Legal Considerations of Posting on the Internet

[MachIVshooter]

Authentication is always an issue with all forms of documentary evidence. But it often can be done, and is often done. Various systems maintain audit trails, for example.

I know. The thing is, with something like these bulletin boards, it's much more complicated than just what was posted under a given username or even from what IP address. Digital pictures, for example, can be made credible or discredited by the embedded coding that tells us if the photo has been altered or not; Does THR/Vbulletin maintain a log of every ketstroke so that they may see the unedited version of a post? But more importantly, even if they could prove that the words in a post came from your computer, they have to be able to remove reasonable doubt that someone else could have been at your computer typing those words. Even with a pattern of multiple posts, that could be a tough sell.

Like I said before, I'm not suggesting that theres no way the things we post could be used against us if we were involved in an incident. But I think it would have to be a very questionable case for them to even try digging through message boards looking for words suggesting that one is predisposed to violence and then having to go through the tedious and perhaps impossible endeavor of authenticating those words to the point that they're admissable as character evidence.

But as long as you're confident, fine. It's not my problem

I'm not confident my words couldn't bite me in the posterior if I say the wrong thing, and therefor I'm careful about what I say, no matter the medium. I'm really just playing devil's advocate here; I'm probably one of the more paranoid people out there with regards to concern over who may be listening or watching.

 

[JohnKSa]

But I think it would have to be a very questionable case for them to even try digging through message boards looking for words suggesting that one is predisposed to violence and then having to go through the tedious and perhaps impossible endeavor of authenticating those words to the point that they're admissable as character evidence.

Sure. I don't think anyone's arguing any differently. It's unlikely that someone would go fishing like that unless the circumstances of the case were already questionable and it would probably be difficult to prove a case based on internet postings. But there's absolutely no question as to whether or not it COULD happen.

And, athough it should go without saying, it's probably worth stating that we don't get to choose the circumstances of the situation if we are involved in a shooting. That should be obvious because any sane, law-abiding person who had the chance to choose the circumstances of a shooting would simply choose the circumstances to prevent himself from even being involved. So, in spite of our best intentions, it's possible we could end up in a situation that appeared questionable to the law.

I think the second part of your post comes close to stating this whole argument in a nutshell. Since it doesn't quite get there, I'm going to give it a shot.

Argument against posting ill-advised statements on the internet:

Ill-advised statements posted on the internet could cause a person difficulties in certain circumstances and may be used to complicate or even defeat a person's defense in the event that they are involved in a shooting.​

Argument for posting ill-advised statements on the internet:

Get real. How could there possibly be any reasonable argument for doing something that's ill-advised. ​

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MachIVshooter: But I think it would have to be a very questionable case for them to even try digging through message boards looking for words suggesting that one is predisposed to violence and then having to go through the tedious and perhaps impossible endeavor of authenticating those words to the point that they're admissable as character evidence.

What in your mind would constitute a "very questionable case"?

Has it not occurred to you that if one has posted words "suggesting that one is predisposed to violence" that those posted would most likely be found, and ruled admissible, during a search for other evidence relevant to the shooting?

What is it at makes you believe that the task of authenticating the source would "perhaps" be impossible in this day and age? Would you bet our future on that belief?

 

[MachIVshooter]

What in your mind would constitute a "very questionable case"?

One such as the Larry Hickey case, where the physical evidence is not very conclusive, the majoriy of witness testimonies do not favor the defender, and in which the use of deadly force being necessary is not immediately clear. IMO, it's always going to be difficult to prove lethal force was justified when the attackers were unarmed, because proving a disparity of force (especially when you have very limited evidence of injury) really comes down to who is believed.

Has it not occurred to you that if one has posted words "suggesting that one is predisposed to violence" that those posted would most likely be found, and ruled admissible, during a search for other evidence relevant to the shooting?

Of course it has. Please read my other posts.

What is it at makes you believe that the task of authenticating the source would "perhaps" be impossible in this day and age?

Well, you're a mod here. Perhaps you can answer the question that I posed in my last post:

Does THR/Vbulletin maintain a log of every ketstroke so that they may see the unedited version of a post?

And as I also said, even if it could be proven that the post is unaltered and originated from the defendant's computer, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one actually sitting and typing those words? My computer is left on pretty much all the time, and I usually don't lock it down. It remembers my passwords here, so simply opening THR will automatically log someone in. Same with just about any other board, FB, etc. Now, I happen to live alone, and very few people other than me use my computer. But a lot of people have teenage kids, roommates, etc. So I ask again, how do you prove that the defendant actually typed the words? Short of a webcam recording who is at the computer at a given time, all the time, and keeping that video feed stored indefinitely, they can't. No amount of digital wizardry can prove what is unprovable. And when it is questionable whether or not a person actually said something, it becomes heresay.

Even if it is ruled admissable, still have to get a Jury to believe it. Didn't really work out for the prosecution in the Hickey case.

And then you have to consider the doors that are opened up if they did use this medium as an attempt to establish character. Take me, for example: Say I one day ended up shooting a home invader. I'm sure I've said more than once here that I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force against a home invader. Well, once they bring that in, my defense would then be able to put up the dozens of posts I've made in which I've said I'd rather not kill anyone, I'd rather avoid the situation altogether, etc. that would more or less mitigate the prosecution's attempt to prove my bloodlust. And the jury would also be made aware of my unique mindset resulting from the fact that my father was murdered in a home invasion.

I believe that if a few out of context sentences I've posted that are directly contradicted by other posts were used by a prosecutor, the jurors would feel that the presector was grasping at straws to get a conviction.

Would you bet our future on that belief?

Nope. Again, read my other posts. Like I said, playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...And as I also said, even if it could be proven that the post is unaltered and originated from the defendant's computer, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one actually sitting and typing those words? ...

The same way he authenticates that letter he says you wrote, that note you made, that email, or that entry on a social networking site. Exactly how, will depend on the exact situation; and as I mentioned, authentication is always an issue. But nonetheless, lawyers have been getting judges and juries to accept documentary evidence as authentic for a very long time.

If you ever wind up on trial, the prosecutor will have his burden to authenticate any documentary evidence he wants to introduce against you, and you'll have the opportunity to try to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of your jurors. It'll be up to the jurors to decide if he succeeded or you did.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MachIVshooter: One such ["very questionable case"] as the Larry Hickey case, where the physical evidence is not very conclusive, the majoriy of witness testimonies do not favor the defender, and in which the use of deadly force being necessary is not immediately clear.

I think, then, that any shooting in which witnesses do not support the defender's account, and in particular, his account of what led to a shooting, would be questionable by that standard. And I agree.

And that probably encompasses most shootings that occur outside of the household, away from security cameras, and away from crowds.

Personally, I worry more about lack of supporting evidence more than anything else except risk to innocent third parties.

IMO, it's always going to be difficult to prove lethal force was justified when the attackers were unarmed, because proving a disparity of force (especially when you have very limited evidence of injury) really comes down to who is believed.

That is very true, but it is another subject.

And as I also said, even if it could be proven that the post is unaltered and originated from the defendant's computer, how would a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one actually sitting and typing those words? My computer is left on pretty much all the time, and I usually don't lock it down. It remembers my passwords here, so simply opening THR will automatically log someone in. Same with just about any other board, FB, etc. Now, I happen to live alone, and very few people other than me use my computer. But a lot of people have teenage kids, roommates, etc. So I ask again, how do you prove that the defendant actually typed the words? Short of a webcam recording who is at the computer at a given time, all the time, and keeping that video feed stored indefinitely, they can't. No amount of digital wizardry can prove what is unprovable. And when it is questionable whether or not a person actually said something, it becomes heresay.

That and similar arguments have been put forth often, trial courts have nonetheless admitted such as evidence, defendants have appealed with the argument that the trial courts erred in admitting the evidence, and those arguments have been rejected by appellate courts in rulings that have become the governing case law.

Two other things--(1) it has been ruled that the occurrence of occasional, minor alterations do not constitute a basis for not admitting evidence, and (2) the fact that something is hearsay does not, in many cases, make it inadmissible.

This is not uncharted territory. The use of electronic media evidence in a defense of justification case is probably very rare, because such cases occur rather infrequently. There have, however, been numerous cases involving financial reporting, taxes, money laundering, insider trading, intellectual property theft, product liability, conspiracy, restraint of trade, Internet stalking, pornography, terrorism, and espionage, to name a few examples, so the subject of tracing and authenticating digital information for use as evidence is not a new one.

Even if it is ruled admissable, still have to get a Jury to believe it.

Very true.

Didn't really work out for the prosecution in the Hickey case.

Nor should it have, given the context, but for whatever reasons, Hickey failed to get an acquittal in two trials.

And digital evidence does often result in or help bring about convictions and success in civil suits.

Take me, for example: Say I one day ended up shooting a home invader. I'm sure I've said more than once here that I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force against a home invader. Well, once they bring that in, my defense would then be able to put up the dozens of posts I've made in which I've said I'd rather not kill anyone,...

In my opinion, statements that are balanced by other statements should not prove a problem.

The problem will arise when someone who consistently comes across as a chest pounding "shoot 'em down on sight" personality who has made statements that we would call "blood lust" on more than one occasion, then has the misfortune to be involved in a use of force situation in which his prior comments could cause reaonable persons to qustion his possible state of mind. That is what we are trying to caution against here.

 

[JustinJ]

Do the owners of the board have a policy regarding assistance provided to LE if information on a member and/or his posts were ever requested, formally or informally?


Fiddletwon Quote:
"Originally Posted by JustinJ
...Way too vague to be of any evidence to what you are arguing....

Really now, you demand "evidence" from Kleanbore? You've been making claim after claim, in this thread and in others, without support or any evidence to back them up."

Excues me but what in that comment demands evidence? My comment was clearly stating that without more detail of the incidents he referenced there is no way to see a relation to the topic at hand. The incident may be relevant or it may not be, but more info is needed for a reader to decide that. There is no accusation of falsehood.

And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Do the owners of the board have a policy regarding assistance provided to LE if information on a member and/or his posts were ever requested, formally or informally?

Have you ever seen a subpoena requesting the turnover of digital information or of any other kinds of records? No matter; suffice it to say that any US citizen who receives one will comply, completely and as quickly as possible.

The incident may be relevant or it may not be, but more info is needed for a reader to decide that.

The statement to which you refer was that I am personally aware of incidents in which computers have been seized. That was the question at hand, so it is relevant on its own merits.

You may not be aware of this, but one does not properly provide to anyone other than an attorney any specific information that relates to one's knowledge of either civil or criminal investigations, even if they occurred in the past. Exceptions may be seen from time to time, depending upon whether statutes of limitation have expired, all persons involved are long deceased, or in some other situations.

And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence.

You have made repeated, completely unsupported statements that you do not consider one thing or another to be likely, when anyone with any knowledge of, or actual experience with, what actually happens in civil or criminal investigations would not have made such assertions.

If you have any objective way to substantiate your "opinions", do so. If you continue to disbelieve what you have been told here by people who do have relevant experience, you should consult your own knowledgeable sources.

And yes, logic does tell us that they are not "evidence", by any stetch.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Do the owners of the board have a policy regarding assistance provided to LE if information on a member and/or his posts were ever requested, formally or informally?...

I can't speak for this board of course. But I strongly suspect, knowing that the management of this board supports obeying the law, that it would be cooperative and supply any information requested by subpoena or search warrant. And I know that is the policy of another board on which I'm a moderator.

...Fiddletwon Quote:
"Originally Posted by JustinJ
...Way too vague to be of any evidence to what you are arguing....

Really now, you demand "evidence" from Kleanbore? You've been making claim after claim, in this thread and in others, without support or any evidence to back them up."

Excues me but what in that comment demands evidence? My comment was clearly stating that without more detail of the incidents he referenced there is no way to see a relation to the topic at hand. The incident may be relevant or it may not be, but more info is needed for a reader to decide that. There is no accusation of falsehood....

[1] You misspelled my screen name. You should be more careful.

[2] You really ought to learn to do a proper HTML quote. It would be much easier to follow.

[3] As I fully discussed in post 66, your asking for evidence is pretty impudent when you make claim after claim without bothering to support them with evidence.

...And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence....

[1] "Logic" dictates no such thing. First, that's a misuse of the word logic. Logic is a process by which data or information may be analyzed to form conclusions or opinions. See Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning ...

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable....

[2] An opinion must be based on something. It's basis establishes, among other things, whether or not it's worth any attention. An opinion just pulled out of the air is generally meaningless and not worth paying attention to. On the other hand, the opinion of someone learned in a field based on data and experience may be useful and warrant consideration.

[3] Basically, if you can not substantiate your opinions, there's no reason for anyone to bother with them.

 

[JustinJ]

"I can't speak for this board of course. But I strongly suspect, knowing that the management of this board supports obeying the law, that it would be cooperative and supply any information requested by subpoena or search warrant. And I know that is the policy of another board on which I'm a moderator."

If legally bound i would expect them to comply as well but what if a request is made for which compliance would be strictly voluntary?


"[1] You misspelled my screen name. You should be more careful."

And why's that? It's obvious who i meant.

"[2] You really ought to learn to do a proper HTML quote. It would be much easier to follow."

Copy/Paste works fine for me.

"[3] As I fully discussed in post 66, your asking for evidence is pretty impudent when you make claim after claim without bothering to support them with evidence."

You're not addressing my point. You accused me of demanding evidence for calling something vague and then implied hypocricy. How is calling something vague a demand of evidence?

"[1] "Logic" dictates no such thing. First, that's a misuse of the word logic. Logic is a process by which data or information may be analyzed to form conclusions or opinions. "

Read the logic definition "C" that you posted, look up the defintion of "opinion" and you might realize that the word "logic" is perfectly applicable.

"[3] Basically, if you can not substantiate your opinions, there's no reason for anyone to bother with them."

Define substantiate. That is a two way street. The vast majority of statements from all sides on this thread can only be substantiated by citing legislation and/or previous court cases. And neither of those are truly conclusive as legislation is often open to interpretation and no two court cases are the same. Citing "experts" may add weight to one's arguement but even that is generally opinion and for most fields "experts" can be found on both sides of any arguement.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If legally bound i would expect them to comply as well but what if a request is made for which compliance would be strictly voluntary?

That will of course be a judgment call for the management of this board, but I certainly wouldn't expect any third party to "fall on his sword" for me.

In any case, I've done a pretty fair amount of work with local law enforcement, FBI and Postal Inspectors in connection with various investigations in connection with which a client of mine has had information or been a witness. I would routinely ask for subpoenas or search warrants to cover my client against any future claims of violation of privacy, and I would always get subpoenas or search warrants.

"[1] You misspelled my screen name. You should be more careful."

And why's that? It's obvious who i meant.

For one thing, because courteous people try to spell others' names correctly.

"[2] You really ought to learn to do a proper HTML quote. It would be much easier to follow."

Copy/Paste works fine for me.

No doubt it works for you. But it doesn't work as well for your readers. If you are trying to communicate, you owe some consideration to your readers. Your lack of consideration suggests that you really don't care if your readers can follow and understand what you are trying to say. And if you don't care enough to try to make your meanings clear to us, why should we care about what you're saying?

It also shows a lack of technical skills, and that reflects on your overall competence.

"[3] As I fully discussed in post 66, your asking for evidence is pretty impudent when you make claim after claim without bothering to support them with evidence."

You're not addressing my point. You accused me of demanding evidence for calling something vague and then implied hypocricy. How is calling something vague a demand of evidence?

I did respond, you just didn't like my response. And yes, I implied that you were being hypocritical.

"[1] "Logic" dictates no such thing. First, that's a misuse of the word logic. Logic is a process by which data or information may be analyzed to form conclusions or opinions. "

Read the logic definition "C" that you posted, look up the defintion of "opinion" and you might realize that the word "logic" is perfectly applicable.

Nonsense.

You stated in post 82:

...And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence....

What logical process could possibly lead one to the conclusion that someone stating an opinion does not have evidence to support that opinion.

"[3] Basically, if you can not substantiate your opinions, there's no reason for anyone to bother with them."

Define substantiate.

Okay, see Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:

1: to give substance or form to : embody

2: to establish by proof or competent evidence : verify...

...That is a two way street. The vast majority of statements from all sides on this thread can only be substantiated by citing legislation and/or previous court cases...

[1] You provide nothing to substantiate your naked opinions.

[2] Legislation, court cases, relevant experience are all useful for giving substance to opinions and as evidence supporting opinions. You may disagree, but you can hardly expect us to take you seriously if you don't substantiate your disagreement.

 

[Kleanbore]

I will add one other thing that I just remembered from a course I took some years ago about the use of digital information as evidence. This is not intended to further an argument, but to share what I learned.

In that course, which was on the subject of protecting oneself (one's company, actually) from lawsuits, an example was shown about a letter that had been transmitted electronically.

The letter had been carefully reviewed at different stages of drafting by management, by the engineers, by sales, the law department, and so on, and substantive changes were incorporated at the various stages of review. Here was the problem: the file that was transmitted was the same one that had been edited and revised several times.

By clicking on "track changes mode", the recipients and their attorneys could see every iteration, and they were able to use that information with great effect in undermining the credibility of the senders.

I post this for two reasons: to caution everyone who transmits a word document to create a new file for the final version, and to illustrate that it can be dangerous to rely on assumptions about what exists in electronic storage media and/or about how it can be retrieved.

 

[JustinJ]

"For one thing, because courteous people try to spell others' names correctly."

That fails to explain why i should "be more careful"? Regardless, allow me to apologize since you found my typo so offensive. On the other hand i think you're just nitpicking.
Of course i find it ironic to be lectured in courtesy from one who likes to starts posts like so: "Clearly you have no idea what..."

"It also shows a lack of technical skills, and that reflects on your overall competence."

Lack of technical proficiency posting on a message board indicates overall incompetence? Utterly ridiculous, an insult to others, and again, nitpicking.

"I did respond, you just didn't like my response. And yes, I implied that you were being hypocritical."

No, you didn't. All i'm asking is how my calling a reference vague is equivelant to demanding evidence.

"What logical process could possibly lead one to the conclusion that someone stating an opinion does not have evidence to support that opinion."

Admittedly i did not word this clearly enough: "And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence...."
'An opinion is not itself evidence' is what i was trying to convey. Regardless the primary reference one can often give for holding an opinion is our old friend, Logic.
For example, if LE arrive on the scene and find a dead guy with gun in hand who has a felonious rap sheet as long as this thread and a CC license holder saying the guy tried to rob me at gun point, logic would allow one to reasonably conclude what happened. Maybe i'm wrong to assume LE is capable of logical thought as well?

In addition, lack of an event occurring previously does not prove it impossible but it certainly can be evidence of its improbability.

"[2] Legislation, court cases, relevant experience are all useful for giving substance to opinions and as evidence supporting opinions. You may disagree, but you can hardly expect us to take you seriously if you don't substantiate your disagreement. "

First, drop the "us" as though your perspective is held by all. Second, speaking of hypocricy, your comments are just about the only ones that actually site such evidence yet i don't see you calling out all the other posts that dont.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"For one thing, because courteous people try to spell others' names correctly."

That fails to explain why i should "be more careful"? Regardless, allow me to apologize since you .... On the other hand i think you're just nitpicking.
Of course i find it ironic to be lectured in courtesy from one who likes to starts posts like so: "Clearly you have no idea what..."

When you think I'm wrong about my assessment, you're welcome to challenge me. But do be prepared to provide some evidence as to why I'm wrong. And there is a difference between discourtesy and bluntness. If you think I'm nitpicking, you're welcome to your opinion.

"What logical process could possibly lead one to the conclusion that someone stating an opinion does not have evidence to support that opinion."

Admittedly i did not word this clearly enough: "And logic dictates that if one states their opinion on a matter it is not a claim of evidence...."
'An opinion is not itself evidence' is what i was trying to convey....

No, an opinion is not evidence. But if it is not based on evidence, it's not worth much as an opinion. If you can't support your opinions, you don't give anyone any reason to pay any attention to them.

...Regardless the primary reference one can often give for holding an opinion is our old friend, Logic....

No, that shows a misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic works on data. It is a process by which one looks at data/information/evidence/experience and draws inferences from such. One supports an opinion by specifying the data/information/evidence/experience relied upon in drawing the inference and outlining the logical process yielding the inference.

...For example, if LE arrive on the scene and find a dead guy with gun in hand who has a felonious rap sheet as long as this thread and a CC license holder saying the guy tried to rob me at gun point, logic would allow one to reasonably conclude what happened. Maybe i'm wrong to assume LE is capable of logical thought as well?..

I certainly hope and an expect a good LEO to not act as you have described. What you have described is not "logical thought." It is "jumping to conclusions."

When the LEO arrives on scene all he knows is that there's a dead body and a guy with a recently fired gun, and perhaps some kind of exculpatory statement from the guy with the gun. He certain doesn't have sufficient evidence, no matter how good his logic may be, to form a conclusion about what happened. He might form a hypothesis, but that is far short of a conclusion. (Note, as you describe the situation, the LEO will not know the identity of the body and can't know about any past criminal record. In addition, criminals are sometimes feloniously murdered.)

...In addition, lack of an event occurring previously does not prove it impossible but it certainly can be evidence of its improbability....

On the other hand, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out repeatedly in his books Fooled by Randomness, the Hidden Role of Chance (Random House, 2004) and The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Taleb, a securities trader and professor at the University of Massachusetts, provides some interesting and useful insights into strategies for dealing with rare events.

 

[Jeff White]

For example, if LE arrive on the scene and find a dead guy with gun in hand who has a felonious rap sheet as long as this thread and a CC license holder saying the guy tried to rob me at gun point, logic would allow one to reasonably conclude what happened.

No one is saying that LE is unable to see what is a clear cut case of self defense. What we are saying, is that such a clear cut case of self defense is a pretty rare thing. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a situation where you have to use deadly force to protect yourself it is most likely going to involve someone you are at least acquainted with. Most self defense uses of deadly force are not clean and clear cut. They most often involve someone known to the person claiming self defense, often a family member.

In those cases which are by and far the most common self defense situations you can expect a very thorough investigation into the relationship between the people involved. It is that investigation that is most likely to lead to investigators looking in to the electronic communications of all the parties involved. Why? To get an idea of the nature of the relationship between those people involved in the incident.

Most people do not have any experience with these kinds of violent incidents and that is a good thing. Unfortunately that lack of experience leads to a completely skewed notion of how they happen.

The gunfight you envision where you act in a manner that is beyond reproach is most likely not the gunfight you will have. If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in one it will most likely be against someone you know who is blinded by anger, high on some chemical substance, despondent over a failed romantic entanglement or just completely deranged. In that case the authorities will try to determine if your use of deadly force was indeed self defense or if it was an ongoing dispute that escalated into manslaughter or murder. In 25 years of law enforcement, I have personal knowledge of two use of deadly force situations that what happened was clear cut and obvious. The rest were all as I described, clear as mud.

Even if your fight is the one you envision, don't expect the mayor to give you a plaque and pat on the back at the next city council meeting and the local police chief to make you an honorary member of the force. You should expect a thorough investigation of what happened.

Violent encounters are dirty things and you shouldn't expect to walk away from one unsoiled. One of the things you should expect even in a situation where you are totally justified is the family of the person you killed isn't
going to see you as the good guy. A sympathetic reporter starts digging into your past and googles your posts at THR, Glocktalk and other firearms sites and you can suddenly go from honest citizen who had to defend himself to bloodthirsty gun nut who couldn't wit for a chance to kill someone. The press does this kind of thing all the time especially if they are pushing an agenda. Might not land you in court, but it could make living in your hometown pretty uncomfortable.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Originally Posted by JustinJ
...For example, if LE arrive on the scene and find a dead guy with gun in hand who has a felonious rap sheet as long as this thread and a CC license holder saying the guy tried to rob me at gun point, logic would allow one to reasonably conclude what happened. Maybe i'm wrong to assume LE is capable of logical thought as well?..

As luck would have it, I encounter a case very similar to this when I was working in LE and what you have described is not "logical thought", but is indeed "jumping to conclusions."

Luckily our policy is not to accept the easy (and perhaps obvious) path, but to investigate the total circumstances that surrounded this incident.

It turned out that the felon (who was obviously in violation of his parole status by being in possession of a firearm) had been in a relationship with the shooter's daughter and the father had lured him, with challenges and threats, to the site to ambush him...e-mails and cell phone records were used to establish a prior relationship between the two.

Just because something seems logical doesn't make it so in the absence of evidence

"It also shows a lack of technical skills, and that reflects on your overall competence."

Lack of technical proficiency posting on a message board indicates overall incompetence? Utterly ridiculous, an insult to others, and again, nitpicking.

I don't think this is nitpicking at all. Notice how much easier it is to read when formatted correctly above.

Much as the in-ability to proofread; spelling errors, poor grammar and improper formatting are commonly used to weed out job applicants in the business world. While it may not prove incompetence, it certainly is indicative of lack of care for detail and accuracy.

To be taken as a creditable source, even on a forum, does require a certain ability to present in a professional manner.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A sympathetic reporter starts digging into your past and googles your posts at THR, Glocktalk and other firearms sites and you can suddenly go from honest citizen who had to defend himself to bloodthirsty gun nut who couldn't wit for a chance to kill someone. The press does this kind of thing all the time especially if they are pushing an agenda. Might not land you in court, but it could make living in your hometown pretty uncomfortable.

And it doesn't even have to be a sympathetic reporter - google "Gerald Ung" and you can see that self-defense shootings aren't always so clean and neat. Ung was third year law student who was assaulted by several men and ended up shooting one of them. Despite the confrontation being captured on video, Ung was prosecuted and eventually acquitted. However, thanks to the wonder of the Internet, you can still read the angry denunciations of Ung by friends of the victim, see the facts of Ung's personal life posted on the web, read the threats against him by anonymous Internet users, etc.

Oddly enough, the people who get shot in self-defense encounters sometimes have friends too and they may be irritated enough to engage in a little e-stalking or even worse.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Much as the in-ability to proofread; spelling errors, poor grammar and improper formatting are commonly used to weed out job applicants in the business world. While it may not prove incompetence, it certainly is indicative of lack of care for detail and accuracy.

...I it has been my experience that most folks don't have enough exposure....

You left out some periods in that same post by the way. Just saying...

 

[9mmepiphany]

You left out some periods in that same post by the way. Just saying...

I usually do Much like the Zulu always leaving a side open.

 

[Obsidian]

I will say this, as a general rule of thumb and not mentioning names on either side of this discussion. Its been stated that everything on the internet lives on forever. Its completely changed a lot of politics already due to a embarrassing photo or statement made years ago taken out of context.
What I think, is happening at least in the case of the Forum Mods is just cautioning folks on that very simple fact. Is it silly in some cases, or are there cases of a overzealous DA looking for anything to make a charge stick? Sure there are and the legality of it all is another line of thought perhaps to discuss. But why put yourself though it? Some folks have mentioned putting a grain of doubt in a jury's mind, but what is it if you have to overcome some very technical information and your lawyer you have is not up to the task of combating that? I'm not a tech wizard here. Someone could throw a bunch of numbers up here and as me being me, I would not know what they are talking about. I would inquire more where I could but a lot of folks would just smile and nod their head, it looks good to us!
For those of us that think a DA or investigation may not extend online, do yourself a favor. Find out what percentages of businesses do a google search on a new employee, especially for the more important jobs? Go check out Facebook info, and anything else they might get lucky on and find? Why do you think that so many people may have two face book accounts? You are up for a upgraded position in a company and those managers in charge of hiring you go searching and manage to find a picture of you at your cousin Bob's bachelor party with the dancing entertainment in your lap. How could that reflect upon you? It does not have to even be your Facebook account, Cousin Bob has that photo and everyone can see it because its his current Profile picture with your name tagged on it.

This can and does happen on a very frequent basis. Folks get traffic tickets or tickets for being present in a fight for Youtube movies that get uploaded under even a screen name.

Again what I think the original intent was just a friendly reminder that what you say on the internet is there forever. And that it can and has been used in cases against individuals, both rightly accused and wrongly accused. And in a high profile case depending on what happens you are branded in a particular way and have to effectively prove your innocence in the public's eye. Why add any further burden on to your shoulders? Some folks may think the prospect of it all is far fetched or silly, or able to be laughed out of court. But It still can have a negative effect. Things on the internet do not dissipate in to the wind. Just be aware that your actions, even on the internet can have consequences for you far down the road after what you do today is forgotten.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Obsidian: Again what I think the original intent was just a friendly reminder that what you say on the internet is there forever. And that it can and has been used in cases against individuals, both rightly accused and wrongly accused.

You nailed it.

That should wrap it up, but if anyone does have anything constructive to add we can reopen the thread. Just send me a PM.