The point is that members who post their experiences dont need to be warned of the potential legal problems of doing so by other members who harbor a need to be nannys.
Ok. "Don't need to be". Hmmm.
Well, if they are already
aware of the potential consequences, they do not "need to be" educated in the first place.
As I read your next post, however, it is not clear to me that you have that awareness.
Those posts [referring the mine] offer nothing but admonishments based on an unfounded claim that the posts in question have created legal problems for the poster.
No, not "the posts in question", but potentially
any posts....
Okay...since he opened that door: has there EVER been a substantiated case where a narrative forum post that recounted a first-person experience which involved a firearm ended with a conviction or any other legal problems?
As I mentioned before,
it is not a firearms-specific issue.
The simple fact is, that
any statement made in
any forum that does not constitute a privileged legal communication is discoverable and can therefore be used in legal proceedings.
This can take place in the realm of contract disputes, contract award protests, bribery, allegations of accounting fraud, employment discrimination, product misrepresentation,
defense of justification of homicide, divorce or custody cases, and who knows what else.
Do you somehow think that things that involve guns differ somehow from things that involve the sale of Senate seats? Nope.
The principals are the same.
Exactly the same.
There have been verbal statements, recorded or otherwise, notes to the file, memoranda, emails, and other communications that have resulted in the following: (1) investigation, internal, criminal, and other; (2) termination of employment, (3) disbarment, (4) subpoenas, (5) indictments, (6) adverse civil judgments, and (7) criminal convictions in too many cases to list.
Do you think Mas Ayoob has brought this up for no reason at all?
If there has, please cite them.
Sorry, there are far too many that I know of directly or indirectly, and
it is not done until after the fact unless one wants to further muddy the issues.
In addition, unless a case has made the papers, neither you nor I will have heard about it. Trial court cases and their details are not logged into a central database. One cannot Google them.
Tennessee Gentleman mentioned one.
I am personally aware of far more than I am happy with.
One has recently come up in Springfield, IL--Governor's office. That case involved wiretaps, but emails would have had the same effect. However, the participants apparently realized that and did not commit anything incriminating to email. Doesn't matter. If it can be retrieved, it's evidence.
When I was in corporate life, this is one of the books we studied:
http://www.amazon.ca/PROTECT-YOURSELF-BUSINESS-LAWSUITS-LAWYERS/dp/0684852675/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241139644&sr=1-5
It's worth reading reading. I trust you can understand that the evidentiary principles that can apply in a case involving restraint of trade, or the theft of intellectual property, etc., can apply equally to a case in which the question at hand was whether a person who fired a gun was in fact in imminent danger of death, or if he was not, whether a homicide was premeditated or not. If you cannot, I do not think I can help you.
Ironically, the author was later working on another book with a man who was later imprisoned.
The evidence against him was revealed through electronic records.
What I cannot understand is
why you would not want others who might otherwise face the same fate, or at least an expensive, unnerving, and grueling ordeal to be informed in advance of the potential pitfalls so they can avoid it.
Are you concerned that, in their wisdom, they will not post something that you would have enjoyed reading?
