Proof you need to watch what you say online

[Choctaw]

The point of this thread is the prosecutions use of social media. I apologize for not being up on Texas law. Here in Illinois we have 1st and 2d degree murder, manslaughter and involuntary homicide. I should have looked up Texas law.

Obviously the prosecution found the social media history relevant.

For punishment, yes.

 

[skeeterfogger]

I feel sure his last words were, what are you doing in my apparrment?

 

[ilbob]

Anything you say (or write or post) can and will be used against you in a court.

The thing is that just about everybody has said or posted stuff that could be twisted to suggest some malice on their part even if there was none. I would not get real excited about trying to purge your posts or online writings. In the first place it is all but impossible to get rid of them entirely and purging them would likely be used against you as well.

I see this case as one where someone who should reasonably been expected to exercise due caution appears not to have done so. It seems to me that if the door was not even fully closed as some reports indicate, just barging in shows a lack of appropriate caution.

There were also some comments reportedly made by the murderer after the event that made it appear she probably realized how bad she had screwed up and was looking to find a way out. Remember, you do not need to say anything when you are involved in something like this other than to invoke your right to counsel first, and you can almost never make your situation better by talking before your lawyer shows up.

 

[Kleanbore]

Anything you say (or write or post) can and will be used against you in a court.

Or to get you into a courtroom.

 

[ilbob]

I hope I'm not the only one that did not need a reminder not to talk about killing people, whether on social media or anywhere else.

I don't see anything wrong with talking about it, if you can do so without looking like you want to do so. Personally, I do not want to be in a position where I am forced to kill someone else, but I also hope that if it comes down to it, and I have to do so, I will be able to.

 

[Rule3]

I feel sure his last words were, what are you doing in my apparrment?

I know this is "off topic" (please delete if needed)

But what if, just what if, HE had shot her?? Someone armed pointing a gun walks into your apartment without announcing they are POLICE?? What then??

What she said previously said online (not right) but doesn't matter. If she was to dense to know where she lived and killed someone in their apartment, its her fault.

 

[WestKentucky]

No!

Assessing state of mind is an essential part of judging why someone used deadly force, and whether it was justified.

That "unrelated drivel" was factual and relevant.

Bull! If it were recent or immediately relevant then yes I would agree. But this is a slippery slope situation because people change, situations change, and none of that is relevant to a situation where a person reacts on instinct. If there were racial posts insinuating that it was ok to target X group then ok, that may be relevant, but not if it was historical. Use it to establish a bias, use it to establish character, but in no way shape or form should that play on the guilt or innocence of a person. Sentencing... maybe. But it truly has no bearing on the situation. If a radical, outspoken, neo-nazi has an African American Muslim kick in his front door to rape kill and destroy the guys family and said neo-nazi shoots the intruder, then the fact of it is that a MAN defended his home from another MAN who intended to do harm. In this case, it was a mistake, but everything supported the fact that it was a mistake of location. There was no racial or other motive, so why push the BS. It should be denied.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I don't see anything wrong with talking about it, if you can do so without looking like you want to do so. Personally, I do not want to be in a position where I am forced to kill someone else, but I also hope that if it comes down to it, and I have to do so, I will be able to.

I was referring to someone talking about committing homicide not a self defense scenario. Even when discussing self defense, it is always about stopping the threat not killing.

 

[Kleanbore]

Bull! If it were recent or immediately relevant then yes I would agree. But this is a slippery slope situation because people change, situations change, and none of that is relevant to a situation where a person reacts on instinct. If there were racial posts insinuating that it was ok to target X group then ok, that may be relevant, but not if it was historical. Use it to establish a bias, use it to establish character, but in no way shape or form should that play on the guilt or innocence of a person. Sentencing... maybe. But it truly has no bearing on the situation....

Your concept of how the criminal justice system works is flawed.

 

[ilbob]

I was referring to someone talking about committing homicide not a self defense scenario. Even when discussing self defense, it is always about stopping the threat not killing.

I think very few people make much of a difference between "stopping the threat" and killing the threat when one's life is at serious risk. It is very hard at such a moment to make those kind of fine distinctions.

Best bet is always to avoid such situations if you can, but in the event you cannot you are going to be faced with making a very grave decision in a split second. I am not inclined to second guess people who are forced into such situations. I am inclined to second guess people who deliberately and voluntarily put themselves into such situations though.

 

[ilbob]

Bull! If it were recent or immediately relevant then yes I would agree. But this is a slippery slope situation because people change, situations change, and none of that is relevant to a situation where a person reacts on instinct. If there were racial posts insinuating that it was ok to target X group then ok, that may be relevant, but not if it was historical. Use it to establish a bias, use it to establish character, but in no way shape or form should that play on the guilt or innocence of a person. Sentencing... maybe. But it truly has no bearing on the situation. If a radical, outspoken, neo-nazi has an African American Muslim kick in his front door to rape kill and destroy the guys family and said neo-nazi shoots the intruder, then the fact of it is that a MAN defended his home from another MAN who intended to do harm. In this case, it was a mistake, but everything supported the fact that it was a mistake of location. There was no racial or other motive, so why push the BS. It should be denied.

It seems to me that such an argument is up to the defense attorney to make during the trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

It seems to me that such an argument is up to the defense attorney to make during the trial.

Well, it is, but give the prosecution or plaintiff evidence pertaining to mens rea, and it will be an uphill battle.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I think very few people make much of a difference between "stopping the threat" and killing the threat when one's life is at serious risk.

In court after a self defense situation when the attacker is shot and killed there is a huge difference in answering an attorneys question with "I shot to stop the threat" vs. "I shot to kill him"

 

[old lady new shooter]

Didn't have enough awareness to realize all the things around her weren't hers

That was the big thing that stood out to me when I first read the story. I can see somebody going (or trying to go) into the wrong house or apartment when all of them look the same (one reason I have GREEN lights on my house instead of white like all the others), but once a person gets inside it's real easy to see it's not their furniture.

 

[ilbob]

That was the big thing that stood out to me when I first read the story. I can see somebody going (or trying to go) into the wrong house or apartment when all of them look the same (one reason I have GREEN lights on my house instead of white like all the others), but once a person gets inside it's real easy to see it's not their furniture.

I suspect, but do not know, that there was some level of dysfunction going on here WRT the shooter. I am not suggesting she was doped up or drunk, although I suppose that is possible. There are times one's mind wanders off into never-never land and one is operating on auto pilot. In such a situation when something unexpected happens the response might not be ideal.

 

[GBExpat]

That was the big thing that stood out to me when I first read the story. ...

<nodding> Same with me.

I do not care how alike they look on the outside, the second that I would enter an apartment in the same complex with an identical floorplan I would instantly know that it was not mine.

 

[Thibaut]

When this first happened, I felt nothing but sorrow for all concerned. That said, I try to do some self-monitoring when it comes to social media input. Times have changed. To think otherwise is foolish. But then, I see people putting their lives out there daily for the world to see. It is beyond my comprehension that a person not making their daily dollars in the public life would do that. Ever.

 

[jmorris]

Personally I think it was a tragic accident and manslaughter would have been a more appropriate charge and it could be that this social media and text history moved the prosecutors to charge murder instead.

We have to have laws that are applicable to all.

I wonder what the person she killed would have been charged with if instead of a bowl of ice cream in his hands, he had a firearm and shot the intruder before she shot him?

 

[GEM]

There have been cases of folks resisting incorrect address police raids. Results are mixed. You can google it.

Here's a story from WAPO - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/02/amber-guyger-offensive-texts-botham-jean-murder/

It's coming up at sentencing.

 

[WestKentucky]

Your concept of how the criminal justice system works is flawed.

Again, I agree and disagree. You are correct in that there is a flaw, but it is not my flaw. The flaw lies with the way that the criminal justice system actually works.

By the logic used, the simple fact that we all belong to this forum could be interpreted as us all being gun-mongers itching for an excuse to kill someone... and then when a situation arises involving a forum member, is every post made on here subject to being exhibits in the courtroom? By that logic the member would be the actor, and we all would be complicit in the conspiracy to commit whatever happened because the member was planning and preparing in advance to do this “heinous and planned attack”. Things are not automatically associated, and no, when there is no direct connection between things they should not be allowed.

 

[Kleanbore]

The flaw lies with the way that the criminal justice system actually works.

Good luck with that one! Do you really think you have a better idea than all of the learned judges who have developed our fundamental principles of Anglo-American law, going back to the twelfth century and to the writings of St. Augustine?

By the logic used, the simple fact that we all belong to this forum could be interpreted as us all being gun-mongers itching for an excuse to kill someone...

That's utterly ridiculous.

... and then when a situation arises involving a forum member, is every post made on here subject to being exhibits in the courtroom?

Well, you have hit on something. Everything you post here, on Facebook, or on Twitter, and every email, and every letter you write, is subject to discovery, and can be introduced as evidence.

That's why we posted this over eight years ago.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iderations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/

 

[herrwalther]

I think very few people make much of a difference between "stopping the threat" and killing the threat when one's life is at serious risk. It is very hard at such a moment to make those kind of fine distinctions.

Stopping the threat and killing the attacker are distinct but can be mutually inclusive. You always intend to stop the threat. If the attacker dies, the threat is stopped. Whereas if your goal is to kill someone that is attacking you, you set yourself up to complete it even though you are not legally allowed at a certain point. Example, if you present your firearm in defense, they give up, and you put 2 rounds in their head anyway, that is homicide.

 

[Kleanbore]

...they give up, and you put 2 rounds in their head anyway, that is homicide.

Murder, you mean. If they die, its homicide, either way.

 

[GEM]

10 year sentence. That will seem heavy to some and light to others.

 

[WestKentucky]

Good luck with that one! Do you really think you have a better idea than all of the learned judges who have developed our fundamental principles of Anglo-American law, going back to the twelfth century and to the writings of St. Augustine?

That's utterly ridiculous.

Well, you have hit on something. Everything you post here, on Facebook, or on Twitter, and every email, and every letter you write, is subject to discovery, and can be introduced as evidence.

That's why we posted this over eight years ago.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iderations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/

Good luck with that one! Do you really think you have a better idea than all of the learned judges who have developed our fundamental principles of Anglo-American law, going back to the twelfth century and to the writings of St. Augustine?

That's utterly ridiculous.

Well, you have hit on something. Everything you post here, on Facebook, or on Twitter, and every email, and every letter you write, is subject to discovery, and can be introduced as evidence.

That's why we posted this over eight years ago.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...iderations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/

I’m done arguing because it’s off topic. And never once did I claim to know more than any judge. My disagreement is that, and one that a reasonable person would have. With the stuff being dragged into a courtroom that is coming in with some cases now it is making cases take longer, wasting taxpayer money, and making cases more about politics than about crime. The criminal law system is falling victim to progressive ideology, so the direction being taken now is to prove the crime if they can, but otherwise prove that somebody is a jerk irrelevant of the charges so that they can sway a jury into convicting. If it’s not relevant to the case being tried, it should be excluded. That is at the discretion of the judges and the laws of the jurisdiction, and they vary by jurisdiction. It is sad to say it but this case seems to me like it was as much about proving that the lady was a jerk as it was about the murder that was committed. She was distracted by having a conversation with her guy, she entered the dwelling mistakenly and ended up killing the guy that was living there. That’s more in line with negligent homicide in my opinion, but Facebook posts and other stuff was used to portray her negatively and get the Murder charge. Had she ran the guy over on the road because she was texting the boyfriend it would be a different charge with the same basic facts.... distracted, mistake, dead man. Were all of those posts relative, doubtful. Did any of them say that she was up for entering a random dwelling and opening fire? No.