SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Caution about postings
- Thread starter SFCRetired
- Start date
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
The jist of his detainment/arrest and the tragic loss of a friend and co-owner has already been publicized by the media. However, your advise is/will be well taken by many.
The jist of his detainment/arrest and the tragic loss of a friend and co-owner has already been publicized by the media. However, your advise is/will be well taken by many.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Good advice.
If I may expand,
I would also like to extend the no-posting advice to encounters about which you might only complain. Not just encounters where you are in legal trouble or might want to sue.
Police monitor this forum. It is no stretch at all for an LEO in another jurisdiction to see your post here, and alert the police in your jurisdiction. See the Tony's incident FOIA release. A police officer e-mailed around the state seeking information on VCDL(the wrong group as it was OCDO.) This caution especially applies if you are in legal trouble or want to sue.
As for encounters where you might want to only complain. Police can get early warning of your plans if you post here. At least one police department pre-emptively launched their own internal affairs investigation based on a bad encounter posted here. That department then used (twisted, in my opinion)FOIA law exceptions to withhold FOIA-requested records when the OCer went to gather evidence for his complaint. No sense in helping these people hide. It was the Alexandria Police Department, VA.
If you have havea negative police encounter and want in-put, advice, and so forth, send a Private Message to someone from your state who youthinkseems trustworthy and reliable as to court opinions and statutes.
"I don't want to make a formal complaint," you might say. OK. You might once you hear thein-put and advice. Realize, you wouldn't be asking for advice or in-put if you knew whether your rights were violated and to what extent. Once you realize the full extent, you may get really angry (justified), and change your mind about a formal complaint or lawsuit.
Good advice.
If I may expand,
I would also like to extend the no-posting advice to encounters about which you might only complain. Not just encounters where you are in legal trouble or might want to sue.
Police monitor this forum. It is no stretch at all for an LEO in another jurisdiction to see your post here, and alert the police in your jurisdiction. See the Tony's incident FOIA release. A police officer e-mailed around the state seeking information on VCDL(the wrong group as it was OCDO.) This caution especially applies if you are in legal trouble or want to sue.
As for encounters where you might want to only complain. Police can get early warning of your plans if you post here. At least one police department pre-emptively launched their own internal affairs investigation based on a bad encounter posted here. That department then used (twisted, in my opinion)FOIA law exceptions to withhold FOIA-requested records when the OCer went to gather evidence for his complaint. No sense in helping these people hide. It was the Alexandria Police Department, VA.
If you have havea negative police encounter and want in-put, advice, and so forth, send a Private Message to someone from your state who youthinkseems trustworthy and reliable as to court opinions and statutes.
"I don't want to make a formal complaint," you might say. OK. You might once you hear thein-put and advice. Realize, you wouldn't be asking for advice or in-put if you knew whether your rights were violated and to what extent. Once you realize the full extent, you may get really angry (justified), and change your mind about a formal complaint or lawsuit.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
I don't see any significant risk in posting information about your experiences unless you are going to incriminate yourself in a crime - almost all the stories posted here have to do with folks who think the authorities have violated their rights, not where the posters have comitted any crimes, and tha facts they post are already known to the authorities.
Invocation of the NATO doctrine requires posting spot reports sharing information is good, adds value.
I don't see any significant risk in posting information about your experiences unless you are going to incriminate yourself in a crime - almost all the stories posted here have to do with folks who think the authorities have violated their rights, not where the posters have comitted any crimes, and tha facts they post are already known to the authorities.
Invocation of the NATO doctrine requires posting spot reports sharing information is good, adds value.
51percent
New member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
I think it's somewhere in between. I didn't see thethread but would like to know what others are experiencing. Unless you're giving away incriminating info like date, time, place, who was involved or anything else that could be used in a court room then no worries.Write a good short story inspired by true events.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
If you have not broken the law there is little to worry about.I doubt the police are going to be researching every short story we written on the internet. Short of rape and murder.
Now if you have done something you feel is questionable you may want to keep it to yourself. Stuff posted on the internet will live on for a long time.
There is a chance that a statement made here could be used if a victim complains you committed a crime against him or her.
But in all honesty, what are the odds.
If you have not broken the law there is little to worry about.I doubt the police are going to be researching every short story we written on the internet. Short of rape and murder.
Now if you have done something you feel is questionable you may want to keep it to yourself. Stuff posted on the internet will live on for a long time.
There is a chance that a statement made here could be used if a victim complains you committed a crime against him or her.
But in all honesty, what are the odds.
Jizzzle
Regular Member
imported post
With my case my lawyer told the defense to look at this site as reference to my complaint. I provided the link to the thread. He read it and then forwarded it to the defense.We start depositions soon. That should be a good time. I think you can tell what happened with no issues. however u better not ever embellish the truth for the sake of a good story. It'll come back to bite u in the ass.
With my case my lawyer told the defense to look at this site as reference to my complaint. I provided the link to the thread. He read it and then forwarded it to the defense.We start depositions soon. That should be a good time. I think you can tell what happened with no issues. however u better not ever embellish the truth for the sake of a good story. It'll come back to bite u in the ass.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
We've had a couple situations where it was open to question whether the poster was reporting something that amounted to a violation of the law.
One fella sweated a good bit. He was harassed at a traffic stop over a gun on his dash. He did not have a CHP, but he also had a newly purchased gun, bought just a little earlier that evening, in its box in a bag in the back seat. Only later, after carefully reviewing his states concealed weapon law did he find the exception for transporting to or from a place of purchase, unloaded and securely wrapped. He sweated agood bit until he found that, thinking he had incriminated himself by posting about the backseat gun on the forum.
If you do post a police encounter, I suggestmaking very sure you weren't violating some law the officer didn't recognize was being violated at the time. Police not knowing the gun laws can conceiveably cut both ways.
Mike wrote:
This is a good point that you bring up, Mike.
We've had a couple situations where it was open to question whether the poster was reporting something that amounted to a violation of the law.
One fella sweated a good bit. He was harassed at a traffic stop over a gun on his dash. He did not have a CHP, but he also had a newly purchased gun, bought just a little earlier that evening, in its box in a bag in the back seat. Only later, after carefully reviewing his states concealed weapon law did he find the exception for transporting to or from a place of purchase, unloaded and securely wrapped. He sweated agood bit until he found that, thinking he had incriminated himself by posting about the backseat gun on the forum.
If you do post a police encounter, I suggestmaking very sure you weren't violating some law the officer didn't recognize was being violated at the time. Police not knowing the gun laws can conceiveably cut both ways.
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
But even in the example you provided the poster could NOT be charged with a crime. The officer may have seen a "box" but the poster was still in possession so there would beno evidence.
You cannot be charged someone with a crime based on a story you have written alone. The officer will have to have some evidence to prove the story was true.
Now it would be different if the officer found the gun, took it, and the poster admitted on the internetto knowing it was illegal but took a chance. He could not argue in court that he was unaware and get off based on ignorance.
Citizen wrote:
True,
But even in the example you provided the poster could NOT be charged with a crime. The officer may have seen a "box" but the poster was still in possession so there would beno evidence.
You cannot be charged someone with a crime based on a story you have written alone. The officer will have to have some evidence to prove the story was true.
Now it would be different if the officer found the gun, took it, and the poster admitted on the internetto knowing it was illegal but took a chance. He could not argue in court that he was unaware and get off based on ignorance.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Devils Advocate wrote:
:quirkyReally?
Devils Advocate wrote:
:quirkyReally?
VAopencarry
Regular Member
imported post
I say we stop telling other people what they should or shouldn't post.
I say we stop telling other people what they should or shouldn't post.
tag
Regular Member
imported post
VAopencarry wrote:
I'm kidding, of course
VAopencarry wrote:
Hypocrite!
I'm kidding, of course
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
I have to say that I agree with the import of the rhetorical question, "Really?"; the belief that "If you have not broken the law there is little to worry about" is romantic idealism, in my opinion. First off, what human has not "broken the law" - most of the time, people aren't even aware they have done so. In Virginia, for example, it's a class-one misdemeanor to leave stuff on other people's property, it's another to post matter in the public right of way without permission from the Virginia Department of Highways, and it's a third to attach matter to telephone poles or highway signs. So when a person puts up a "yard sale" sign on a telephone pole that's in someone else's front yard, but within the right of way, they're guilty of three different offenses for which they could get a maximum punishment of three years in jail plus fines of $7,500. But they do it all the time. Oblivious. I guarantee you that if I wanted to "get" you, and did some superficial investigation, I could find some crime you've committed recently that could wind you up in jail. And it's really just because the state's criminal code and the federal are just too big for anyone to understand, much less obey.
Secondly, someone who wants to put the screws to you doesn't need actual guilt to manipulate the system into getting you put away. And even if you're found "not guilty" at trial, it will have cost you a year out of your life and between six and twenty thousand dollars in legal fees, on average. You don't realize how guilty you can be made to appear from statements that are innocent, or even well-meaning. I saw a guy convicted of obstruction of justice in a Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court by a jury, because he had advised a witness (who happened to be the cops' "confidential informant") that he should "do the right thing" by testifying at the trial of the defendant.
Otto Von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany (and really, the creator of the modern state of Germany) in the late 1800's, said, "Those who love the law and sausages should not observe the process by which either is made." I suggest that goes for law enforcement as well as the legislative process.
So, 1) everybody has something to hide, something they don't want known, and something that they feel is none of the police department's business; 2) everyone is guilty of something, or can be made to look that way; and 3) if someone tells you that you should reveal all so that you won't look guilty by trying to hide something, ask yourself why do they need to know what they're asking about - and if they're asking using that line of manipulative psychology, you should be thinking that they're trying to generate probable cause to arrest you based on your statements, and that you should be calling your lawyer. (The requirement for "Miranda" warnings only arises after you're under full custodial arrest.)
Tomahawk wrote:
I have to say that I agree with the import of the rhetorical question, "Really?"; the belief that "If you have not broken the law there is little to worry about" is romantic idealism, in my opinion. First off, what human has not "broken the law" - most of the time, people aren't even aware they have done so. In Virginia, for example, it's a class-one misdemeanor to leave stuff on other people's property, it's another to post matter in the public right of way without permission from the Virginia Department of Highways, and it's a third to attach matter to telephone poles or highway signs. So when a person puts up a "yard sale" sign on a telephone pole that's in someone else's front yard, but within the right of way, they're guilty of three different offenses for which they could get a maximum punishment of three years in jail plus fines of $7,500. But they do it all the time. Oblivious. I guarantee you that if I wanted to "get" you, and did some superficial investigation, I could find some crime you've committed recently that could wind you up in jail. And it's really just because the state's criminal code and the federal are just too big for anyone to understand, much less obey.
Secondly, someone who wants to put the screws to you doesn't need actual guilt to manipulate the system into getting you put away. And even if you're found "not guilty" at trial, it will have cost you a year out of your life and between six and twenty thousand dollars in legal fees, on average. You don't realize how guilty you can be made to appear from statements that are innocent, or even well-meaning. I saw a guy convicted of obstruction of justice in a Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court by a jury, because he had advised a witness (who happened to be the cops' "confidential informant") that he should "do the right thing" by testifying at the trial of the defendant.
Otto Von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany (and really, the creator of the modern state of Germany) in the late 1800's, said, "Those who love the law and sausages should not observe the process by which either is made." I suggest that goes for law enforcement as well as the legislative process.
So, 1) everybody has something to hide, something they don't want known, and something that they feel is none of the police department's business; 2) everyone is guilty of something, or can be made to look that way; and 3) if someone tells you that you should reveal all so that you won't look guilty by trying to hide something, ask yourself why do they need to know what they're asking about - and if they're asking using that line of manipulative psychology, you should be thinking that they're trying to generate probable cause to arrest you based on your statements, and that you should be calling your lawyer. (The requirement for "Miranda" warnings only arises after you're under full custodial arrest.)
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
VAopencarry wrote:
No one's trying to order anyone else to do, or not do, anything. You post whatever you want to. But when someone gives you good advice and you have problems because you fail to take it, well, as I told my kids when they were growing up, you're much better off learning from other people's mistakes rather than your own.
"...fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs, 1:6), but they make lots of work for lawyers. So, my friend, spout off as much as your little heart desires.
VAopencarry wrote:
No one's trying to order anyone else to do, or not do, anything. You post whatever you want to. But when someone gives you good advice and you have problems because you fail to take it, well, as I told my kids when they were growing up, you're much better off learning from other people's mistakes rather than your own.
"...fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs, 1:6), but they make lots of work for lawyers. So, my friend, spout off as much as your little heart desires.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
When I was working with the power company a friend of mine was climbing a pole and his hooks hit the head of a nail that had been left from a yard sale sign. He fell and broke his leg. Although this seems like a very trivial law there is a very distinct and good reason for it. I will admit that it is broken quite frequently by otherwise law abiding citizens but there are also many many cases of this causing injuries and cost to companies having to remove the left over nails.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Yeah, tell that to Dan. How many thousands of his own dollars has he had to use to "prove" he didn't break a law.
imported post
It was my experience/observation that the courts are too busy with the volume of cases to assign LEOs or prosecutors to monitor on-line postings unless it were some big sensational media case or unless computers or on-line content were an aspect of thecrime they're investigating. I had to go to hearings that did nothing else but schedule future hearings, so I'm not impressed with their efficiency.
That said, you still never want to say or write anything even remotely capable of being decontextualized as some inculpatory admission. Neither would you want to show your hand early if you are going to trial, say. There's nothing to stop someone from reporting something you said or wrote (possibly inaccurately) even if the authorities can't be bothered to check up on these things themselves.
When in doubt, shut up. I do understand the impulse to complain of outrageous treatment and miscarriages of justice, but you are well advised to wait and argue the particulars of your case in court. There's nothing wrong with keeping people informed of the status of a case or just discussing legal definitions/statutory language/case law generally. The inevitable free advise you'll get is usually worth just that, though.
-ljp
It was my experience/observation that the courts are too busy with the volume of cases to assign LEOs or prosecutors to monitor on-line postings unless it were some big sensational media case or unless computers or on-line content were an aspect of thecrime they're investigating. I had to go to hearings that did nothing else but schedule future hearings, so I'm not impressed with their efficiency.
That said, you still never want to say or write anything even remotely capable of being decontextualized as some inculpatory admission. Neither would you want to show your hand early if you are going to trial, say. There's nothing to stop someone from reporting something you said or wrote (possibly inaccurately) even if the authorities can't be bothered to check up on these things themselves.
When in doubt, shut up. I do understand the impulse to complain of outrageous treatment and miscarriages of justice, but you are well advised to wait and argue the particulars of your case in court. There's nothing wrong with keeping people informed of the status of a case or just discussing legal definitions/statutory language/case law generally. The inevitable free advise you'll get is usually worth just that, though.
-ljp
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
hsmith wrote:
hsmith wrote:
Hell, tell it to the Duke lacross team.Tomahawk wrote:Yeah, tell that to Dan. How many thousands of his own dollars has he had to use to "prove" he didn't break a law.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
imported post