The ST&T Rules sticky contains the following:
For those who may not be well versed in the reasons behind this, some additional explanation my be helpful.
First, everyone should understand that if one posts in a public forum on the Internet for anyone in the world with Internet access to read, or when one sends a company email for that matter, one can have no expectation of privacy. Second, electronic postings can be and have been traced back to the originator, authenticated, and used both to facilitate further investigations and as evidence. One's computer may be seized, or subpoenas may be issued to others. Also, investigators can use search engines as well as anyone else.
There are two kinds of situations in which a statement made on the Internet or put in email or posted on one of the various social networks can come back to haunt the originator.
The first involves posts of the "this happened to me" genre. If an incident that could lead to an investigation and/or additional legal proceedings has occurred, anything said about it on the Internet could either be used as evidence or to lead investigators to other facts or information that could be used as evidence that could prove damaging to the originator. For that reason, it is very important to exercise caution in terms of what one posts.
This can apply to either criminal or civil proceedings or both.
It is important to understand that the risks involved may even apply in cases that have not yet been pursued by law enforcement. A statement such as "I drew my gun and told him to get off my property" may be all that is needed to start or provide additional evidence for an investigation that might otherwise have gone nowhere.
In case it is not understood by some, the fact that the investigation of an incident appears to have been "closed" does not mean that the actor is free of risk. A statement by an officer that one "did the right thing", or even a decision by a prosecutor or grand jury to not pursue charges, is not a guarantee against further action. For one thing, new persons may replace others. More importantly, however, new evidence can be brought to light, and a posting here or anywhere on the Internet may just be the thing to make that happen.
The second risk involves the possible use of a statement posted on the Internet before an incident has occurred.
One way that such messages may be used is to indicate state of mind.
In the event that a person becomes involved in an incident in which the evidence supporting justification is sparse or is contradicted in part by other evidence, or an inconsistency casts doubt upon the credibility of the actor, anything that might be used to indicate that the actor had been predisposed to the use of deadly force could prove very damaging indeed.
Statements such as "anyone on my property is fair game", "in my state the law allows me to shoot anyone who...", "if he gets away he might harm someone else", "shoot the loudest one", etc., to cite a few hypothetical examples, can be discovered and used in court years after they were made.
This is not just conjecture. For a real example, consider that in a highly publicized case the defendant, who was a firearms instructor, had used training materials containing words such as “always cheat; always win,” and a statement to the effect that one should treat every one else in a polite manner while simultaneously having a plan to kill them. These statements may serve with a proper effect in an instructional setting, but taken out of context, they can be and have been used with damaging effect in a trial setting.
A second, and perhaps more common, way that pre-existing messages may impact an investigation or trial involves the establishment of a prior relationship between the parties. That evidence could either be used to establish motive or, if an actor claiming self defense has denied that such a relationship existed, to raise questions about the actor's credibility.
There may be those who will consider this, or any other tactics used in a case in which an actor who has used deadly force and who believes his actions to have been justified, to be unfair or perhaps characterize such tactics as those of an "overzealous prosecutor". It is important to keep in mind three things: (1) an investigation and/or a subsequent trial will involve anything relevant that can be gathered after the event and nothing else, and such statements may well be relevant; (2) the fact that the actor considers himself to be an upstanding citizen who is therefore a "good guy" will have little bearing on the case; and very importantly, (3) if the totality of the evidence does indicate that a shooting was not justified under the law, we expect our prosecutors to obtain a conviction.
It is impossible to list everything that could be taken out of context and used against one in a criminal or civil proceeding. We can only urge the use of caution in posting.
For those who may not be well versed in the reasons behind this, some additional explanation my be helpful.
First, everyone should understand that if one posts in a public forum on the Internet for anyone in the world with Internet access to read, or when one sends a company email for that matter, one can have no expectation of privacy. Second, electronic postings can be and have been traced back to the originator, authenticated, and used both to facilitate further investigations and as evidence. One's computer may be seized, or subpoenas may be issued to others. Also, investigators can use search engines as well as anyone else.
There are two kinds of situations in which a statement made on the Internet or put in email or posted on one of the various social networks can come back to haunt the originator.
The first involves posts of the "this happened to me" genre. If an incident that could lead to an investigation and/or additional legal proceedings has occurred, anything said about it on the Internet could either be used as evidence or to lead investigators to other facts or information that could be used as evidence that could prove damaging to the originator. For that reason, it is very important to exercise caution in terms of what one posts.
This can apply to either criminal or civil proceedings or both.
It is important to understand that the risks involved may even apply in cases that have not yet been pursued by law enforcement. A statement such as "I drew my gun and told him to get off my property" may be all that is needed to start or provide additional evidence for an investigation that might otherwise have gone nowhere.
In case it is not understood by some, the fact that the investigation of an incident appears to have been "closed" does not mean that the actor is free of risk. A statement by an officer that one "did the right thing", or even a decision by a prosecutor or grand jury to not pursue charges, is not a guarantee against further action. For one thing, new persons may replace others. More importantly, however, new evidence can be brought to light, and a posting here or anywhere on the Internet may just be the thing to make that happen.
The second risk involves the possible use of a statement posted on the Internet before an incident has occurred.
One way that such messages may be used is to indicate state of mind.
In the event that a person becomes involved in an incident in which the evidence supporting justification is sparse or is contradicted in part by other evidence, or an inconsistency casts doubt upon the credibility of the actor, anything that might be used to indicate that the actor had been predisposed to the use of deadly force could prove very damaging indeed.
Statements such as "anyone on my property is fair game", "in my state the law allows me to shoot anyone who...", "if he gets away he might harm someone else", "shoot the loudest one", etc., to cite a few hypothetical examples, can be discovered and used in court years after they were made.
This is not just conjecture. For a real example, consider that in a highly publicized case the defendant, who was a firearms instructor, had used training materials containing words such as “always cheat; always win,” and a statement to the effect that one should treat every one else in a polite manner while simultaneously having a plan to kill them. These statements may serve with a proper effect in an instructional setting, but taken out of context, they can be and have been used with damaging effect in a trial setting.
A second, and perhaps more common, way that pre-existing messages may impact an investigation or trial involves the establishment of a prior relationship between the parties. That evidence could either be used to establish motive or, if an actor claiming self defense has denied that such a relationship existed, to raise questions about the actor's credibility.
There may be those who will consider this, or any other tactics used in a case in which an actor who has used deadly force and who believes his actions to have been justified, to be unfair or perhaps characterize such tactics as those of an "overzealous prosecutor". It is important to keep in mind three things: (1) an investigation and/or a subsequent trial will involve anything relevant that can be gathered after the event and nothing else, and such statements may well be relevant; (2) the fact that the actor considers himself to be an upstanding citizen who is therefore a "good guy" will have little bearing on the case; and very importantly, (3) if the totality of the evidence does indicate that a shooting was not justified under the law, we expect our prosecutors to obtain a conviction.
It is impossible to list everything that could be taken out of context and used against one in a criminal or civil proceeding. We can only urge the use of caution in posting.
Last edited:
