Some Discretion

[Tanzer]

Got a private message from a member today - a good poster and I got a bit quick with him on these boards. Hope he understands based on my private reply, but something has been bugging me. To avoid any other misunderstandings, please let me offer this out in the open. Respond or don't, I just want to clarify.
I hope folks keep in mind that the internet is not private. What we say & show here is out there for the world to see. I get very leary when people ask questions that seem designed to elicit haphazard responses. The anti-gunners watch forums like this, and I'll guarantee there are a few here. These folks have Sarah Brady on speed dial and are just waiting to read things like: "I keep it cocked and loaded under my pillow, and when I hear a noise, I spray the dark corners of the room".
Far be it from me to tell you what to post - that's for the mods at their discretion. There are plenty of videos showing idiots shooting bottles off their little brother's heads, and yes, they're interesting to say the least, and hey, you can respond in what ever way you want - it's your right. Just don't complain about the headlines if you offer up raw beef for the antis.
If you ever get in a situation, everything you ever posted can be called as evidence. Uh-oh, I'm ranting. I'm not trying to get us not trusting one another, but we choose what to type, so put a post-it on your screen reminding you that the folks at the U.N. are waiting for us to throw away our privileges.

 

[JWT]

Good post Tanzer.

You're right, the internet is not private and everything any of us write is there for the entire world to see, ponder, digest, etc.

Perhaps the most important point you make is that anything posted can, and would, be used as evidence if it was ever deemed useful in any criminal or civil legal action.

As we've all been told several times, think twice, post once.

 

[redblair]

Excellent point that I wish more people thought about when they post. Everything we write here represents us.

B

 

[TwoXForr]

Good Post, unfortuntely all this can be used against you in a court of law, showing mind set.

I read a lot more than I post, especially in the Tactics area. One quick post meant to be funny could be dug up later on and used against me even if I was justified during the course of my duties in a shooting situation.

 

[buzz_knox]

What you post can also affect you in other ways. There are people I will not do business or knowingly (i.e. if they will be a student in the same class) train with based on their postings. I know other individuals (including instructors) who feel the same way. The internet removes some identity and allows one to be one's true self to a larger degree than face to face dealings, where social conventions might apply. That's not always a good thing for some people.

 

[209]

Good post.

Don't type anything you think you may need to defend later.

The web is a cool thing to use, but it is truly amazing what can come back to haunt you. Web IDs are not all that great. It's amazing what a savvy computer person can find... and link to one of us.

Gun issues should be well-thought out and some decorum should be used.

 

[Tanzer]

I read a lot more than I post, especially in the Tactics area. One quick post meant to be funny could be dug up later on and used against me even if I was justified during the course of my duties in a shooting situation.

You got that right! I'm looking pretty hypocritical right now due to a post in that area. You can get lulled in by some comments.

 

[MrBorland]

For a number of reasons, I've always thought it prudent to remember that what you post on these forums is a matter of public record. Ammo for the antis? Likely. Some have already suggested another good reason to be careful, and I thought I'd paste the relevant comment from someone right here on TFL who has a lot of legal experience in this area:


From http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250281&highlight=training+other+than+firearms

"Here is another tip for everyone who participates in forums like this. If you are ever involved in a SD shooting and you are prosecuted by a savvy prosecutor, he/she will look for things like these postings - and, since SD cases are hard to win without the defendant taking the stand, get to read each of them back to you in cross examination. It is not that hard to jerk your computer on a warrant, get your forum name/s and then find hundreds of ridiculous statements you have posted. Relevant at trial - of course they are. They go to intent and your mental state. I recently saw this used by a prosecutor in an assault case. The defendant was a "martial artist" who had posted some really stupid remarks on various forums. Not my case, fortunately. For your own sake, stop posting these remarks."

 

[357 Python]

I think most of us are aware of this but occassionally get caught up in the moment. It is good for someone to politely remind us of this from time to time. Thank you. Very good post.

 

[Tom2]

Yea, and it would probably not help much if your postings were passed around to the jury with a screen name like "Bloodthirsty Mangler" or "Murderdog Magnum" at the top, with a avatar of a bloody skull attached!

 

[deanf]

Good Post, unfortuntely all this can be used against you in a court of law, showing mind set.

I've made this challenge before: prove that the fingers that typed the message belong to the person registered to the posting I.P. address.

It's like arresting the registered owner of a vehicle for a hit-and-run accident: can't be done unless they admit to it or there is a witness.

 

[buzz_knox]

I've made this challenge before: prove that the fingers that typed the message belong to the person registered to the posting I.P. address.

It's like arresting the registered owner of a vehicle for a hit-and-run accident: can't be done unless they admit to it or there is a witness.

Sure it can. The state charges the owner (or typist) with the crime because the vehicle was used, the vehicle belonged to the person, and, absent an ironclad alibi and/or the owner offerring someone else up, there was no evidence that the vehicle wasn't in the person's control at all relevant times. That's enough to get an indictment and to go to court on. It then becomes incumbent on the owner to prove that someone else was driving the car or it wasn't the car in question.

As for proving a post originated from a particular person, we all signed up our purportedly real name and an e-mail address, most of which also required use of a "real" name. While those can be faked, we also tend to use similar screen names on various boards. We also tend to communicate with forum members via e-mail. Sometimes, we even sign said e-mails with our name or nicknames. Most people aren't gifted enough liars that they can keep their cover up and the lies consistent all the time. Some truth slips out at some point, and that's all the chink in the armor that's needed for a good investigator to start making connections.

Besides, the IP address will lead back to a company more than willing to comply with a subpoena for the names of its customers. If the subject of an investigation is on that list, a computer within your control was used to post the message, and the best you can do is say "some burglar broke into my house and posted a message that made comments similar to those I've made in person, and using a grammar structure similar to e-mails I've composed to family and friends," a grand jury isn't going to be looking favorably at you.

 

[deanf]

Huh. I thought we lived under a system wherein the state has the burden of proof and the defendant can remain silent and not have that held against him. I guess I've been wrong all this time . . . .

 

[The Tourist]

Yes, I always monitor what I say. In fact, there have been times where I answered a post, and then just deleted the whole thing.

But I will say this, as my Dad used to say, "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember what you said..."

I do understand that anything said here is forever etched into cyber-land. However, we have nut-jobs here now that parse every syllable you say in puerile effort to blunt a debate. Yikes, could you imagine what a trained DA might be capable of?

If I respond, or tell you how I feel, it's pretty much how I might reply in real life. Now granted, I am sitting comfortably in my home, latte' in hand, dogs at my feet--for all purposes in 'condition white.'

I am not out on the street, my wife bruised and beaten and a dying mugger drowning in his own blood from my knife wound. I'll bet a tollhouse cookie that my stupified answer will be quite different at that point.

I approach forums as a fun diversion and a chance for learning. I debate over differing opinions and chances to expand my knowledge.

Having said that, don't parse my responses from five years ago to comments I made last week.

During that time, I have retired, I have changed my opinions, and like you, I have had new learning experiences.

 

[buzz_knox]

Huh. I thought we lived under a system wherein the state has the burden of proof and the defendant can remain silent and not have that held against him. I guess I've been wrong all this time . . . .

The state can meet its burden of proof through circumstantial evidence. It doesn't need a confession, only sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable trier of fact that the facts alleged by the state are accurate. The defendant has the right to disprove these facts while the state is making its case by cross-examination. Once the state makes its case, it is incumbent on the defendant to show that the state's case is wrong by direct testimony of witnesses and presentation of evidence.

In short, the system has (and has always) allowed for the lawful and appropriate conviction of people who remained perfectly silent. Due process and the right to a fair trial was fully observed, and the person is sitting in jail. Happens every day in this country, usually involving defendants who thought that if they just kept quiet, no one would know anything.

 

[buzz_knox]

During that time, I have retired, I have changed my opinions, and like you, I have had new learning experiences.

That's actually the key point. The proper response to a situation where prior statements are used against you is to explain why the statements are no longer valid ("I've grown up since then), or weren't valid at the time made ("I was joking. Didn't you see the smilie?" Be advised that smilies are often lost when posts are converted into text).

The problem lies in two areas: 1) the statements are consistent with statements you've made at a latter date, 2) the statements fit your inherent nature or character, and 3) the statements are close in time. "I've grown up since saying I'd shoot anyone in my home without permission in a post three years ago" doesn't work well if you've said it a couple more times since then, or if you've been saying it since you were old enough to know what the word "permission" meant. Such scenarios also tend to interfere with the "I was joking" defense.

It's just something to think about. I've made plenty of bone headed, ill thought out statements over my years on the 'net and I've had to figure out how to deal with them. In fact, one of those statements (based on incorrect information rather any inherent character flaws) brought this whole thing to mind. I decided to google my name and came up with the post. I was mortified by my own illogic but even more shocked by the fact it was listed under my real name, not my screen name and I was absolutely certain my real name had not come up. Whoever had put the post up (sadly, as an example of bad information) had been able to find my real name and associate it with the post, and I don't believe the person was an owner or staff member of the board on which the post was made. Between that event and being told by some instructors that they won't deal with people who make fools of themselves consistently on the 'net and thus are likely to be trouble in class, I decided to think several times and then post.

 

[BillCA]

Food For Thought

We've probably all heard, at one time or another, some "good ole boy" say something like "if ya shoot 'em outside, drag 'em across the doorstep before the cops arrive." Besides being bad advice, if that fellow is ever involved in a SD shooting where the BG is DOA just inside his doorstep, you can bet that the jury will hear multiple witnesses say he preached "covering up" by dragging the body inside.

So it is the same here. If you post something to the effect that you "only go for head-shots cuz that's the way to make sure he dies" and are later involved in a SD shooting, even without head shots, a prosecutor may very well show it to the jury to support murder charges. The state will claim you showed a pre-meditated desire to kill someone, not merely "stop" him as you claimed in your statements to police.

In a sense, the legal system does make "liars" out of us because prosecutors can and will take an unrelated, disconnected statement and try to use it to distort the character of a defendant. If you've made 300 posts about SD tactics and only ONE post says something like "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." that is the ONE post that will show up in court. As a result, we discuss how to guard our best interests and/or protect our rights, using "I wanted him to stop" or "I was in fear for my life and..." when what we really would like to say is "he threatened to kill me for my money. He's dead, I'm alive and that's the way it should be." Hence, due to the legal system, the statements you hear and see in reports may be the "sanitary" ones recommended by lawyers.

 

[Yellowfin]

Well, they can read this:

1. I hunt and fish as often as I can. You will not tell me to do otherwise.
2. I think for myself. No political toadie tells me what is good for America. I'm an individual so I know what's good for me, and being a student of economics I'm pretty darn well established in what's good for America. What you as a politician spew is likely garbage and you will not tell me otherwise.
3. My wife-to-be, our dog, our future family, and my own life if ever threatened will be defended by me, her, or any combination of the three of us in any situation. You will not tell me or her to do otherwise, and good luck trying to tell him.
4. You will not influence my community wherever I live or any where I conduct business or travel in such a way as to vilify me, my family, my history, my pastimes, my plans for my family, my morals, my religious values or where and when I choose to exercise them, nor anything about what I do or who I am and expect me to passively accept it. Your pushing of the idea that everyone's cultures and values are right except mine is vile and intolerable.
5. Organizations like Brady's that are active enterprises dedicated to curtailing my freedom and endangering my life and the lives of others should be outlawed and their owners and workers arrested.
6. The real world is more like me, not like you.

 

[Tom2]

Wow, he is obviously not a product of the current public school model.

 

[SIGSHR]

"Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear." Don't know who
first said that one but I can't think of a better way to put it.
There seems to be something in this day of easily obtainable recording devices that makes people do foolish things, whether it's home made pornos
or cross dressing or dressing up like a Nazi or whatever. Andy Warhol said
"In the Future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes", I would say that
it's too easy today to broadcast your foolishness and stupidity and record it for posterity.
In talking to the two detectives and the one prosecutor I know I have learned that most murder convictions are obtained through circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor told me, it's extremely rare to get a credible eye
witness who is a model citizen and Hawkeye to boot. Most of the time it's
like a jigsaw puzzle or a connect the dots picture-you work patiently and you
can see the end result before finishing it. And any thioughts you have committed to paper or electrnoics can be held against you even if you refuse to take the stand in your own defense.
And in a hobby and avocation like ours where there are no formal entrance
standards, where the vast majority of us are self educated, it pays to remember that there are genuine experts out there. If you want to learn about the Catholic religion you talk to a priest or a nun, if you want to learn
about the Jewish religion you talk to a rabbi, if you want to leanr about medicine you talk to someone who has MD after their name, and you get your
legal advice from someone who has JD or LLB after their name.
And I will close with my favorite bit of wisdom from Poor Richard aka Ben
Franklin:
"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."