look forward to enthusiastically complying with new plans. I think they do a wonderful job and all deserve promotions and raises. I think god guides them in all they do and say."

-Blackfork
Good sheep. Gooood sheep. Now run along. LOL.

You guys bring up some good points. It is hard to reply to everyone's good points.

I like to think that I do a pretty good job of thinking before I speak (or type), and I make it an effort to be the exact same person with the exact same views regardless of my audience. The product of this idea is that any anti could find my words and not be able to use them against me/us unless they misconstrued them.

I'm sure that I don't adhere to this 100%, but I do try, and it is how I think about the issue that you brought forth.

MDeViney

That is probably the best way to operate. Most of you guys seem to have the same basic perspective. I certainly try to act as though the comments I make online are concurrent with those I would make in person. I cannot say that I am worried one way or the other.



To clear up what the original case was about that I mentioned. It was a murder case where a husband killed his wife. He had gone online to look up information about how to make authorities think it wasn't him. For the life of me I can't think exactly what the whole case was about. I am pretty sure it was on Dateline though.

The main point of the story was to show how information from search engine(s), Google, Yahoo, etc., were used against the man to build up the case and lock him up. The information that was released by the seach engine company was what supposedly clinched the case.

Although, it wasn't the same as posting on a forum, it made me think of how it would be possible for a lawyer to try to influence a jury with the information.
 
On CourtTV now, there is a husband killing wife murder case and they have spent days reading every sex related e-mail he sent to his GF at the time. Now they are married and she has to watch his descriptions of oral sex with her read to the court to prove what a sleaze bag he was for having an affair. They could have just said he had an affair without the details but the DA is reading every one.

So one's forum name of Iron Killer Warrior and suggestions that you don't leave a witness alive might be interesting reading to a jury. Look at the dude in TX with his kill'em comments on the 911 calls. That's sounds great. If he gets off - if billed, it is because the jury will buy into his thoughts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
What do you guys think about this article?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Double Maduro
D
B
  • Locked
How do you become an FA manufacturer?
Replies
11
Views
9K
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
J
  • Locked
What if you stopped a massacre in a gunfree zone with a gun?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Justin
Justin
wally
  • Locked
What did you do, or would you do with your guns in a flood?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
Here is a discussion for you guys...your thoughts on a future...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
cnorman18
C
Back
Top