Posting at gun forums ammo for prosecutors in civil trials? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Posting at gun forums ammo for prosecutors in civil trials?


iluv2viddyfilms
06-20-2011, 01:22
IF a self defense CCW shooting/killing goes on, could the prosecutors of the family of the dead perp possibly look on places like glocktalk to show how we brag about what we carry and how we're going to "Cap the bad guy" as evidence that we may be overly prepped or overly willing to defend ourselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they would paint us as CHarly Bronson in Death Wish, but still.

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 02:56
I would say almost absolutely.

Rick O'Shay
06-20-2011, 03:31
What is "overly prepped"? Carrying TWO 45's? :)

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 03:35
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/94015669.html

Case in point.... Not saying anything he posted there will be used (I actually think the forum deleted all his posts, as I can't find any of his past posts)

IGF

collim1
06-20-2011, 05:07
In my state if you shoot someone and the shoot is ruled justified (no criminal charges) the law states that no civil trial con be brought against you.

However, there is a reason I have never revealed my location, place of employment, or first or last name on this forum.

firedog978
06-20-2011, 05:22
In my state if you shoot someone and the shoot is ruled justified (no criminal charges) the law states that no civil trial con be brought against you.

However, there is a reason I have never revealed my location, place of employment, or first or last name on this forum.

If you're talking about a 'Castle Doctrine' law enacted in your state, and the shoot occured in your place of residence, automobile, motel room or any other place you legaly inhabit, you're likely correct. However, even in most states with a 'Castle Doctrine' law you can be charged in a civil trial if the shoot occured elsewhere (public place).

dosei
06-20-2011, 05:42
Let's see...have the rantings/writings/ramblings of a person ever been used in a court of law to put them in a bad light...

Duh...Yes, of course.

RussP
06-20-2011, 05:50
Then there is kwikrnu, aka Leonard Embody, infamous for Radnor Lake, Belle Meade, Costco, etc., who's LTCF was permanently suspended by Tennessee. When he appealed the temporary suspension, the State submitted a 3"- 4" stack of printouts of his internet postings during discovery. Leonard withdrew his appeal and by State law, the suspension went into permanent status.

While not a civil case per se, it does illustrate that one's internet posting history can come into play.

dosei
06-20-2011, 06:01
And even more recently (although not gun related, but certainly "Internet stuff being used against you" related) we have the Anthony Weiner fiasco. While not used in a courtroom, it still provided enough leverage to shut him down.

collim1
06-20-2011, 06:27
If you're talking about a 'Castle Doctrine' law enacted in your state, and the shoot occured in your place of residence, automobile, motel room or any other place you legaly inhabit, you're likely correct. However, even in most states with a 'Castle Doctrine' law you can be charged in a civil trial if the shoot occured elsewhere (public place).

Its more of a "Self Defense Act" that includes a castle doctrine, but also establishes a no need to attempt retreat before using force and includes the civil suit statute as well.

Pretty good law, but there has been no challenge to it yet that I am aware of.

cowboywannabe
06-20-2011, 07:10
Its more of a "Self Defense Act" that includes a castle doctrine, but also establishes a no need to attempt retreat before using force and includes the civil suit statute as well.

Pretty good law, but there has been no challenge to it yet that I am aware of.

gotta love our state bro....

oh, and my name is John Q. Citizen
address is 123 elm street, your town usa.

Sam Spade
06-20-2011, 07:38
gotta love our state bro....

oh, and my name is John Q. Citizen
address is 123 elm street, your town usa.

You're looking at information flow in the wrong direction. No one's going to sue cowboy and try to find his stuff in real life. They're going to have the real you in a sworn deposition and ask what social media you're involved in and what screen names you use.

And while states can protect you against suits for acts of self-defense, they can't protect you for acts of negligence. How do we know/who decides if a shooting was negligent? Often, the jury decides during the trial.

poodleshooter1
06-20-2011, 07:44
Tagged....

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 07:46
However, even in most states with a 'Castle Doctrine' law you can be charged in a civil trial if the shoot occured elsewhere (public place).

Uh, no. Most Castle Doctrines have clauses for civil immunity (at least all of the ones I've read). Our's does.

IGF

ImpeachObama
06-20-2011, 07:53
If the offender was a little more clean cut, perhaps his harassment with open carry wouldn't have been as bad. He looks criminal like, don't you agree?

Sam Spade
06-20-2011, 07:53
Uh, no. Most Castle Doctrines have clauses for civil immunity (at least all of the ones I've read). Our's does.

IGF

You have civil immunity for what, exactly?

IndyGunFreak
06-20-2011, 08:36
You have civil immunity for what, exactly?

You cannot be sued for civil damages after either being found not guilty, or the case being ruled justified by the authorities.

IGF

Sam Spade
06-20-2011, 08:58
You cannot be sued for civil damages after either being found not guilty, or the case being ruled justified by the authorities.

IGF

I'm gonna need a cite to be able to illustrate my point.


ETA: Actually, I'm not. My point isn't directed at any one state, but rather at the general principle. First, just because the prosecutor doesn't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that the plantiff can't prove it by the lower standard of preponderance. OJ is the classic example of this.

Second, most Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws revolve around "reasonable" belief. If the plantiff can prove that you weren't reasonable, you don't get the shield. To run with IN, "However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

Who decides this reasonableness? Generally, it's a question of fact tossed to the jury. The law suit claims it can prove that your use of force wasn't reasonable, that your shooting wasn't necessary...*you* don't get unilateral veto over their allegation and you definately don't get to self-define reasonable. You weren't prosecuted? Go back to that beyond reasonable doubt vs. perponderance teeter-totter.

For the thread, will your "drag him in the house and stick a knife in his hand" posts come back to haunt you if those allegations are made in a suit. Absolutely they can.

Bren
06-20-2011, 09:14
IF a self defense CCW shooting/killing goes on, could the prosecutors of the family of the dead perp possibly look on places like glocktalk to show how we brag about what we carry and how we're going to "Cap the bad guy" as evidence that we may be overly prepped or overly willing to defend ourselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they would paint us as CHarly Bronson in Death Wish, but still.

Sure, if the case was questionable enough to get that far along. That's the same type of case (where justification is questionable and you actually end up in court) where things like lighter triggers could come into play. However, most self-defense shootings are clear enough that that isn't an issue.

Bren
06-20-2011, 09:16
I'm gonna need a cite to be able to illustrate my point.

In Kentucky, the law would be KRS 503.085. It was part of the "castle doctrine" set of statutes/bills a few years ago, so I'd say several states have it.

503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force -- Exceptions.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.

mrsurfboard
06-20-2011, 11:14
First, they would have to know you post on Glock Talk. Second, they would have to know your user name. Absent that, I don't see how they could even know or find your posts.

David Armstrong
06-20-2011, 11:23
First, they would have to know you post on Glock Talk. Second, they would have to know your user name. Absent that, I don't see how they could even know or find your posts.

Not really. All they need to do is get a warrant for your computer and they can find out all sorts of things. You might even be forced to provide that info as part of the investigative/discovery process.

BTW, for all you folks talking about how the castle doctrine and such protects you, remember that it cost Joe Horn five figures and he didn't even get past the grand jury.

Bren
06-20-2011, 12:50
BTW, for all you folks talking about how the castle doctrine and such protects you, remember that it cost Joe Horn five figures and he didn't even get past the grand jury.

Joe Horn was, if any of the news info is true, one of those rare, very, very questionable cases I was talking about. In fact, I never saw anything in the news that would support Joe Horn being justified at all. He seems to have won by "grand jury nullification." It happens - I know of at least one case here where a guy was "no true billed," after shooting a prone, face-down burglar in the back of the head while trying to pistol whip him. It is also expensive and we know Joe Horn's name because his case was so far from normal.

In his case, assuming TX had the statute I cited above, the police would still have had the evidence to arrest him and the prosecutor had the evidence to prosecute. The grand jury decision does not involve a finding that he is justified, even though that may be implied.

John Rambo
06-20-2011, 12:52
In the event you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, your first step on the internet should be to Paypal something like 50 or 100 bucks to the site-admin for any websites you're on and ask that they immediately remove all trace of you from their site. Delete your social networking profiles immediately. Go through your emails and delete anything that you don't want publicly available. Do a disk swipe on your home PCs and then reinstall everything (this will ensure that any data retrieval on your blank sectors doesn't bring up old data) so it looks normal.

Remove every trace of yourself that can be used against you. These things won't help if they already know you're on Glocktalk and subpoena Eric's server(s), but if they just go blindly searching it'll make it that much harder to find.

tuica
06-20-2011, 13:03
I always urge anyone who may have to use a deadly weapon in self/others defense should attempt to understand the criminal and civil laws/rules/statutes that pertain to their jurisdiction. Good Luck.

Shadyscott69
06-20-2011, 13:10
If you're talking about a 'Castle Doctrine' law enacted in your state, and the shoot occured in your place of residence, automobile, motel room or any other place you legaly inhabit, you're likely correct. However, even in most states with a 'Castle Doctrine' law you can be charged in a civil trial if the shoot occured elsewhere (public place).

Not in SC.

Kriterian
06-20-2011, 13:14
First, they would have to know you post on Glock Talk. Second, they would have to know your user name. Absent that, I don't see how they could even know or find your posts.

They can ask you during sworn testimony to reveal it, and if you happened to lie it wouldn't be too hard to track down based on your ip address.

OctoberRust
06-20-2011, 13:30
They can ask you during sworn testimony to reveal it, and if you happened to lie it wouldn't be too hard to track down based on your ip address.


Exactly why you run through a proxy, or a proxy network such as tor onion:whistling:

Sam Spade
06-20-2011, 13:45
Guys that are suggesting that you find some clever way of concealing your past deeds are treading on some very thin ice.

mrsurfboard
06-20-2011, 13:56
Not really. All they need to do is get a warrant for your computer and they can find out all sorts of things. You might even be forced to provide that info as part of the investigative/discovery process.

BTW, for all you folks talking about how the castle doctrine and such protects you, remember that it cost Joe Horn five figures and he didn't even get past the grand jury.

What is your probable cause for the warrant. Search warrants aren't issued for fishing expeditions. You need an real, articulable reason to get such a warrant.

Bren
06-20-2011, 14:32
In the event you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, your first step on the internet should be to Paypal something like 50 or 100 bucks to the site-admin for any websites you're on and ask that they immediately remove all trace of you from their site. Delete your social networking profiles immediately. Go through your emails and delete anything that you don't want publicly available. Do a disk swipe on your home PCs and then reinstall everything (this will ensure that any data retrieval on your blank sectors doesn't bring up old data) so it looks normal.

Remove every trace of yourself that can be used against you. These things won't help if they already know you're on Glocktalk and subpoena Eric's server(s), but if they just go blindly searching it'll make it that much harder to find.


Interesting idea. While a "self-defense shooting" is not a crime, trying to get people to delete information in order to keep it from being used against you in court is. Here, even if you were justified in the shooting you could theoretically go to prison for tampering with evidence.

I'm gonna need a cite to be able to illustrate my point.


ETA: Actually, I'm not. My point isn't directed at any one state, but rather at the general principle. First, just because the prosecutor doesn't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that the plantiff can't prove it by the lower standard of preponderance. OJ is the classic example of this.


You are correct, but in some states, by statute, you can't be arrested, prosecuted or sued once a finding has been made that you were justified in using force in self-defense or some other situations. In addition, in Kentucky, the police have the additional burden of showing probable cause to believe you were not justified, before they can arrest you, in a self-defense case.

A "not guilty" by a criminal jury or a "no true bill" by a grand jury wouldn't do it and, so far, it is very unclear in our courts how that finding is made. But the law implies that your attorney can make a motion to dismiss, based on justification, so the court would have to decide the issue.

Sam Spade
06-20-2011, 16:17
You are correct, but in some states, by statute, you can't be arrested, prosecuted or sued once a finding has been made that you were justified in using force in self-defense or some other situations. In addition, in Kentucky, the police have the additional burden of showing probable cause to believe you were not justified, before they can arrest you, in a self-defense case.

A "not guilty" by a criminal jury or a "no true bill" by a grand jury wouldn't do it and, so far, it is very unclear in our courts how that finding is made. But the law implies that your attorney can make a motion to dismiss, based on justification, so the court would have to decide the issue.


That seems to be the case most everywhere. Castle/Stand your ground seems to have deterred a fair number of suits, but the concept is recent enough that there isn't much, if anything, that I've seen in the way of decisions.

What happened in AZ is that our law was thrown out. We had a section that said "no civil liability for justified conduct". However, the AZ Constitution says that, "No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person." The response to that court decision was another law that made the plantiff responsible for the defendant's legal costs and lost wages if the civil jury finds the defendant justified. Again, it puts the brakes on a lot of suits.

David Armstrong
06-20-2011, 19:04
Joe Horn was, if any of the news info is true, one of those rare, very, very questionable cases I was talking about. In fact, I never saw anything in the news that would support Joe Horn being justified at all. He seems to have won by "grand jury nullification." It happens - I know of at least one case here where a guy was "no true billed," after shooting a prone, face-down burglar in the back of the head while trying to pistol whip him. It is also expensive and we know Joe Horn's name because his case was so far from normal.
The case may not be particularly normal, but the issue is quite normal. A lot of expenses and problems that come up occur outside of the formal court environment.

David Armstrong
06-20-2011, 19:07
What is your probable cause for the warrant. Search warrants aren't issued for fishing expeditions. You need an real, articulable reason to get such a warrant.
Probable cause is simple...evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force.

ranburr1
06-20-2011, 22:24
BTW, for all you folks talking about how the castle doctrine and such protects you, remember that it cost Joe Horn five figures and he didn't even get past the grand jury.


Actually, you are mistaken on this issue. This happened in my community. Joe did hire a lawyer. That was more or less to handle the press. He was never in danger of being charged. From day one, the Pasadena police and the Harris county D.A.'s office called this a justified shooting. The national media and Quanel X were the only ones making a stink. They were both eventually quelled. It received so much national exposure that he received support in all forms from all over the country.

Lior
06-20-2011, 22:29
In this era of voluntary submission to searches of documents (i.e. posting things on the Internet), everything can be used against you.
I can imagine a Pharisee prosecutor trying to prove that I am a Christian by quoting my sig line...

mrsurfboard
06-20-2011, 22:38
Probable cause is simple...evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force.

:rofl: If only it was that easy. Like I said they aren't issued for fishing expeditions.

slama683
06-20-2011, 23:00
IF a self defense CCW shooting/killing goes on, could the prosecutors of the family of the dead perp possibly look on places like glocktalk to show how we brag about what we carry and how we're going to "Cap the bad guy" as evidence that we may be overly prepped or overly willing to defend ourselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they would paint us as CHarly Bronson in Death Wish, but still.

First, there are no "prosecutors" in a civil action. The correct term is plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney.

Second, yes. The attorneys will collect depositions from everyone involved, including the defendant (you), and may ask whatever question comes to mind, including what books you have, what training you have gone to, what social media you frequent, etc..

Third, there are no search warrants issued in civil trials/lawsuits. Search warrants are a tool of the state against a criminal defendant. In a civil trial, subpoenas will be used, as well as motions of discovery, which have a much lower standard for being issued by the court.

Some states do shield citizens in these instances. For instance, Texas law states that if a grand jury issues a no bill, then personal injury claims are limited. A good attorney will try to get around that, but the law is made specifically to keep bad guys from suing good guys if what happened to the bad guy is his own fault.

And finally, if the attorney thinks it will help, then he will absolutely try to paint you as "Mr. Deathwish" vigilante guy, whether it is accurate or not. That's the fun of a civil trial, which has more open rules of evidence and a lower standard of guilt than a criminal trial.

For instance, you may have a semi-auto pistol and a spare mag because you want to be prepared in case of a magazine malfunction. The opposing attorney will try to paint it like you want to get it on and bust two dozen shots off.

You might carry a .45 because you like the ballistics of the round or because your wife/father/grandfather gave you the pistol. He will paint it like you want to use a "killer" bullet.

You might send a pistol to a gunsmith for a cosmetic change or to fix an issue. He will say you are a "hot-shot".

You might go to private training classes to become more proficient and comfortable with your firearm. He will say "The defendant is so highly skilled that he could have shot my client in the leg instead".

Ain't court fun.

OD Green Glock 19
06-20-2011, 23:55
First, there are no "prosecutors" in a civil action. The correct term is plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney.

Second, yes. The attorneys will collect depositions from everyone involved, including the defendant (you), and may ask whatever question comes to mind, including what books you have, what training you have gone to, what social media you frequent, etc..

Third, there are no search warrants issued in civil trials/lawsuits. Search warrants are a tool of the state against a criminal defendant. In a civil trial, subpoenas will be used, as well as motions of discovery, which have a much lower standard for being issued by the court.

Some states do shield citizens in these instances. For instance, Texas law states that if a grand jury issues a no bill, then personal injury claims are limited. A good attorney will try to get around that, but the law is made specifically to keep bad guys from suing good guys if what happened to the bad guy is his own fault.

And finally, if the attorney thinks it will help, then he will absolutely try to paint you as "Mr. Deathwish" vigilante guy, whether it is accurate or not. That's the fun of a civil trial, which has more open rules of evidence and a lower standard of guilt than a criminal trial.

For instance, you may have a semi-auto pistol and a spare mag because you want to be prepared in case of a magazine malfunction. The opposing attorney will try to paint it like you want to get it on and bust two dozen shots off.

You might carry a .45 because you like the ballistics of the round or because your wife/father/grandfather gave you the pistol. He will paint it like you want to use a "killer" bullet.

You might send a pistol to a gunsmith for a cosmetic change or to fix an issue. He will say you are a "hot-shot".

You might go to private training classes to become more proficient and comfortable with your firearm. He will say "The defendant is so highly skilled that he could have shot my client in the leg instead".

Ain't court fun.
Great post.

Mister_Beefy
06-21-2011, 00:02
attention future lawyers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGMZsKXz94

Bren
06-21-2011, 05:10
Probable cause is simple...evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force.

If so, the judge wou;ld probably be P***ed that you came to him without probable cause to be;lieve a crime had been committed, for one. Than, even if there has been a criminal charge, you'd have to have more than speculation to say that the guy posted on a forum AND that the post would show something related to the crime. Fishing to see if a guy might have said stuff online that you could use agaisnt him would not result in admissible evidence. For instance, I a guy is arrested for murder, you can't get a warrant to say "there may be evidence that helps prove the murder in his house." You have to say, "particularly" (U.S. Const. Amend. IV) what the evidence is and why it should be in the house.

Bren
06-21-2011, 05:13
First, there are no "prosecutors" in a civil action. The correct term is plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney.

I took it he actually meant criminal case, hence the discussion of search warrants and such, but I guess a "civil action" with a "prosecutor" could go either way.

For those who are wondering, the other side in a civil suit can't get a search warrant or search your house, that is for criminal cases. In a civil case, they just have you give them what they want.

SouthernBoyVA
06-21-2011, 07:07
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no prosecutors in civil trials.

degoodman
06-21-2011, 08:58
In the event you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, your first step on the internet should be to Paypal something like 50 or 100 bucks to the site-admin for any websites you're on and ask that they immediately remove all trace of you from their site. Delete your social networking profiles immediately. Go through your emails and delete anything that you don't want publicly available. Do a disk swipe on your home PCs and then reinstall everything (this will ensure that any data retrieval on your blank sectors doesn't bring up old data) so it looks normal.

Remove every trace of yourself that can be used against you. These things won't help if they already know you're on Glocktalk and subpoena Eric's server(s), but if they just go blindly searching it'll make it that much harder to find.

I think you're going to find that this is called tampering with evidence or obstruction depending on how its cast by a prosecutor. In either case, its a crime.

Searching your computer, social media outlets, phone, etc for evidence of intent is not a "fishing expedition", its part of a homicide investigation or the deposition process related to a wrongful death tort. You can bet that the prosecutor or plantiff's counsel will have little issue getting very wide reaching warrants and subpoenas to discover anything they can about your mindset or intent prior to trial.

And as to "castle doctrine" and the limits on civil liability some of the recent statutes contain, that blanket doesn't cover nearly as much as you think. The first thing you might be surprised at is the legal bill for your attorney to assert in court that the statutory limits on liability even apply. And in at least one case in kentucky, which has strong limits on liability for justified self-defense, at least one trial judge read the statute and said that whether or not that limit applied was simply another question for the jury to decide.

My mom had a nice way of summing this kind of stuff up. You can't un-ring a bell. Once you've put it out there, you are going to find it really difficult to take it back, and if someone want to find it related to a criminal or civil proceeding, they will have basically no issue finding it and getting it admitted as evidence.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 10:12
Actually, you are mistaken on this issue. This happened in my community. Joe did hire a lawyer. That was more or less to handle the press. He was never in danger of being charged. From day one, the Pasadena police and the Harris county D.A.'s office called this a justified shooting. The national media and Quanel X were the only ones making a stink. They were both eventually quelled. It received so much national exposure that he received support in all forms from all over the country.
I didn't say he was in any danger of being charged. What I said was that the shooting ended up costing him a significant amount of money even though he was well within the law.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 10:14
:rofl: If only it was that easy. Like I said they aren't issued for fishing expeditions.
And searching for records of evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force in a self defense and use of force case are not fishing expeditions.:whistling: Of course if it is civil instead of criminal there isn't even that issue, as you get to work with a different set of rules.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 10:27
If so, the judge wou;ld probably be P***ed that you came to him without probable cause to be;lieve a crime had been committed, for one.
Don't know where some folks are getting their law degrees, but apparently they need to get a refund. The issue of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed has nothing to do with whether or not you get permission to search for additional or supplementary evidence relating to the crime, or are granted access as part of the discovery, or several other variations on a theme.
Than, even if there has been a criminal charge, you'd have to have more than speculation to say that the guy posted on a forum AND that the post would show something related to the crime. Fishing to see if a guy might have said stuff online that you could use against him would not result in admissible evidence. For instance, I a guy is arrested for murder, you can't get a warrant to say "there may be evidence that helps prove the murder in his house." You have to say, "particularly" (U.S. Const. Amend. IV) what the evidence is and why it should be in the house.
I see. So all this evidence that has come up in so many trials that is found on the defendants computer is illegally obtained? I don't think so. Getting a warrant or using discovery to find out what a person has been researching on the computer is no different than getting a warrant or a subpoena to find any other material. As degoodman said, "Searching your computer, social media outlets, phone, etc for evidence of intent is not a "fishing expedition", its part of a homicide investigation or the deposition process related to a wrongful death tort. You can bet that the prosecutor or plaintiff's counsel will have little issue getting very wide reaching warrants and subpoenas to discover anything they can about your mindset or intent prior to trial. "

mrsurfboard
06-21-2011, 13:07
And searching for records of evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force in a self defense and use of force case are not fishing expeditions.:whistling: Of course if it is civil instead of criminal there isn't even that issue, as you get to work with a different set of rules.

I don't know what state you live in, but in NJ that would never fly.

John Rambo
06-21-2011, 13:21
In cases of the message boards, it would depend on what you can prove, not what is true. Look, if the data doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. They can't subpoena every gun site across the US on a hunch.

In the case of your computer, not only is it what you can prove, but its also impossible for them to get any kind of judgement against you for the blank sectors on your hard drive not containing data they can recover. Notice I said swipe the drive then reload everything so it looks normal.

And in both cases, they would have to prove that removing data not involved in the incident itself is a criminal act. Which would be difficult. There is no law that stops me from PMing Eric and saying, "Heres 50 bucks, can you remove everything with a reference to my user account in it?"

As with everything, do so at your own risk.

ranburr1
06-21-2011, 13:49
I didn't say he was in any danger of being charged. What I said was that the shooting ended up costing him a significant amount of money even though he was well within the law.

And I am telling you that it did not cost him the money you seem to think.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 14:16
I don't know what state you live in, but in NJ that would never fly.
They don't allow an investigation to gather more evidence after an arrest in NJ? Somehow I doubt that.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 14:17
And I am telling you that it did not cost him the money you seem to think.
Maybe it cost more than you think? I have no reason to think the attorney would just make that stuff up.

ranburr1
06-21-2011, 14:39
Maybe it cost more than you think? I have no reason to think the attorney would just make that stuff up.

Maybe it cost less than you think? I am more inclined to listen to those signing the check. I will admit that this was a non typical case and it probably would have cost what you are saying in most cases. But, it didn't in this one.

David Armstrong
06-21-2011, 21:26
Maybe it cost less than you think? I am more inclined to listen to those signing the check. I will admit that this was a non typical case and it probably would have cost what you are saying in most cases. But, it didn't in this one.
If you have a note from Joe Horn saying that the shooting cost him X dollars, I'll go for it. Until then, like I said, I have no reason to think the attorney would just make that up, and really can't even imagine a reason for him to do so. But I'm going on vacation for a while, maybe I'll check with him if I get into the area.

OldCurlyWolf
06-22-2011, 00:31
IF a self defense CCW shooting/killing goes on, could the prosecutors of the family of the dead perp possibly look on places like glocktalk to show how we brag about what we carry and how we're going to "Cap the bad guy" as evidence that we may be overly prepped or overly willing to defend ourselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they would paint us as CHarly Bronson in Death Wish, but still.

In a civil trial there is no prosecutor. There are attorney(s) for the plaintiff (entity(s) bringing suit) and attorney(s) for the respondent (entity(s) being sued).

And yes if they can bring suit against you and can prove that you posted something on a message board that might weigh in their favor, you can bet they will try to get it admitted as evidence against you.

ICARRY2
06-22-2011, 11:18
There are dozens of gun boards. How are they going to know your screen names if you don't tell them or deny having any?

mrsurfboard
06-22-2011, 12:54
They don't allow an investigation to gather more evidence after an arrest in NJ? Somehow I doubt that.

Again, what is your probably cause for asking for the search warrant? A judge will not issue a search warrant unless you have probable cause that the search will turn up evidence of the crime. The fact that you were arrested doesn't give LE carte blanch to get a warrant for your computer unless the PC component is met.

Sheepdog Scout
06-22-2011, 14:43
There are dozens of gun boards. How are they going to know your screen names if you don't tell them or deny having any?

Tracking your IP address I suppose.

dosei
06-22-2011, 15:27
There are dozens of gun boards. How are they going to know your screen names if you don't tell them or deny having any?

Lying is a losing strategy.

degoodman
06-22-2011, 23:06
Again, what is your probably cause for asking for the search warrant? A judge will not issue a search warrant unless you have probable cause that the search will turn up evidence of the crime. The fact that you were arrested doesn't give LE carte blanch to get a warrant for your computer unless the PC component is met.

See, the thing is you're not just arrested at that point. You are likely charged with a homicide offense based on the evidence collected at the scene already. The evidence already collected, possibly even including your own statements at the scene or in an interrogation room will constitute the probable cause to investigate your motivation for the assault or homicide.

This is the sticky point about lethal force in self defense. In order to assert self defense as a justification for your actions, you must necessarily admit to acts that absent that justification represent high degree felony crimes. At that point your writings, electronic communications, social media and blog posts, etc are all eligible for discovery because they can establish your motive.

Another thing you're going to find is that LE has pretty significant powers to seize computers, cell phones, etc before a warrant is obtained to secure the evidence against possible destruction as alluded to by other poster, until a warrant can be obtained to examine the contents of those devices. The whole exigent circumstances exclusion.

aeroengr
06-23-2011, 01:19
However, there is a reason I have never revealed my location, place of employment, or first or last name on this forum.

That's fine and dandy for the casual observer, but if you are seriously being investigated into, they can always just use your IP address and track you down. Just FYI.

H&K 4 LIFE
06-23-2011, 09:22
IF a self defense CCW shooting/killing goes on, could the prosecutors of the family of the dead perp possibly look on places like glocktalk to show how we brag about what we carry and how we're going to "Cap the bad guy" as evidence that we may be overly prepped or overly willing to defend ourselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say they would paint us as CHarly Bronson in Death Wish, but still.

I'll take a different approach to this...

How about we just avoid doing things such as "bragging about what you carry" or talking about "capping" people? :dunno:

furioso2112
06-23-2011, 10:06
There are other considerations. When the prosecutor or counsel for plaintiff tries to indicate to the trier of fact (could be judge or jury) that a person is, for instance, a bloodthirsty vigilante, with a bizarre fixation on guns, the defense or counsel for respondent/defendant will likely try to indicate that the defendant is a reasonable gun owner who was fixated on being able to do the proper thing with the least harmful means - that's why he took the training. He had aftermarket parts on his gun to make it safer, more accurate, etc.

It works both ways. A person on trial is being tried in front of a judge or jury - they are there to weigh facts (and law, if it's the judge). It's not as if the other side alone gets to try to convince them that the defendant or respondent is a bad guy.

Rather than planning to break the law, tamper with evidence or lie under oath, consider another approach. I have a 3k+ post count, and if anyone wants to look through and read them all, he's going to find posts that indicate that I am a reasonable and serious firearms enthusiast, that I alternatively use this this forum under the guise of anonymity and openly indicating my true identity, that I use it for information gathering and for fun, that I clearly use it as a stream of consciousness time killer.

It will be easier to support that none of my posts can be taken as an indication of my true nature than it will be to single out an individual post here or there that is any kind of conclusive or even persuasive evidence that I am a bloodthirsty weirdo.

So for those who throw in posts on threads about giraffes developing long necks for bizarre reasons, or about very bizarre proclivities - think about it. If I am ever in the unlikely situation where it comes down to my GT posts to prove my character in a trial (there's a whole other can of worms for trial - specific acts (posting on GT) to prove character? that can typically be avoided all together in a criminal trial), the deluge of posts that indicate clearly that I post all manner of things that are wildly inconsistent with each other and with my actual behavior, lifestyle, and outlook, and are either anonymous to the point of indicating that I am posting simply to have a philosophical discussion or identifiable enough to indicate that a reasonable person would never post something like a particular post unless it was clearly in jest, is going to be a wash at best.

And if the other side wants to pay its counsel (or counsel on the other side thinks some post is going to be worthwhile enough to enter into evidence that it is worth spending the tens or hundreds of hours it would take to read, get a context for, and search for a potential rebuttal so that he can be prepared to argue against it) to try and find a post, there are ten more of mine that either say the exact opposite or indicate that the clear intent is either unknowable, discernible only upon my explanation, or so clearly made for pure entertainment value that it is unreliable and ridiculous to base a decision on.

I just don't feel like my posts here open me to liability.

furioso2112
06-23-2011, 10:15
See, the thing is you're not just arrested at that point. You are likely charged with a homicide offense based on the evidence collected at the scene already. The evidence already collected, possibly even including your own statements at the scene or in an interrogation room will constitute the probable cause to investigate your motivation for the assault or homicide.

This is the sticky point about lethal force in self defense. In order to assert self defense as a justification for your actions, you must necessarily admit to acts that absent that justification represent high degree felony crimes. At that point your writings, electronic communications, social media and blog posts, etc are all eligible for discovery because they can establish your motive.

Another thing you're going to find is that LE has pretty significant powers to seize computers, cell phones, etc before a warrant is obtained to secure the evidence against possible destruction as alluded to by other poster, until a warrant can be obtained to examine the contents of those devices. The whole exigent circumstances exclusion.

Right, but 'eligible for discovery' is far from 'admissible as evidence'. The trier of fact does not necessarily get to examine every bit of info that is eligible for discovery.

The main point, really, is how likely it is that posts on a forum are going to be a significant factor in a criminal or civil suit that leads to undeserved negative consequences for the D or respondent. It's quite unlikely for a case where the underlying action is based on a legitimate shoot. If I were pressing a civil case against me, for a shooting that looked lawful most people already, was never tried criminally, and my strongest evidence is my posts on GT, I'm not going to invest as much time in that case as others - it's just not reasonable to do so, and would as likely lead to lost income or even sanctions as to a winning argument.

I wonder if Eric will tell us how many times he's been forced to provide information relating to a GT'ers post activity because of a case brought against that poster.

RussP
06-23-2011, 10:17
I wonder if Eric will tell us how many times he's been forced to provide information relating to a GT'ers post activity because of a case brought against that poster.No....

RRTX11
06-23-2011, 11:47
[QUOTE=IndyGunFreak;17519831]You cannot be sued for civil damages after either being found not guilty, or the case being ruled justified by the authorities.

YEA! just ask OJ Simpson about that one!

federali
06-23-2011, 12:14
If a prosecutor/civil attorney thinks to look, then yes, your words can be used to stitch you into the middle of a legal minefield. Likewise, in my opinion, those bumper stickers, promising an armed response at the slightest provocation, can help paint you as a gun battle waiting to happen.

In the exercise of our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, we must always be careful not to leave a trail of legal crumbs that can be used to impeach our character or credibility. In discussing thorny and complex legal issues, it's always best to use the phrase "in my opinion," especially when trying to interpret our complex gun laws for the benefit of others.

Ticman
06-23-2011, 18:21
I have to ask: Would the your 5th ammendment rights not work for this as well? If you don't take the stand they can't ask the question can they?

degoodman
06-23-2011, 19:56
I have to ask: Would the your 5th ammendment rights not work for this as well? If you don't take the stand they can't ask the question can they?

Exactly how do you plan on successfully asserting the affirmative defense of justification without taking the stand in a self defense shooting? Sure, you can take the 5th, but good luck finding a jury that's going to buy your assertion of self defense AFTER the prosecutor has said his bit when you refuse to talk. I'm sure that's not how its supposed to be. But I'll bet 10 to your 1 that's how its going to be.

kensteele
06-23-2011, 20:27
I wonder if Eric will tell us how many times he's been forced to provide information relating to a GT'ers post activity because of a case brought against that poster.

There are 1000s of forum administrators that may be willing to provide relevant information. GT and gun forums in particular are not unique in this discussion. A shooter can post in the tivo forum or on the kawasaki forum. I wouldn't ask the question how many times but has it ever happened before. That's not exactly a big secret since trials in America are public. Search the records or ask a lawyer, I bet it happens a bazillion times since we all know the Internet is full of useful details whether was are talking about a car accident described on the corvette forum or a pre-existing health condition revealed on the transplant forum or even cable theft and hacking bragging on the tivo forum.

The same question is asked all the time, can the cops give me a ticket if I post that I was speeding on I-99 last night with no one around. We all know the answer is they probably could if they wanted to.

kensteele
06-23-2011, 20:30
The very same people that tell you that your internet words can be used against you are the same folk that tell you to go ahead and talk to the police and help your way out of the situation. Don't talk to the police and don't post on the internet.

federali
06-24-2011, 06:15
If involved in a self-defense shooting, the standard advice is to promise full cooperation but to invoke your 5th Amendment rights until you've had an opportunity to consult with an attorney. As we are not lawyers, we should be aware that the most innocent remark can be used to incriminate us in a criminal trial or to try to deny us the defense of justification. The forums contain many instances of anti-gun municipalities prosecuting individuals in what appears to be clear-cut self-defense scenarios.
Say something like, "I didn't mean to shoot him," "the gun sort of went off," "I only wanted to scare him," and your claim of justification goes out the window.

badge315
06-24-2011, 08:30
I've been saying this for years...never post anything online that you don't want to hear read back to you in court (or in the Human Resources office at work). It's that simple.:dunno:

HerrGlock
06-24-2011, 09:02
You cannot be sued for civil damages after either being found not guilty, or the case being ruled justified by the authorities.

YEA! just ask OJ Simpson about that one!

So OJ was in a self defense shooting in a castle doctrine state? When was this?

HerrGlock
06-24-2011, 09:03
Lying is a losing strategy.

Not to mention it's illegal to lie to an investigator in more than a few instances.

Manzoli7
06-24-2011, 12:46
If you are not posting blood thirsty sounding things I do not think it will hurt you. If you are just trying to find info about the most reliable and effective ammo , gun, holster and tactics I think you will be O.K. If you are the type of person who thinks its funny to see someone killed and acts like Bevis and Butthead and posts that then it will hurt you.

Thorazine
06-24-2011, 14:59
Probable cause is simple...evidence relating to beliefs, claims, and discussions regarding self defense and use of force.

You really think some crack heads family is going to pay out for the extra investigative work?

If this was a criminal case -- sure.

Civil case (according to the original post)? Not so sure.

degoodman
06-24-2011, 20:39
You really think some crack heads family is going to pay out for the extra investigative work?

If this was a criminal case -- sure.

Civil case (according to the original post)? Not so sure.

Perhaps you should research the concept of an attorney taking a case on a contingency basis.

Attorneys taking on civil cases are as much accountants as they are lawyers. When deciding whether or not to take on a case, they are very good at determining what a likely settlement is worth and what their costs will be to realize that settlement. They know they can't get blood from a turnip, so they'll be looking at what they can squeeze out of you alot harder than what they can squeeze out of their client. Rest assured, if you got assets or income that they can go after, what their client can afford won't matter much in their analysis.

Angry Fist
06-24-2011, 20:51
T'zagged....

Nakanokalronin
06-25-2011, 07:02
Never heard of someone using hotrod automobile forums against a person in a car crash. If its a good shoot I don't see them getting an idea like taking your computers to see if your a part of some gun enthusiast forums.

Thorazine
06-26-2011, 13:38
Perhaps you should research the concept of an attorney taking a case on a contingency basis.

Seems like most attorneys these days take contingency basis cases on quantity not quality. =D

Also seems like most of the cases the next of kin is either,

1) In prison.
2) Too high to consult an attorney.
3) Or just doesn't care because they are too high all the time. =D

dugo
06-27-2011, 20:56
You really think some crack heads family is going to pay out for the extra investigative work?

If this was a criminal case -- sure.

Civil case (according to the original post)? Not so sure.

Depends on the size of your pockets, and your insurance policy. If the client really can't stand it, their lawyer will stand the costs and get it back out of the recovery, if he thinks the case is worth it.

dugo
06-27-2011, 20:59
Never heard of someone using hotrod automobile forums against a person in a car crash. If its a good shoot I don't see them getting an idea like taking your computers to see if your a part of some gun enthusiast forums.

Could happen, though. Especially now a-days.

dugo
06-27-2011, 21:41
...

Another thing you're going to find is that LE has pretty significant powers to seize computers, cell phones, etc before a warrant is obtained to secure the evidence against possible destruction as alluded to by other poster, until a warrant can be obtained to examine the contents of those devices. The whole exigent circumstances exclusion.


Good point.

Haven't thought this through, but I also suspect that if the prosecution or plaintiff's attorney got wind of your interest in firearms, it might not be too much trouble to go to the 5 or 10 most likely gun forums and try to get them to reveal whether or not you are on their site, and subsequently get a look at your posts. A subpoena would probably be used, and work, but I wonder if it would really be legally required.

Have not checked, but once you put comments on line, the posts themselves are probably deemed "published". If so, the only issues you would have left would be the site admitting you post there identifying which posts are yours. They already have your identity, and the posts are already out there, so this is just connecting the dots.

Once you give info to a third party, there may be no reasonable expectation that the third party will keep your info private, anyway; and, absent statutes directly addressing this, you may have no standing to object to the use of the information by the plaintiff/prosecutor once the forum gives it to them. (This could be so, even though you might be able to sue the forum in a separate action if the forum breached some agreement with you.)

dugo
06-27-2011, 21:54
(Delete double post.)

dugo
06-27-2011, 21:57
There are other considerations. When the prosecutor or counsel for plaintiff tries to indicate to the trier of fact (could be judge or jury) that a person is, for instance, a bloodthirsty vigilante, with a bizarre fixation on guns, the defense or counsel for respondent/defendant will likely try to indicate that the defendant is a reasonable gun owner who was fixated on being able to do the proper thing with the least harmful means - that's why he took the training. He had aftermarket parts on his gun to make it safer, more accurate, etc.

It works both ways. A person on trial is being tried in front of a judge or jury - they are there to weigh facts (and law, if it's the judge). It's not as if the other side alone gets to try to convince them that the defendant or respondent is a bad guy.

Rather than planning to break the law, tamper with evidence or lie under oath, consider another approach. I have a 3k+ post count, and if anyone wants to look through and read them all, he's going to find posts that indicate that I am a reasonable and serious firearms enthusiast, that I alternatively use this this forum under the guise of anonymity and openly indicating my true identity, that I use it for information gathering and for fun, that I clearly use it as a stream of consciousness time killer.

It will be easier to support that none of my posts can be taken as an indication of my true nature than it will be to single out an individual post here or there that is any kind of conclusive or even persuasive evidence that I am a bloodthirsty weirdo.

So for those who throw in posts on threads about giraffes developing long necks for bizarre reasons, or about very bizarre proclivities - think about it. If I am ever in the unlikely situation where it comes down to my GT posts to prove my character in a trial (there's a whole other can of worms for trial - specific acts (posting on GT) to prove character? that can typically be avoided all together in a criminal trial), the deluge of posts that indicate clearly that I post all manner of things that are wildly inconsistent with each other and with my actual behavior, lifestyle, and outlook, and are either anonymous to the point of indicating that I am posting simply to have a philosophical discussion or identifiable enough to indicate that a reasonable person would never post something like a particular post unless it was clearly in jest, is going to be a wash at best.

And if the other side wants to pay its counsel (or counsel on the other side thinks some post is going to be worthwhile enough to enter into evidence that it is worth spending the tens or hundreds of hours it would take to read, get a context for, and search for a potential rebuttal so that he can be prepared to argue against it) to try and find a post, there are ten more of mine that either say the exact opposite or indicate that the clear intent is either unknowable, discernible only upon my explanation, or so clearly made for pure entertainment value that it is unreliable and ridiculous to base a decision on.

I just don't feel like my posts here open me to liability.

Well, that's an argument.

kensteele
06-27-2011, 22:19
Good point.

Haven't thought this through, but I also suspect that if the prosecution or plaintiff's attorney got wind of your interest in firearms, it might not be too much trouble to go to the 5 or 10 most likely gun forums and try to get them to reveal whether or not you are on their site, and subsequently get a look at your posts. A subpoena would probably be used, and work, but I wonder if it would really be legally required.

Have not checked, but once you put comments on line, the posts themselves are probably deemed "published". If so, the only issues you would have left would be the site admitting you post there identifying which posts are yours. They already have your identity, and the posts are already out there, so this is just connecting the dots.

Once you give info to a third party, there may be no reasonable expectation that the third party will keep your info private, anyway; and, absent statutes directly addressing this, you may have no standing to object to the use of the information by the plaintiff/prosecutor once the forum gives it to them. (This could be so, even though you might be able to sue the forum in a separate action if the forum breached some agreement with you.)

We know and trust our administrators here. In other places around the internet, how do you know? How many people have access to your posts? Don't you think there are at a couple dozen people that can change your post to say anything they want? Once you post something on the internet in the public space, it's pretty much tainted; no telling how many people touch it, hack it.

If you post a jpg of your car, that picture can end up two or three forums away with a different license plate on it. If the DA scoops that P.S. picture and tries to present it as evidence, that doesn't make sense. What I am trying to say is who knows what is being tampered with, what is the chain of custody, how do you even know who typed in that message at the keyboard? Might be circumstantial, might help paint a picture or show a pattern, but I would hardly call it conclusive. If your atty allows internet posting alone to hang you when there isn't other evidence, get a new atty. And example is you post you were speeding down I-99 and when you passed that red barn, you were well over 100mph. A week later, you get a ticket in the mail from the Highway Patrol. You can pay it....or you can fight it and they'll have your post. Might be rare but people posting videos have certainly rec'd tickets (lower burden of proof I understand).

My previous example, in car forums, folks often talk about drag racing on public streets. If you posted you just smoked a white trans-am and when you turned the corner, you lost him, not sure what happened in the dust, and you say this was last Monday on I-99 at the Jackson Curve and that white trans-am crashed and died, guess what? You'll probably get a phone call or a visit if the right people run across this.

Wait until insurance companies turn up the dial on scouring your info on the internet. Might very well be legal.

dugo
06-29-2011, 05:34
We know and trust our administrators here. In other places around the internet, how do you know? How many people have access to your posts? Don't you think there are at a couple dozen people that can change your post to say anything they want? Once you post something on the internet in the public space, it's pretty much tainted; no telling how many people touch it, hack it.

If you post a jpg of your car, that picture can end up two or three forums away with a different license plate on it. If the DA scoops that P.S. picture and tries to present it as evidence, that doesn't make sense. What I am trying to say is who knows what is being tampered with, what is the chain of custody, how do you even know who typed in that message at the keyboard? Might be circumstantial, might help paint a picture or show a pattern, but I would hardly call it conclusive. If your atty allows internet posting alone to hang you when there isn't other evidence, get a new atty. And example is you post you were speeding down I-99 and when you passed that red barn, you were well over 100mph. A week later, you get a ticket in the mail from the Highway Patrol. You can pay it....or you can fight it and they'll have your post. Might be rare but people posting videos have certainly rec'd tickets (lower burden of proof I understand).

My previous example, in car forums, folks often talk about drag racing on public streets. If you posted you just smoked a white trans-am and when you turned the corner, you lost him, not sure what happened in the dust, and you say this was last Monday on I-99 at the Jackson Curve and that white trans-am crashed and died, guess what? You'll probably get a phone call or a visit if the right people run across this.

Wait until insurance companies turn up the dial on scouring your info on the internet. Might very well be legal.

Good arguments also. (No question about good intentions of the admin's here, by the way.)

Guess if I were trying to decide whether -- and how -- to use internet posts, the extra trouble to prove-up the integrity of the posts would weigh in to the mix. Still, the lawyer prosecuting the case (civil or criminal) might like having the info on hand just in case it could be useful. Maybe cross-ex (by way of impeachment) would be the place to use it, if the opportunity arose, since that would bypass some of the complications. Even if the posts were denied or subsequently discredited, the jury would have heard it. (Sounds like "sneaky lawyer tricks", but I guess trials do have an element of theatre.)

I can imagine motions prior to trial to exclude internet stuff -- or, alternatively, require sufficient proofs of reliability. (Like I said, haven't looked in to this, so I appreciate the discussion.)

Misty02
06-30-2011, 03:48
Its more of a "Self Defense Act" that includes a castle doctrine, but also establishes a no need to attempt retreat before using force and includes the civil suit statute as well.

Pretty good law, but there has been no challenge to it yet that I am aware of.

Same here; however, in order to enjoy the immunity from civil suit provided by the law (if youíre not in your house or in your vehicle) the shooting still has to be declared justified. BTW, it doesnít necessarily mean they canít sue you, what appears will be impossible is that they win.

Often I read about people that seem to think their case of SD will be simple and clean cut. I hope that is true for anyone faced with such an event but we need to acknowledge that in real life things arenít often fair and they donít always happen as they should.

Assume for a minute you are in a park and Johnny (22) and Billy (24) attempt to mug you. You shoot Billy in SD and the other runs away. As Murphy would have it, no one else saw a thing, no video to prove a thing either. The police gets your full statement (after consulting and in the presence of your attorney, of course). A few days later Johnny goes to the police, he says he had not gone earlier because he was terribly shaken up by the event. He testifies that he and Billy were just minding their own business when out of nowhere you shot at them. Billy had been in really bad shape but he finally recovers. Neither Billy nor Johnny have a criminal record. We wonít call them smart but letís say that before they ventured into their life of crime they planned what to say if they were ever caught and a few other contingencies. If it fits better, letís say a family member got to him in time to develop matching stories.

What you will be facing, unless your lawyer and investigators can prove otherwise, will no longer be a SD case (in spite the truth) and youíll have no immunity from civil suit.

(I sometimes come up with scenarios that scare the living daylights out of me!)

.

Misty02
06-30-2011, 04:49
double post, sorry.

Misty02
06-30-2011, 04:51
I think they'll likely state that we should have no expectation of privacy once weíve posted something to the internet. Even if you deleted all posts youíve made in the past and reset your computer there is still this:


http://www.googleguide.com/cached_pages.html (http://www.googleguide.com/cached_pages.html)

Practically every search result includes a Cached link. Clicking on that link takes you to the Google cached version of that web page, instead of the current version of the page. This is useful if the original page is unavailable because of:

∑ Internet congestion
∑ A down, overloaded, or just slow website
∑ The ownerís recently removing the page from the Web

Sometimes you can access the cached version from a site that otherwise require registration or a subscription.

Note: Since Googleís servers are typically faster than many web servers, you can often access a pageís cached version faster than the page itself.


It would not be difficult to assume that if it can be proven that we deliberately deleted traces of our online activity they will be able to make up whatever reason they want for it; perhaps far worse than the original reason, and thus creating greater suspicion of our intent and/or character.

To think that Eric would agree to not provide any evidence required of him in an investigation is not sound thinking, more so if weíre talking about a criminal investigation.

As to any perceived violation of privacy should our posts be disclosed Iíll have to ask, once you press the ďsubmitĒ button who does your post belong to? Would laws in various states differ? If so, which stateís law is prevalent (poster, server, host, etc.)?

.

RussP
06-30-2011, 05:14
[FONT=Verdana]Assume for a minute you are in a park and Johnny (22) and Billy (24) attempt to mug you. You shoot Billy in SD and the other runs away. As Murphy would have it, no one else saw a thing, no video to prove a thing either. The police gets your full statement (after consulting and in the presence of your attorney, of course). A few days later Johnny goes to the police, he says he had not gone earlier because he was terribly shaken up by the event. He testifies that he and Billy were just minding their own business when out of nowhere you shot at them. Billy had been in really bad shape but he finally recovers. Neither Billy nor Johnny have a criminal record. We wonít call them smart but letís say that before they ventured into their life of crime they planned what to say if they were ever caught and a few other contingencies. If it fits better, letís say a family member got to him in time to develop matching stories.

What you will be facing, unless your lawyer and investigators can prove otherwise, will no longer be a SD case (in spite the truth) and youíll have no immunity from civil suit.

(I sometimes come up with scenarios that scare the living daylights out of me!)

.:couch::couch: No kidding!!

Misty02
06-30-2011, 05:30
:couch::couch: No kidding!!

Heck, after I posted that one I started thinking about all the places we go to where there may be no cameras. Cameras are double edge weapons though; most donít capture sound thus not providing proof of verbal threats. Even on the visual, it may capture the back of the attacker where the jury canít see hand gesture or content while they get a perfect view of your reaction.

Some have a tendency to believe that just because they know they would never intentionally hurt another human being unless they were in danger that the facts/ evidence will always exonerate them. It is scary, but that may not always be the case.

.