Defense Attorney Tells Clients "Shut Down Your Online Accounts"
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Uncle Billy
New member
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on line which ought to be amply evident to anyone who pays even a little attention to what's going on out in the world- computer evidence is used everywhere in every case where such evidence exists. It's therefore prudent to filter what one says and does using their computer since every bit of it is available for use in determining what one's nature and intentions are, and can be used to help convince a grand jury or trial jury that the suspect's nature and intentions support the suspect's guilt.
Everyone who posts to forums, participates in social networking and/or uses their computer to access the unfettered and unregulated content of the entire internet ought to reflect on what sort of brush they've painted themselves with on the internet, what sort of persona they've identified themselves with, because the history of their use of their computer will reveal that in detail.
Proclaiming on here that one is armed and ready to use the gun whenever the opportunity arises is virtually the same as doing and saying that to a crowded room of people some of whom would like nothing better than to bring them down. Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and constructing a facade that speaks clearly of a nature and of intentions that one could not get away with in the real world is dangerous and makes one vulnerable to being publicly identified with parts of themselves better left unspoken when it comes to publicly identifying what sort of person they are.
Everyone who posts to forums, participates in social networking and/or uses their computer to access the unfettered and unregulated content of the entire internet ought to reflect on what sort of brush they've painted themselves with on the internet, what sort of persona they've identified themselves with, because the history of their use of their computer will reveal that in detail.
Proclaiming on here that one is armed and ready to use the gun whenever the opportunity arises is virtually the same as doing and saying that to a crowded room of people some of whom would like nothing better than to bring them down. Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and constructing a facade that speaks clearly of a nature and of intentions that one could not get away with in the real world is dangerous and makes one vulnerable to being publicly identified with parts of themselves better left unspoken when it comes to publicly identifying what sort of person they are.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
It's not as much about losing the right to privacy. It's about giving it up by communicating in a public manner in a public place.
If you want privacy, write a letter. But if you proclaim your thoughts in a public manner in a public medium, you can't expect those thoughts to be private.
If you want privacy, write a letter. But if you proclaim your thoughts in a public manner in a public medium, you can't expect those thoughts to be private.
The Tourist
Moderator
I'm jaded here. Yes, I keep personal items as private as I can, but let's face it, the "government" already has enough info on any jack one of us to arrest us right now! Even the Supreme Court has ruled that enumerated rights can be set aside for some "compelling public good," whatever that means.
Frankly, I wouldn't bat an eye if I was dragged in manacles before some kangaroo magistrate for the sins of my past. Even trumped up, there has to be a file on me, somewhere.
I live peacefully for one reason. Don't give so much power to the boogieman. Deal with him if he ever shows up.
Your tax accountant says you need to keep better records. Your mechanic says you need more oil changes. Your doctor says you're too fat.
So it shouldn't be a shock to find out that the legal community says that the next inquisition is right around the corner. You're on surveillance cameras 30 times per day now, anyway. The gustapo will arrive when you're needed.
Until then, I suggest you go have a second piece of pie and go scratch your doggie's tummy.
Frankly, I wouldn't bat an eye if I was dragged in manacles before some kangaroo magistrate for the sins of my past. Even trumped up, there has to be a file on me, somewhere.
I live peacefully for one reason. Don't give so much power to the boogieman. Deal with him if he ever shows up.
Your tax accountant says you need to keep better records. Your mechanic says you need more oil changes. Your doctor says you're too fat.
So it shouldn't be a shock to find out that the legal community says that the next inquisition is right around the corner. You're on surveillance cameras 30 times per day now, anyway. The gustapo will arrive when you're needed.
Until then, I suggest you go have a second piece of pie and go scratch your doggie's tummy.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Obviously they can. The case under discussion is a California case.adviceman said:
Mike Irwin
Staff
It's a pretty good bet that nothing you ever say on the internet will ever die. In one form or another, from one database or another, chances are very good that it can be resurrected.
Wasn't it comments on the internet that got that poor slob from Mass. arrested?
Seemed to me everything he had was basically legal with a lot of trumping up of his deeds. Probably 70% of the members here have everything he had and more, but he's being portrayed as some kind of nutcase for believing the crap we're being fed on FoxNews. Go figure.
I thought I'd see a giant thread on that guy here for sure.
In case no ones heard about this latest gun nut with a lot of guns, ammo and god forbid some infernal devices ... here's the story.
Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan
His biggest crime it sounded like was saying stupid crap on the net. I've read a lot of the same on various gun forums.
Seemed to me everything he had was basically legal with a lot of trumping up of his deeds. Probably 70% of the members here have everything he had and more, but he's being portrayed as some kind of nutcase for believing the crap we're being fed on FoxNews. Go figure.
I thought I'd see a giant thread on that guy here for sure.
In case no ones heard about this latest gun nut with a lot of guns, ammo and god forbid some infernal devices
... here's the story.Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan
His biggest crime it sounded like was saying stupid crap on the net. I've read a lot of the same on various gun forums.
The Tourist
Moderator
Mike Irwin said:
While true, does the idea remain relevant? I don't think so. Many of the ideas and practices I had as a younger man have changed or have simply been abandoned.
I'm not the only one. Right after the .40 SW came out, I read a magazine article written by Massad Ayoob. He stated that he wasn't going to get caught up in the hoopla, and his opinion was wait-and-see.
However, a scant few years later he praised that same cartridge.
People's opinions change with time, money, the birth of children and new information. At one point in my life I didn't know waterstones from water faucets. Now I support myself with them.
Did you ever find a picture of yourself from youth and laugh at the silly clothes you were wearing? I think 'ideas' are in that same category.
Doc Intrepid
New member
People's ideas and opinions may certainly change over time...I'm sure many older adults can recognize issues they felt differently about when they were younger. (For one thing, all the music was so much better..... 
) But in front of a jury your life-long metamorphosis may be tough to illustrate. Prosecutors can 'cherry pick' from amongst all the posts you've ever made.
The real problem is when prosecutors have the ability to confront an accused with that person's own words, culled from contributions to a bulletin board site such as TFL or a social-networking site such as MySpace or Facebook.
Regardless of when those observations were made...
Saying something like "Well, Mr. X, clearly you contemplated shooting someone, because you posted <this statement> on <this date> -- this IS what you yourself said, is it not??"
Remember that not all who are accused are actually guilty. The capacity of the state to take your own words, from as far back in your past as those words go, and use them against you in a trial should be a matter of concern for all of us.
There may not be much you can do about it, now that the genie is out of the bottle, but we can all be much more careful about what we post on public forums. Whatever you say can indeed be called back by a good lawyer and used against you, especially if you posted it to any public forum.
No other testimony is as damning in front of a jury as your own words used against you...
) But in front of a jury your life-long metamorphosis may be tough to illustrate. Prosecutors can 'cherry pick' from amongst all the posts you've ever made.The real problem is when prosecutors have the ability to confront an accused with that person's own words, culled from contributions to a bulletin board site such as TFL or a social-networking site such as MySpace or Facebook.
Regardless of when those observations were made...
Saying something like "Well, Mr. X, clearly you contemplated shooting someone, because you posted <this statement> on <this date> -- this IS what you yourself said, is it not??"
Remember that not all who are accused are actually guilty. The capacity of the state to take your own words, from as far back in your past as those words go, and use them against you in a trial should be a matter of concern for all of us.
There may not be much you can do about it, now that the genie is out of the bottle, but we can all be much more careful about what we post on public forums. Whatever you say can indeed be called back by a good lawyer and used against you, especially if you posted it to any public forum.
No other testimony is as damning in front of a jury as your own words used against you...
The Tourist
Moderator
Doc Intrepid said:
Oh, I expect that a DA will try every trick in the book to besmirch a defendant's name to gain some advantage. And once into the record it's hard to "unring a bell."
My take on this is the "change," not about how it came to be. The concept of 'hard knocks' is known by most folks. And to be fair, that ideal will also be part of a court defense.
Granted, I was baptized late in life, at the age of 35. The postulate of my debate is that if you nitpick through my trash--and consider it important--then you must also find it important how a life got a cleansing.
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the defendant's forty year old dysfunctional conduct must be considered, but please disregard his last twenty years of charity work..."
I must be honest here. If I caught a DA trying to sell that ploy during his closing arguments, I'd vote "not guilty." At some visceral level the entire linchpin of this country is based on second chances.
If hyperbole on the 'net is all we are worth in modern society, then I might as well walk to the main gate of a maximum security prison and check in. Not because of the "man" I am now, but because of the "boy" seen here...
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Sure people change, and if your lawyer has no other choice, he will argue that the words and attitudes of your past should not be held against your present, BUT --
[1] Your lawyer will have to make that argument only if you had previously made some improvident statements that are now being thrown in your face. And you will be betting that the argument works and sways the jury. There's no guarantee that it will.
[2] The argument works better when regarding statements or actions in your distant past. A jury will be more inclined to excuse improvident statements made 10 years ago than ones made last month.
[1] Your lawyer will have to make that argument only if you had previously made some improvident statements that are now being thrown in your face. And you will be betting that the argument works and sways the jury. There's no guarantee that it will.
[2] The argument works better when regarding statements or actions in your distant past. A jury will be more inclined to excuse improvident statements made 10 years ago than ones made last month.
The Tourist
Moderator
fiddletown said:
Yes, I agree with you that "time and distance" are factors in showing people you have changed.
But let me ask you this, even in a passionate discussion, have I ever maligned you to gain a few debating points? If I had never mentioned my past (in humor or to make a point) would you even consider that life to have existed, at all?
And that is the other half of this concept. If I have truly changed, then you will see it in how it effects my present dealings.
Additionally, we all recognize 'arrested development.' Almost all adults have evolved in maturity. It is the throwbacks who cling to the immature behavior and ideology of their youth.
If I see a weathered old salt with gang tattoos loading groceries for a client at a food pantry, and then offering a heartfelt 'thank you,' I don't have to know that some conversion has been taking place. Whether it was 20 years ago or last month, the conduct shows me his direction.
I wonder how many recovering alcoholics, ex-cons, bipolars and graying outlaw bikers filter through our lives, seamlessly and as important contributors to our neighborhoods.
And to parse their old 'net discourse would be a loss for everyone.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I'm not sure what your point is.The Tourist said:
The thing is what you said is what you said. If you have to explain yourself later, you're already behind the curve.
The Tourist
Moderator
My point is simply that you only know me and my ideology on what you read now. You know nothing about me unless I tell you.
Knowing that, I think anyone who sorts through a guy's trash or past to gain some supposed advantage is the worse kind of bottom-feeder known to man.
And you know, a papperazzi would be the first one to scream "foul" if you subjected him and his family to surveillance.
If I commit a crime now, then judge me in the now.
Knowing that, I think anyone who sorts through a guy's trash or past to gain some supposed advantage is the worse kind of bottom-feeder known to man.
And you know, a papperazzi would be the first one to scream "foul" if you subjected him and his family to surveillance.
If I commit a crime now, then judge me in the now.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"While true, does the idea remain relevant? I don't think so. Many of the ideas and practices I had as a younger man have changed or have simply been abandoned."
It may not appear to be valid to YOU anymore.
But what about someone who is looking to employ you?
How about someone who is suing you for some reason?
How about a prosecutor who is trying you for a self-defense shooting?
You can't simply say "Oh, I was younger then, I don't believe that now." Words resonate, and they resonate through time.
Once you are identified with a position or a statement, it can take a LONG time to be shed of that.
And, in the instances noted above, you often simply cannot be shed of the effects of such a statement. A potential employer is looking for hot buttons as to why you might not fit in. They're not going to look at your entire internet body of work.
In the other two instances, your words will be cast in the most damning light possible. It will be up to your attorney to TRY to mitigate the effects, but that's not always possible because it's not always possible to clearly show a progression in a direction different from the initial remarks.
The concept is simple. If you don't want it to come back to haunt you, don't say it, and don't put it in writing.
"If I commit a crime now, then judge me in the now."
Nice theory, but it doesn't always happen that way. So why give someone potential ammunition against you later?
It may not appear to be valid to YOU anymore.
But what about someone who is looking to employ you?
How about someone who is suing you for some reason?
How about a prosecutor who is trying you for a self-defense shooting?
You can't simply say "Oh, I was younger then, I don't believe that now." Words resonate, and they resonate through time.
Once you are identified with a position or a statement, it can take a LONG time to be shed of that.
And, in the instances noted above, you often simply cannot be shed of the effects of such a statement. A potential employer is looking for hot buttons as to why you might not fit in. They're not going to look at your entire internet body of work.
In the other two instances, your words will be cast in the most damning light possible. It will be up to your attorney to TRY to mitigate the effects, but that's not always possible because it's not always possible to clearly show a progression in a direction different from the initial remarks.
The concept is simple. If you don't want it to come back to haunt you, don't say it, and don't put it in writing.
"If I commit a crime now, then judge me in the now."
Nice theory, but it doesn't always happen that way. So why give someone potential ammunition against you later?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nonetheless, if you are being investigated in connection with a crime, or charged with a crime, they will be going through your trash and past. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that's right, but it is real -- whether you like it or not.The Tourist said:
Google it
Scare yourself. Google your screen name and when the results come up, click on search within results at the bottom of the page and enter your screen name again. Many of your posts will show from any forum you use that screen name. Nothing you post will every really go away.
Scare yourself. Google your screen name and when the results come up, click on search within results at the bottom of the page and enter your screen name again. Many of your posts will show from any forum you use that screen name. Nothing you post will every really go away.
In a lot of ways I have more or maybe a different respect for the prodigal son than someone who has always been on the side of the angels. I am a sucker for a redemption story. That said, in life your opposition is going to capitalize on any chink in your armor and part of redemption is atonement.
The Tourist
Moderator
Wagonman said:
Well, truth be told, so am I. I'll take Anakin Skywalker any day.
Now, I just got back from the gym, and I ruminated on these posts, and then read the ones posted in my absence. Interesting point of view, taken as a whole.
We all seem to know this stuff goes on, we all agree that the 'government' can and will use our own past life and words against us, we all know that real men grow, atone and repair the damage they have done, but then we say virtually, "Hey, that's life, what are we going to do?"
To me, that's easy. Do the same thing I do for "political correctness." Don't reward it.
Why should I get all sweaty when someone demands his rights or threatens a race card. Hey, go get an attorney and a big ol' sack lunch, because this is going to be a long fight. Don't cave in so much.
If a DA threatens to convict me in the present by entering my past into evidence, perhaps my attorney should look into abuse of process. Make them work for these silly and unprofessional gains.
Besides, I cut quite a dashing figure dressed in a pin-striped Dior suit, all ready for court. I'll bring my church family, we'll have a pot-luck. Both bikers and SDA's love a good pot-luck...