Legal Considerations of Posting on the Internet

[Frank Ettin]

Legal principles? A Facebook picture used in a civil case, does not give precedent to a random post on an internet forum being used in a criminal trial....

This isn't a question of legal precedent. In any investigation, anything available can and will be looked at. Anything that could be used in evidence to support a position will be used. Letters have been used. Email correspondence has been been used. Entries on social networking sites have been used.

LEOs and lawyers attend classes in the recovery, authentication and use, both for investigative purposes and in evidence, of all forms of computer data and electronic communications. I have taken such classes and I have discussed the gathering and use of such evidence with investigators. And fundamentally the use of electronic communications is no different from the use of letters or audio or video surveillance records.

If you think that computer records of Internet forum postings can't or won't be used for investigative purposes and/or evidence, you're fooling yourself.

...Wouldn't a judge need to think it's warranted first though? ...

What makes you think a judge wouldn't? It's really no different from any other form of documentary evidence.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: A legal precedent allows for use in a similar case only.

The similarity need not have to do with the kind of alleged crime in question.

For example, a high court ruling in a case that had to do with the admissibility of scientific trace evidence in a case involving pharmaceuticals may establish the precedent for cases involving the admissibility of computer generated reports in a case involving financial reporting. A similar case, in your view?

If anyone has any actual experience to share, or even just a link, that would be great.

The Larry Hickey case has been discused here at some length.

I have quite a bit of direct knowledge, and some of it has to do with cases about which you may well have heard, but I choose to not discuss any of it here.

Otherwise, I'm going to respectfully remain skeptical.

That's up to you.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

This isn't a question of legal precedent. In any investigation, anything available can and will be looked at. Anything that could be used in evidence to support a position will be used. Letters have been used. Email correspondence has been been used. Entries on social networking sites have been used.

LEOs and lawyers attend classes in the recovery, authentication and use, both for investigative purposes and in evidence, of all forms of computer data and electronic communications. I have taken such classes and I have discussed the gathering and use of such evidence with investigators. And fundamentally the use of electronic communications is no different from the use of letters or audio or video surveillance records.

If you think that computer records of Internet forum postings can't or won't be used for investigative purposes and/or evidence, you're fooling yourself.

What makes you think a judge wouldn't? It's really no different from any other form of documentary evidence.

Never once in all of my research (yes, I studied law at one point) have I seen a criminal case where a post on an internet forum was used as evidence. I'm simply asking for someone to point out a case where this has happened. My current occupation has me in the very thick of electronic communication, so I fully understand what can and cannot be done. Frankly there are quite a few myths about what can be associated back to an individual. That's another topic entirely, but suffice it to say, I'm not concerned about being sent to jail for posting on the internet.

I can agree that choosing your words wisely anywhere, including the internet is beneficial. It's not just because they could be used against you, but also, in most instances it's the polite thing to do.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

The similarity need not have to do with the kind of alleged crime in question.

For example, a high court ruling in a case that had to do with the admissibility of scientific trace evidence in a case involving pharmaceuticals may establish the precedent for cases involving the admissibility of computer generated reports in a case involving financial reporting. A similar case, in your view?

The Larry Hickey case has been discused here at some length.

Still, I have yet to see an internet post that wasn't a direct threat, used for anything other than to establish someone's lifestyle, such as in child custody or divorce cases.

I have quite a bit of direct knowledge, and some of it has to do with cases about which you may well have heard, but I choose to not discuss any of it here.

Fair enough. If you don't want to discuss that, I get it.

That's up to you.

Thanks.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The case I posted about where the individual shot the bad guy in his front yard ended without the police confiscating his computer, or his gun or checking to see if he had been drinking or any of the far fetched things that come up here on a daily basis. They did not even cuff him or search the house. He had been threatened and feared for his life and had a witness, That was good enough and no charges were filed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The case I posted about where the individual shot the bad guy in his front yard ended without the police confiscating his computer, or his gun or checking to see if he had been drinking or any of the far fetched things that come up here on a daily basis. They did not even cuff him or search the house. He had been threatened and feared for his life and had a witness, That was good enough and no charges were filed.

And so what? Do you really think every case of self defense will work out just like that? If you do, you haven't been paying attention.

What about? --

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma: Despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

The fact that one case gets wrapped up neat and clean doesn't mean that every case will. There are examples of folks you used force in what they believed to have been justified self defense, but who still had to go through the legal meat grinder before being cleared.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm curious if anyone in this discussion is an attorney.

Not an attorney but have 25 years law enforcement experience.

Unless I missed it, neither his post, nor the article makes mention of any computer records being investigated. Wouldn't a judge need to think it's warranted first though?

Computers and smart phones are routinely seized and examined in all kinds of cases. In an aggravated battery or homicide investigation one of the key things to look into is any prior relationship between the two parties involved. Computer files and smart phones and even ordinary cell phone and telephone records are examined.

Still, I have yet to see an internet post that wasn't a direct threat, used for anything other than to establish someone's lifestyle, such as in child custody or divorce cases.

I guess you were fortunate enough to be tuned out to all the media hype surrounding the Casey Anthony trial that just ended in Florida. There was a lot of testimony concerning internet searches for chloroform and who made those searches. This wasn't to establish anyone's lifestyle, but to establish that a murder was planned.

We had a case near me that just finished a couple months ago where a man murdered his wife and children to be with his mistress. Computer information figured prominently in that case too. Search for Coleman Murders Columbia, IL.

My current occupation has me in the very thick of electronic communication, so I fully understand what can and cannot be done. Frankly there are quite a few myths about what can be associated back to an individual.

It would be very simple to associate a post here back to the person who made it. And it's not a stretch to associate chest thumping posts on an internet gun forum with a cavalier attitude towards the use of deadly force. Combine a perceived cavalier attitude towards taking someone's life in self defense with that person being involved in a deadly force encounter and you will most likely not get the benefit of the doubt. Not saying you won't be ultimately found justified if you were in the right, but it will most certainly be a longer and more expensive journey to that desired result.

The case I posted about where the individual shot the bad guy in his front yard ended without the police confiscating his computer, or his gun or checking to see if he had been drinking or any of the far fetched things that come up here on a daily basis. They did not even cuff him or search the house. He had been threatened and feared for his life and had a witness, That was good enough and no charges were filed.

Not all cases are so cut and dried. Most of them are quite murky. I know in your mind you see your deadly force encounter as clear cut and easy to understand. Unfortunately, the great majority of them aren't. You are much more likely to have to use deadly force against someone you know (maybe only slightly) then a perfect stranger who has invaded your home.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2, Never once in all of my research (yes, I studied law at one point) have I seen a criminal case where a post on an internet forum was used as evidence. I'm simply asking for someone to point out a case where this has happened.

(in response to "The Larry Hickey case has been discused here at some length."): Still, I have yet to see an internet post that wasn't a direct threat, used for anything other than to establish someone's lifestyle, such as in child custody or divorce cases.

"I haven't heard of it, so it has not happened" is usually not much of an argument. Unless one has sat through every trial in every courtroom in the 6000 plus counties in this country, or read the transcripts, one cannot know what has not happened in court.

However, one more time, statements made long before the occurrence of the alleged criminal confrontation were taken out of context and were used at trial to paint a very negative picture of Larry Hickey. The statements were contained in instructional materials. Do you have reason to believe that, had the statements had instead been gathered from Internet posts made by Hickey, they would not have been so used?

The words in question were not used to establish his "lifestyle." They were used to try to describe state of mind--to convince the jurors that the use of those statements indicated that Hickey was the type of person who was predisposed to violence.

And one more time, one can look (1) beyond Internet postings (and downloads and Google search records, for that matter) and training materials, and consider email, letters, memoranda, handwritten notes, social network postings, cell phone and text message records, and yes, wiretapped telephone conversations; and (2) beyond cases that involve crimes of violence, and consider any other kind of accusations that one might think of.

The principles are the same.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I had a long, well thought out and boring post ready to go for both responses. Then it hit me. Are we even on the same page here? I won't sit here and say making a post such as "If someone comes into my house, they aren't going out" or something of that nature is the smart thing to do.

What I'm referring to are responses such as mine in another thread. I believe I said the words "game on". It was pointed out to me that, taken out of context, those two words could be used against me. I agreed and explained further what I meant by that. Making a post on the internet such as "If someone breaks into my house, I will defend my family and myself to the extent of my abilities and my rights" to me suggests nothing that I would be worried to have a jury hear. Do we agree, or do we still think someone could end up in jail for such a statement?

 

[JustinJ]

A prosecuting attorney could use simple membership of this board to try and portray someone as a "gun nut" in court.

In reality though i find it highly unlikely a warrant to seize one's computer will be issued unless there is suspicion of online correspondence between the involvded parties before a self defense shooting incident occurred.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: Making a post on the internet such as "If someone breaks into my house, I will defend my family and myself to the extent of my abilities and my rights" to me suggests nothing that I would be worried to have a jury hear. Do we agree, or do we still think someone could end up in jail for such a statement?

We agree. No one can reasonably argue with such a statement.

The phrase "game on" could be taken out of context; while electronic messages are like bullets in that once launched they cannot be called back, your subsequent clarification would no doubt be much, much more persuasive than having to try to explain it after things had gone awry, so to speak.

Obviously inflammatory statements, or a sign saying "if you don't leave now you will be found here tomorrow" could be very damaging.

Let's look at it from a couple of other angles. We have been discussing statements indicating either an apparent disregard for laws involving the use of force, or the kill 'em all mentality, being used to establish state of mind; the Larry Hickey instructional materials provide one real world example to which we can all relate. The same principle could apply in an accounting fraud case; had a suspect in such a case made statements indicating disdain or disregard for the relevant laws, the oven cooking his goose might just be a little warmer. Or if someone has consistently made a very big deal about not believing in paying taxes, what might that say about his credibility in arguing that an irregularity had been the result of an inadvertent error?

Suppose that someone had made a habit of forwarding derogatory jokes and comments about (insert your choice of ethnic, religious, or gender classification here). Should an ambiguous use of force situation involving a member of said group ever materialize, the email or postings could figure in. Personally, I think they are much more likely to come up in the case of a discrimination suit involving promotions or demotions, salary scales, firings, or hiring, but I do not know that.

Before, these issues involved file cabinets, materials in desk drawers, and posted letters. The advent of company and government email, and later other email, resulted in an explosion of the universe of information that figures into investigations of many kinds. I spent a lot of time in a prior life trying to help instill discipline to prevent problems. More recently, the social networking phenomenon has added to the change. Some people have found it difficult to get interviews, much less be hired, because of what they have sent out into electronic space.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: In reality though i find it highly unlikely a warrant to seize one's computer will be issued unless there is suspicion of online correspondence between the involvded parties before a self defense shooting incident occurred.

See posts 23 and 26.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

We agree. No one can reasonably argue with such a statement.

The phrase "game on" could be taken out of context; while electronic messages are like bullets in that once launched they cannot be called back, your subsequent clarification would no doubt be much, much more persuasive than having to try to explain it after things had gone awry, so to speak.

Obviously inflammatory statements, or a sign saying "if you don't leave now you will be found here tomorrow" could be very damaging.

Let's look at it from a couple of other angles. We have been discussing statements indicating either an apparent disregard for laws involving the use of force, or the kill 'em all mentality, being used to establish state of mind; the Larry Hickey instructional materials provide one real world example to which we can all relate. The same principle could apply in an accounting fraud case; had a suspect in such a case made statements indicating disdain or disregard for the relevant laws, the oven cooking his goose might just be a little warmer. Or if someone has consistently made a very big deal about not believing in paying taxes, what might that say about his credibility in arguing that an irregularity had been the result of an inadvertent error?

Suppose that someone had made a habit of forwarding derogatory jokes and comments about (insert your choice of ethnic, religious, or gender classification here). Should an ambiguous use of force situation involving a member of said group ever materialize, the email or postings could figure in. Personally, I think they are much more likely to come up in the case of a discrimination suit involving promotions or demotions, salary scales, firings, or hiring, but I do not know that.

Before, these issues involved file cabinets, materials in desk drawers, and posted letters. The advent of company and government email, and later other email, resulted in an explosion of the universe of information that figures into investigations of many kinds. I spent a lot of time in a prior life trying to help instill discipline to prevent problems. More recently, the social networking phenomenon has added to the change. Some people have found it difficult to get interviews, much less be hired, because of what they have sent out into electronic space.

Then we are in agreement. I guess, perhaps, I jumped to the conclusion that certain responses were being lumped together.

I can see your point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Larry Hickey case, the phrase "have a plan to kill everyone you meet" was the focal point right? I believe that was not even something he said, simply something that was taught in a call he attended. It is a little unnerving to think how a determined individual can twist anything into something it's not.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'm very glad to hear that a lot of this has just been a mis-communication of meaning. That is one of the weaknesses of the internet, there is no inflection nor facial expression.

There are a lot of things taken out of context which would paint us in a poor light, many posting on the forums forget that we all come from understandings originating in different contexts...precise wording can be very important when the reader has a different perspective.

It reminds me of folks on a loading dock smoking next to containers which were used to transport flammable liquids. The containers were placed under a sign that read Empty Containers...right next to a sign that read No Smoking. Empty in this case did not mean devoid of fluid, it meant that the contents of the containers had been poured out...no longer full. There was still a very high fire/explosion danger.

 

[JustinJ]

"Quote:
Posted by JustinJ: In reality though i find it highly unlikely a warrant to seize one's computer will be issued unless there is suspicion of online correspondence between the involvded parties before a self defense shooting incident occurred.

See posts 23 and 26."

If a person uses their weapon against a crazed shooter at a restaurant or in defense against an obvious mugging i do not believe LE will try or even have sufficient cause to secure a warrant to confiscate the shoooters computer. If a person shoots an attacker and knew said attacker or can't explain why the attacker was assaulting them in the first place confiscation of their computer is a plausible expectation.

On the other hand, if a simple google search of a person's name leads to a site that could portray them as "trigger happy" this obviously could be legally harmful in a self defense shooting that was clearly not the result of a personal relationship.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If a person uses their weapon against a crazed shooter at a restaurant or in defense against an obvious mugging i do not believe LE will try or even have sufficient cause to secure a warrant to confiscate the shoooters computer. If a person shoots an attacker and knew said attacker or can't explain why the attacker was assaulting them in the first place confiscation of their computer is a plausible expectation.

On the other hand, if a simple google search of a person's name leads to a site that could portray them as "trigger happy" this obviously could be legally harmful in a self defense shooting that was clearly not the result of a personal relationship.

Of course the nature and scope of any post shooting investigation will be driven by what happened. Sometimes things will be nice and clear and everything will get wrapped up neatly without drama. But unless you're clairvoyant, you don't know what's going to happen to you or how you might become a "person of interest."

Those of us who carry a gun when we legally can or just keep a gun for self defense can not know ahead of time whether or not the circumstances that may someday force us to conclude that we have to use it will be such that the police will not have a reason to seize our computer. Maybe they won't, but maybe they will. As I sit here right now, there's no way I could possibly know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: In reality though i find it highly unlikely a warrant to seize one's computer will be issued unless there is suspicion of online correspondence between the involvded parties before a self defense shooting incident occurred.

Fiddletown had said this in Post 26:

In any investigation, anything available can and will be looked at. Anything that could be used in evidence to support a position will be used. Letters have been used. Email correspondence has been been used. Entries on social networking sites have been used.

LEOs and lawyers attend classes in the recovery, authentication and use, both for investigative purposes and in evidence, of all forms of computer data and electronic communications. I have taken such classes and I have discussed the gathering and use of such evidence with investigators. And fundamentally the use of electronic communications is no different from the use of letters or audio or video surveillance records.

If you think that computer records of Internet forum postings can't or won't be used for investigative purposes and/or evidence, you're fooling yourself.

...yet you contend, for some reason, that you "find it highly unlikely".... "unless there is suspicion of online correspondence between the involvded parties before a self defense shooting incident occurred".

By the way, what is the basis for characterizing the incident as a "self defense shooting"? That remains to be established, doesn't it?

If a person uses their weapon against a crazed shooter at a restaurant or in defense against an obvious mugging i do not believe LE will try or even have sufficient cause to secure a warrant to confiscate the shoooters computer. If a person shoots an attacker and knew said attacker or can't explain why the attacker was assaulting them in the first place confiscation of their computer is a plausible expectation.

How would anyone ever be able to explain why someone was assaulting them? How do the police know that anyone was assaulting the shooter? How about the other ninety nine possible scenarios?

How about this one from here?

A person has shot and killed or wounded another in a public place. The shooter is at the scene.
.....
There's no camera footage to review, and either person could be the "good guy". So we (actually, arriving officers, probably supported by detectives) try to piece together what happened. One thing is certain: that the shooter may be a "gun guy" who had a clean record at the time he received his CHL does not automatically make the incident a likely case of a justified shooting, regardless of what some of us might like to think.

So--here's the shooter's account: two men stepped up to him from behind, one with his hand in a pocket, demanded his wallet, and threatened to kill him. Due to the disparity of force, the closeness of the men, the verbal threat, the likelihood that one had a weapon, and the fact that his car prevented him from evading or escaping, he had to draw and fire. One was hit, the other dropped a knife and ran off.

Now, the account of the wounded man and his accomplice: We stopped for a moment to light a cigarette, and a man shot us without warning and for no reason.

The testimony of the one witness who came forward: I was unlocking my car and I heard three shots. I turned and saw that man holding a gun, and another man on the ground. The shooter was standing there (when I first saw him), which contradicts the shooter's account of where he had been standing when he fired.

The forensic evidence shows that actor's gun was used in shooting the victim, and GSR shows that the actor had fired a gun, as he said. There is no GSR on the victim. No other weapon was found at the scene.
....
To get a better idea, one might need to have (1) the account of that other witness who drove off, never to be found, while the shooter was saying that he would not say anything; (2) or that knife that was not secured at the scene, because the arriving officers had absolutely no indication that this might have been a self defense shooting, and later disappeared; or (3) just maybe, some tests of the shooter's ammunition to show whether GSR would have been expected on the victim at the distance claimed by the shooter.

And of course, other things may come to light. Perhaps the shooter has posted something like, "if anyone tries to break into my car, I'll shoot to kill! No one deprives me of my property". That, combined with his use of Black Talons, for example, might give some idea regarding the shooter's state of mind.

We ... need to understand that one's attorney has no way of producing evidence that did not exist, or that has not been made available to him or to her.
....
What does this all tell us? It tells us that the old saw, "a good shoot is a good shoot" really doesn't mean very much at all unless the evidence that supports the claims of the shooter is sufficient to counter that which does not.

I'm quite sure that the investigators in such a case wouldl be able to provide a cogent reason to look at everything possible that could shed light on what may have happened--had the parties been together in a bar earlier, was there a gambling debt involved, was there a romantic relationship between one of them and an associate or relative, was the shooter a violent person, etc.

In the days of Dragnet, legwork and a warrant for searching premises would come into play. But these aren't Dragnet days.

 

[GEM]

All the major points are well said by Kleanbore, Fiddle, etc.

But I have to comment on the good shoot mantra that was raised again. The reason you are in court or investigated is that the authorities don't think or have doubt it is a good shot.

To prattle that if you save Mother Theresa from a zombie mob, you won't get investigated is irrelevant.

I can't understand why folks repeatedly don't understand this? No one would have looked at the Anthony computers if they didn't think there was a problem.

If you think you will always righteous, then you think you are a deity.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I think the major factor is where you live. Here in the rural south the local law enforcement generally supports armed home defense and anyone running for public office makes it a point to let everyone know that he is a strong supporter of the 2A or he will not get elected. The few rare cases where home owners have to shoot unknown criminal invaders never go to trial. They are always dismissed as justified homocides and that is the end of it. They get to keep their guns too.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think the major factor is where you live....

Nonsense.

Of the bad cases I cited in post 31, three came out of well known gun friendly State, and four came out of States with Castle Doctrine laws.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Of the bad cases I cited in post 31, three came out of well known gun friendly State, and four came out of States with Castle Doctrine laws.

On the other hand, this guy shot and killed a fleeing robber and was given a "pass" in.....Illinois.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I get what you're saying fiddletown, but don't you think most of the individuals in those cases acted reasonably? I don't really see anything they could have done given the circumstances.

 

[Owen Sparks]

My state takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home and property, but also your car, your place of employment, or anywhere you have a legal right to be. In my state your vehicle is concidered an extention of your home and anything that is legal to posess in your home (like a firearm) is also legal in your car. There is also no "duty to retreat" before you take action to defend yourself. The law also adds civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law. As a result violent crime by strangers is very rare.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I get what you're saying fiddletown, but don't you think most of the individuals in those cases acted reasonably? I don't really see anything they could have done given the circumstances.

I think that in general that's correct. If we undertook an exhaustive and detailed analysis of each of these events, and their aftermaths, perhaps we would learn things that could help improve results in other instances.

But the real point is to emphasize just how silly this "a good shoot it a good shoot" business is. We keep seeing on these boards all sorts of "my law is better than your law", or "it's not a problem in my State", or "I don't have to worry about the law in my part of the country" and various other flavors of denial. Maybe the legal aftermath of your use of force incident will work out just fine and easy. But there are no guarantees.

So, to maximize your chances of a good result ultimately, I suggest that it's wise and prudent to know and understand the applicable laws, avoid various choices that could make things tougher for you (such as improvident of inflammatory posts on gun boards), train and become proficient with your tools so that in the event of an emergency you can focus your attention on assessing the situation and deciding how best to handle it (all in an instant) rather than trying to figure out how to run your gun.

The point is that this is serious stuff. The more you know and understand, and the better prepared you are, the luckier you're likely to be -- both in the event and its legal aftermath.

My state takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home and property, but also your car, your place of employment, or anywhere you have a legal right to be. In my state your vehicle is concidered an extention of your home and anything that is legal to posess in your home (like a firearm) is also legal in your car. There is also no "duty to retreat" before you take action to defend yourself. The law also adds civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law. ...

Yes Owen, we understand that a Castle Doctrine is a good thing. But it is also not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The was all discussed in detail in post 15. I understand Castle Doctrines, but I'm afraid that you really don't.

 

[MachIVshooter]

fundamentally the use of electronic communications is no different from the use of letters or audio or video surveillance records.

Yes, it is. And audio/video surveillance is not as foolproof as it used to be, due to contemporary technology allowing just about anyone to alter it quite professionally.

I'm not saying that the OP and many other posts aren't valid, or that the things you say on a bulletin board couldn't come back to haunt you. They certainly could.

However......

It would be all but impossible to PROVE that YOU wrote the words in those posts. Even discounting the fact that any of our posts can be altered at any time by moderators (not insinuating anything) and hackers, there is virtually no way to prove that it was YOU sitting at your desk and typing the words on a given date years and years ago.

People hack accounts on social sites and bulletin boards all the time, which casts very serious doubts as to whether or not the person of interest is actually the one who wrote those words. Now, if your entire history of posting cosists of nothing but the "bloodlust and chest-thumping" threads on multiple forums, then yes, a prosecutor could probably establish a pattern that a jury wouldn't look favorably upon.

I personally am careful to word things in ways that can't be misconstrued, a lesson learned from arguing with women in relationships more than anything. Of course, I've posted many things on this board that, if taken out of context, would not look good at all, especially a single sentence or sentence fragment, or perhaps even quoting someone else. Most of us who have many posts are in a similar situation. However, if we were ever involved in an incident and a prosecutor actually dug through thousands of posts to find a handful that make one sound like a vigilante or somesuch, a first year law student could easily have those out of context words either put back into context or stricken from the record.

In summary, while I'm not saying that we shouldn't always watch what we say, whether it's here, on the phone, in writing, text, or any other form of communication, I think worrying excessively about a post you made here that included the words "I'd kill him" or something similar affecting the outcome of a SD situation years down the road is unnecessary.