Speaking of posting online, how about that “draft saved” memo that pops up while you’re typing on a forum? You decide not to post the message but that draft is saved. I bet it’s accessible by big brother. Could even be argued that it is more of what you really think than what you actually post. You thought it, wrote it, but then realized it was “wrong,” didn’t want anyone to see it, so you did not post it.
This one is for all the members who think their social media posts won’t get them in trouble
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
I am not sure about that.
But I will take the opportunity to point out that when people send electronic word documents, recipients can look at the track changes mode and see any earlier versions in that file. Litigation has been affected by that.
TomJ
Contributing Member
Depending on the crime you're charged with, whether you intended to commit that crime may be one of the things the prosecutor needs to prove. If you write things on social media, etc. which show you had intent it can be used against you. It's no more complicated than that.
This is great advice.
This is great advice.
theotherwaldo
Member
One of the rules that I try very hard to follow is 'Avoid telling people that you don't really know about important things in your life. They may not be your friends and may use this information against you.'
This is especially important on the internet.
The internet never forgets.
This is especially important on the internet.
The internet never forgets.
Old Dog
Member
I just have to ask some of the members posting in this thread, when was the last time you were ever in a courtroom, either as a juror, defendant, or witness?
https://www.scribd.com/document/638134391/Pardon-Letter-From-Daniel-Perry-Defense-Team#from_embed
The defense responds. Shame this guy didn't have the good video Rittenhouse did, the defense claims there is eyewitness testimony that Foster did point the firearm at Perry.
The defense responds. Shame this guy didn't have the good video Rittenhouse did, the defense claims there is eyewitness testimony that Foster did point the firearm at Perry.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,183
He could sit back and do nothing, like most politicians. Might gain more political capital if he didn’t.
starnbar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Messages
- 431
Yeah and there are PLENTY of algorithms out there used by agencies that can duplicate your IP and change your message into what ever they need it to say.
The letter from the law firm also states that eyewitness accounts are often inaccurate.
Before the incident, Foster said he was carrying the weapon for self defense, that he had no intention of using it in the protest, and that he was "exercising his Second Amendment rights".
This thread was about things that the Sergeant had posted on line. Anyone could see them as potentially incriminating. That's why we have a sticky thread on the subject here.
None of us have seen the transcript of the trial. There seem to be a lot of people who would like for the Sergeant to be not guilty. But facts are not always what we would like them to be.
I am not impressed with the law firm. In their request that the verdict be vacated, they did not help their client at all, They made assertions that are clearly contradicted by the video images that are available.
Would the defendant have been convicted without the postings? We cannot know. But it is too bad that this a\has become a political issue.
"The letter from the law firm also states that eyewitness accounts are often inaccurate."
I am literally laughing out loud. I thought I was the only one who saw that. They basically said eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, except our eyewitness who swears he saw the rifle pointed at the driver in the dark in the midst of a crowd of people contrary to what the video shows.
Amd I don't know why they're even trying to make the point. Just because the guy has his hand on a rifle pointed down doesn't mean he's not a threat. He can still beat your reaction gap.
The biggest factors I see are:
He said he wanted to shoot protesters.
He inserted himself into a group of protesters.
He may have been in reasonable fear for his life. He may not have been able to escape without running over someone. I think if he just innocently wandered in there and was surrounded with protesters, he might not have even been prosecuted.
WTBguns10kOK
member
It's right in the post I replied to.
You missed me. How can what you are trying to say be in someone els's post?
As others have said, the post to which you replied indicated a complete misunderstanding of the OP's point.
One more time: what people write, mail out, and post can be used as evidence against them, should their actions ever be called into question.
That has been true since the invention of writing.
Now, there is nothing to tell us that, had the defendant here not posted his damaging comments in readily discoverable media, he would not have been convicted anyway,
WTBguns10kOK
member
You seem to be having difficulty understanding how the justice system currently operates. With some research you might realize you're missing a great deal. Gotta have the desire to learn.
We are not going to discuss politics here. Taking a thread down that road is going to get the thread closed. If you want to discuss the political aspects of the court system I'm sure you can find plenty of places online to do that. You can't do it in ST&T. This is the last warning I'm going to give. Members will abide by the rules set out in the threads stuck to the top of the page or they won't be here.
bdickens
Member
You seem to be having difficulty understanding English....
TacticalJanitor
Member
I have noticed that popup. I've also noticed that what you have written (but not yet posted due to tact or a second thought) comes back the next time you visit that thread...just waiting for you to post it. I'm not sure if it's saved in the cache of your device, or the web server.
Either way, select all of that text, hit backspace, then enter a single character before exiting the thread. When you return, all that shows is that single character. Only the site admins could tell you if that data is saved outside of your device prior to hitting the "post" button.
If you are referring to the apparent recent tendency of communities to allow looters, rioters, arsonists, and so on to take to the streets without strong immediate consequence, that has only one thing to do with our scope here at ST&T: it gives us more events to avoid. Sgt. Perry willfully ignored that strategy, to his great peril.
If you somehow believe that people are being prosecuted for use of force action when they should not be, the videos and Sgt. Perry's postings indicate that this incident does not support that belief. Perry expressed displeasure with protestors, spoke of shooting someone, went looking for them, and used his gun. A legal defense of self defense is available only to those who do not initiate the conflict. That has been true for centuries.
Perhaps Perry saw a man carrying a rifle and thought he could easily claim self defense. Open carry is not that common in Texas, but an open carrier rarely poses a deadly threat. The victim here claimed that he would threaten no one.
People familiar with the justice system tell us that the vast majority of self defense claims are bogus. That is not at all surprising. If evidence prevents a person from claiming that he did not shoot someone whom he had shot, SD is his only hope.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
Andrew Branca has published an additional video regarding this case, titled "Daniel Perry Guilty Verdict is Invalid!". You can see it at .
In his introduction he says the bottom-line reason the defense motion for a new trial should be granted is that Perry did not get due process.
He goes through the arguments in the defense request for a new trial and mostly discounts the first two. Then he gets to the one about the jury being subject to outside influence. Apparently one juror did his own internet research and then related what he believed he had learned to the other jurors, but in fact his "information", which was regarding the burden of persuasion for self-defense, was incorrect. Branca said that is the killer point. He then discusses the fourth argument, that alternate jurors were present during the jury deliberations, one of whom communicated her strong feelings that Perry was guilty, by means of grunts, facial expressions etc. He talks about how jurors behave in real life and says this would definitely have influenced at least some of the jurors.
In his introduction he says the bottom-line reason the defense motion for a new trial should be granted is that Perry did not get due process.
He goes through the arguments in the defense request for a new trial and mostly discounts the first two. Then he gets to the one about the jury being subject to outside influence. Apparently one juror did his own internet research and then related what he believed he had learned to the other jurors, but in fact his "information", which was regarding the burden of persuasion for self-defense, was incorrect. Branca said that is the killer point. He then discusses the fourth argument, that alternate jurors were present during the jury deliberations, one of whom communicated her strong feelings that Perry was guilty, by means of grunts, facial expressions etc. He talks about how jurors behave in real life and says this would definitely have influenced at least some of the jurors.
toivo
Member
Yup. And expect to have to justify what you wrote to someone whose worldview is completely different from your own.
toivo
Member
Just an uneducated guess here, but i'm thinking that it's because everybody who tries to fight a shooting case in court has only two viable strategies:
- Somebody else did the shooting.
- It was self-defense.
Howland937
Member
People have used accidental discharge as defense as well, or in a recent case with a certain celebrity that the gun fired itself. He'll likely get off entirely, but if he'd had a history of derogatory comments and threats against directors and camera workers, there's a good chance the charges would have stuck.
Elkins45
Member
If you really believe that is a possibility then why are you still on social media at all?
If you really think some state prosecutor is so ethically void and yet so technically savvy they are able to tinker with someone’s social media posts then you need to immediately delete all your accounts and never post again.
WTBguns10kOK
member
That's the problem here, you don't understand what's going on. I expect you'll be praised for saying what you did, but I'll be banned for responding to it.
N555
Member
Probably.
You are misleading yourself vey badly.
If by chance you want to learn something before getting into real trouble, buy Attorney Andrew Branca's book on The Law of Self Defense. and study it carefully. It will tell you all you need to know.
"What's going on" hasn't really changed much since the days of George Washington, or the days of Geoffrey Chaucer for that matter. except for one key thing: most of us no longer have a duty to retreat before employing force to defend ourselves,
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked