Can postings be used against us?

[Hokkmike]

The internet has a long, unforgiving, and complete record of anything you have ever posted anywhere.

Always be careful what you say.

Google your name to find out the most obvious!

 

[mcdonl]

Yes, and believe it or not Google captures and stores EVERYTHING that happens on the Intenet.

Personal Privacy is LONG GONE.

Have nothing you need to keep secret. If you DO need to keep something a secret, keep it a secret.

 

[MisterMike]

From a practical perspective, you should consider everything posted on line or emailed to another person to be potentially accessible to anyone at any time . . . because it is. It's just a matter of whether your adversary will be smart enough to find it.

From a legal perspective, your writings may or may not be admissible. If they can be considered probative of your intent, motive, or the absence of mistake, for instance, there's a pretty good possibility that a judge will allow them into evidence. The admissibility of "evidence of other acts" to prove an individual's mens rea is susceptible to a variety of interpretations by trial judges, and is seldom overturned on appeal.

Really, it's just common sense: don't say stupid things on line or in emails. If you ever find yourself in a legal jam, there's a pretty good chance that your own words may be used as evidence against you.

 

[ManBearPig]

Rbernie, your computer may have those catched internet pages and cookies, but there's also a little thing called reformating your computer. And of course there's always the upgrade option. Your computer is getting old, maybe it's time to "replace" it.

 

[mustang_steve]

Keep in mind if a format occurs after the incident, it can be considered "destruction of evidence", if that machine was to be searched. Theres already case law supporting that from some of the RIAA lawsuits, where the defendant formatted their hard drive, for whatever reason.

 

[evan price]

In short: Yes. Has already happened on another gun forum I help moderate. Prosecutor in the case had print-outs of the Defendant's postings on the other forum and in his briefs he addressed points that had been made on-line.

The argument could be made that the forums are anonymous, that email accounts are not a guarantee of identity, etc etc. however when the postings are not going to be used as direct evidence in the case but rather to point towards character or mindset, etc, then the rules of evidence are relaxed and it becomes "Is it LIKELY that the Defendant posted the following on THR... and if so, how does that speak to his character?"

 

[benminer]

Keep in mind if a format occurs after the incident, it can be considered "destruction of evidence", if that machine was to be searched. Theres already case law supporting that from some of the RIAA lawsuits, where the defendant formatted their hard drive, for whatever reason.

If the police want to search your computer to look for evidence of a crime they are going to seize it so the question of formatting your hard drive is moot since you won't have it in your possession.

If you're referring to the RIAA downloading lawsuits, that is a civil matter not criminal.

 

[ManBearPig]

And exactly what would be their reasoning for snatching your home computer the very night of a defensive shooting of a home invader? A situation that has nothing to do with computers. Let's see here....they confiscate your gun for purposes of evidence......then wildly ask for your home computer as well?

Seems to me you would have plenty of time between the defensive shooting and when some prosecuter decides to get the idea to search your computer. After all, how can reformating your computer be destruction of evidence when they haven't even asked you for it. How could us possibly "know" that your computer would have anything to do with the situation of defending your life in your home from an intruder.

Edit: The point is if the police haven't asked for your computer yet and they've left the scene of the defensive shooting and they haven't left you any orders that say "oh and by the way the prosecuter may decide they want your computer, so you can't reformat it", then exactly how can they call it destroying evidence? You're supposed to magically know that after you shoot a home intruder that it becomes illegal to reformat your computer? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[rbernie]

So now it is being suggested that after you drop the hammer on somebody you intend to rush back to your computer and do a low level reformatting of the drive to remove locally cached content?

That is flatly absurd.

More to the point, it does nothing to address the fact that the network and content infrastructure that you're using outside of your home still have logs of all of the stuff that you did. If those logs are retained and managed appropriately, then you are gonna be in for a rough ride if some ADA decides to make it so.

Y'all need to get back to reality, which is defined in part as being accountable for the things that you say and do.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And exactly what would be their reasoning for snatching your home computer the very night of a defensive shooting of a home invader? A situation that has nothing to do with computers....

First, it would be routine. Until the DA has decide to accept the shooting as self defense, it, and you, are being investigated. Your having shot someone is probably cause for the police to believe that you have committed a crime. Now they can seize any possible evidence in plain sight (if they're in your home) or easily get a warrant.

Second, you may be in custody for at least a few hours, and maybe longer. You may not have access to your computer. And it you get access to your computer before they seize it, and you reformat the hard drive, they'll figure out it's been done and wonder what you're hiding.

And as rbernie says, the information is also elsewhere beyond you control.

 

[ManBearPig]

So basically you're saying that if a person has ever engaged in discussions online involving firearms, such as the ever-so popular "what if they tried to take our guns" conversation, that you are now no longer allowed to defend yourself with your gun, as they will use those posts and you will get charged with murder.

And you call me the one not in touch with reality.

Edit: Sorry buddy, I don't buy it. You don't automatically lose your right to self-defense just because of a few posts you've made online. The very concept of that violates the constitution.

 

[rbernie]

So basically you're saying that if a person has ever engaged in discussions online involving firearms, such as the ever-so popular "what if they tried to take our guns" conversation, that you are now no longer allowed to defend yourself with your gun, as they will use those posts and you will get charged with murder.

That's not what was stated. What was stated was that the criminal and civil courts can allow your postings to be used against you. You've jumped a bridge too far here....

The question in the OP was:

Following a shooting could a Prosecutor point to a member's postings on the high road to help 'paint an unfavorable portrait' of that individual

That question has two components - a technical question and a legal question. Most of the posts so far have argued for/against the technical viability of such a thing only. Certainly, my comments have been confined solely to the technical side of things, expressing the belief that you can and will be held accountable for the things that you say on the Internet.

The legal question of, 'How can those posting actually be used to incriminate me?" is a far harder question to answer, and one that only those practiced in legal defense can likely address. Since I have not seen many posts in this thread take a swing at that yet, I do not know how you got to this:

they will use those posts and you will get charged with murder

 

[ManBearPig]

Well if that's the case, then any person that has made posts that may be used against them, if they were to be involved in a defensive shooting, should think ahead and buy a new computer now and never use it for posting, as well as dump their old e-mail address and get a new one and never use it to sign up for forums. That way if a defensive shooting happens in the future the computer can't be used to be traced to internet posts, and when the DA goes through your email, it won't lead back to any forums.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Sorry buddy, I don't buy it. You don't automatically lose your right to self-defense just because of a few posts you've made online. The very concept of that violates the constitution....

Sorry, buddy. I guess you don't have any direct experience with how the legal system and processes work. I do. It's been my business for over 30 years.

In any case, what I and some others here are saying is:

1. If you are being investigated in connection with a criminal matter, evidence of motive and/or state of mind may be obtained;
2. That would include your personal computer(s) and any emails, postings to Internet forums; activity on social networking sites, records of your surfing on the Internet, and anything else they can find;
3. If you wind up being tried for anything, and if any of the stuff they found out about you searching through your computer may be relevant to the matter you're on trial about, it can be placed in evidence;
4. So it's wise and prudent to remember that Internet forums are public places and you can't expect anything you post in one to stay private;
5. Accordingly, it makes sense to be care about what you post, because it could wind up being used against you.

 

[ChristopherG]

The very concept of that violates the constitution.

That's a blanket statement that doesn't hold up to even the simplest scenario-based evaluation.

Example:

Guy X posts on the internet that he will not abide child molesters; and that if one of them were to move into his neighborhood, he would absolutely do whatever necessary to get rid of him.

Child Molester moves in. Guy X kills Child Molester in unclear circumstances; Guy says he used deadly force to stop Guy X in the process of attempting to abduct a child. But the evidence is iffy, and no-one saw what happened, and Molester is not alive to say. Just his relatives, who are certain he was killed because of Guy X's well-known and blatant prejudice.

Now: is it 'unconstitutional' to admit Guy's statements (made in public internet forum) into evidence? He said it, didn't he? It's relevant, isn't it? What is the Constitution supposed to protect here?

 

[rbernie]

That way if a defensive shooting happens in the future the computer can't be used to be traced to internet posts, and when the DA goes through your email, it won't lead back to any forums

OK, so we're back to the technical question again.

The ISP infrastructure components and web/forum servers, outside of your house, keep logs of what you do and those logs can be subpoenaed. For example, your account would be easy to trace since you use a relatively fixed IP address associated with your broadband access. You've been on this board for ten months and have had only three (3) IP addresses the entire time, and those addresses have been shared with no others that access this site.

The content you have posted is traceable to your specific internet link. I do not need to show the specific computer upon which you typed your words of wisdom to make an effective argument that they were, in fact, your words.

 

[ManBearPig]

Christopher and Fiddletown, it would violate the constitution if poster x has ever said online that they will use their guns in self defense to shoot any attacker that broke into their home, and then a DA used that to say "you see, they wanted to shoot intruder y, after all, intruder y was just there to steal their stereo". The way you make it sound, is that person x, because they have posted that, still has a right to self-defense with their gun in their home, but with consequences: They can A) use their gun in a self defense shooting, but their posts that say they would use their gun for home defense will get them prosecuted or B) let the attacker kill them. So their posts have made it so if a person ever breaks into their home their choice is shoot them and be prosecuted or let themselves be violated. So no, "buddy", I don't buy that crap.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Christopher and Fiddletown, it would violate the constitution if poster x has ever said online that they will use their guns in self defense to shoot any attacker that broke into their home, and then a DA used that to say "you see, they wanted to shoot intruder y, after all, intruder y was just there to steal their stereo". The way you make it sound, is that person x, because they have posted that, still has a right to self-defense with their gun in their home, but with consequences: They can A) use their gun in a self defense shooting, but their posts that say they would use their gun for home defense will get them prosecuted or B) let the attacker kill them. So their posts have made it so if a person ever breaks into their home their choice is shoot them and be prosecuted or let themselves be violated. So no, "buddy", I don't buy that crap.

Well, I have no idea what you're trying to say in your ramble. But if you don't buy that your Internet postings could be found and used in evidence if you wind up on trial for something, to the extent relevant to some issue in the case, you are welcome not to buy it.

Of course, that doesn't change the legal reality that your Internet postings, or email or anything else relevant, could be used. If you think that's somehow unconstitutional, you'll be able to argue that if you ever find yourself in the situation. Then you'll see if the judge buys that.

 

[arcticap]

I get the impression that folks are being warned that their postings could be used to bias a jury if they legimately used deadly force in self-defense.
It's seems clear that while they could be used in a witchhunt, the chances are good that the posts wouldn't matter at all.
To me, it's like worrying about something that's largely irrelevant.
There's relevant facts in a case and then less relevant facts.
At some point the prosecutor, the judge and/or the jury decides what is relevant and worthy of entering into a trial or decision or if there is even ever going to be a trial.
It seems that if there wasn't a case to begin with based on the facts, then any internet postings aren't going to make or break a case. That is unless it's some of kind of witch hunt by an over zealous prosecutor.
I personally don't see what there is to worry about unless the potential defendant's credibility is a critical issue, and even then.
It always seems to return to what degree of relevancy any postings could have.
Maybe it would make a difference to a prosecutor, but it doesn't make any difference to me.
People are who they are and facts speak for themselves.
I don't really consider internet postings to be facts but rather they're opinions.
So if there's a trial situation where people could be prosecuted for having the right to have an opinion that's within their right to have, then so be it. Let the jury decide because they have a right to their opinion too and they are suppose to be people of good conscience.
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that there's nothing to fear but fear itself?
If folks chose to have fear about what they post then they are entitled to be fearful.
But by and large, I don't think that there's anything about the legimate honest posting of personal opinions to be afraid of. I guess that I happen to be an optimist and have some trust in the good nature of people and the system that we're all a part of.
But be fearfull of what, a witch hunt? I think that it would be very unlikely in a matter of justifiable self-defense.

 

[mustang_steve]

Arcticap,

In a criminal trial, they are used to determine your demeanor, or how you normally think/act. If someone keeps posting rambo-ish crap, then expect the prosecution to show this and treat him like some kind of backwoods rambo.

However, if that kind of info came up in the criminal trial, expect a civil trial to be ruthlessly brutal, and possibly life-ending....they will use that to convince the jury that there was violent intent from the beginning on your behalf. Remember, OJ may have been declared innocent criminally (should have been guilty IMO), but he's paying for the rest of his life civilly. Civil court in this country is currently being used as a weapon against those that the criminal system was unable to convict. By wording your posts in places like this carefully, one is less likely to give the wrong impression.

 

[Kleanbore]

I get the impression that folks are being warned that their postings could be used to bias a jury if they legimately used deadly force in self-defense.....It's seems clear that while they could be used in a witchhunt, the chances are good that the posts wouldn't matter at all....But be fearfull of what, a witch hunt? I think that it would be very unlikely in a matter of justifiable self-defense.

If there is a jury trial, whether the use of deadly force actually constituted an act of legitimate self defense is the question to be answered.

If you are attacked by armed assailants and defend yourself, and there are credible, unbiased witnesses who so testify, great. And you probably won't end up in court.

If you are attacked where there are no witnesses and have to use deadly force, the question will be one of what actually happened. Did you attack the other person? If he survives, he will likely say so.

If your defense relies heavily on your account of what happened, and you have posted words to the effect of how you would avoid prosecution or conviction by sticking to a particular story or making sure the other person did not survive, your credibility could be called into serious question.

If there are witnesses who say they saw you observing the person and following him out the door, the possibility may be raised that you were the perp. Any postings that could be used to establish state of mind could be damaging.

At some point the prosecutor, the judge and/or the jury decides what is relevant and worthy of entering into a trial or decision or if there is even ever going to be a trial.

Right.

It seems that if there wasn't a case to begin with based on the facts, then any internet postings aren't going to make or break a case. That is unless it's some of kind of witch hunt by an over zealous prosecutor.
I personally don't see what there is to worry about unless the potential defendant's credibility is a critical issue, and even then. It always seems to return to what degree of relevancy any postings could have.

If the available "facts" are that you shot someone, there is a "case to begin with," and that case is against you. The question is one of justifiability, and it is up to you to present evidence in support of justifiability. If you say you fired because you believed it was immediately necessary to do so because of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, anything that might impeach your credibility or adversely portray your state of mind could be very relevant indeed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the chances are good that the posts wouldn't matter at all....

There's no way to know that ahead of time. How your posts might be used will depend on exactly what the situation is and exactly what you have said. You simply can't predict the future.

You can reduce the risk that the posts might matter by generally being careful about what you do say.

...There's relevant facts in a case and then less relevant facts....

Yes, but you don't know ahead of time what may or may not be relevant.

...It seems that if there wasn't a case to begin with based on the facts, then any internet postings aren't going to make or break a case....

Maybe and maybe not. For example, someone posted the following on another board:

"Law or not ...the burglar got exactly what he needed and deserved EVERY pellet that shredded his butt!...."

If that member himself ever shot someone and claimed self defense, don't you think that post might help the DA decide to charge him and take the matter to a jury. What do you suppose a jury might think of that "Law or not..." statement?

...Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that there's nothing to fear but fear itself?...

No, it was FDR.

...I don't think that there's anything about the legimate honest posting of personal opinions to be afraid of...

It's going to depend on what those opinions are. Your opinions say something about who you are, your beliefs and your values. And if you're ever in front of a jury, they will be interested in such things to the extent they could have a bearing on the subject matter. So if your opinions do you credit and show you to be an honest and fair minded person, your opinions might help you.

But if you've expressed opinions about certain races or religions being inferior, especially if the person you shot in claimed self defense is of such race or religion, or if you've expressed an opinion that burglars deserve to be shot "law or no law" a jury might well consider those opinions negatively while trying to decide whether to believe your story.

 

[mallc]

My grandad said...

don't put anything in writing that you don't want read in a court of law. I'm thinking that "writing" pretty much extends to the internet.

I'm not sure why people think they can hide behind a computer screen and say things they would never say in polite company; but they do...

Scott

 

[Guns and more]

Can postings be used against us?

Absolutely.
Before I lost all my guns in that unfortunate boating accident, I was telling my friends, "You know, I trust the government to protect me, and it's a privilege to pay taxes in that regard."

 

[Pweller]

I've always been pretty careful about what I post online - which is why my post count is below 100 on any/every site that I ever go to. I generally figure, the less I say, the better.

The question for me, being fairly non-computer savvy, is this: Is there any way to virtually guarantee anonymity online? Not that I want to do anything subversive, but there's no real benefit to me to having my posts traceable back to me - I'd rather they be untraceable, or at least a situation where I can choose if they are traceable or not.

I know that our privacy has been eroded for many years, but it seems like a lot of this is pretty unavoidable. I suppose if you were completely off-line, with no credit cards and no mortgage and probably not even a property owner, you could have some level of privacy. Otherwise, I think you are stuck.

I would like an answer to my question if someone has a definitive answer.