Being on this forum is good/bad?

[knkali]

I was going to reply to the post about "have you ever used your weapon in SD" or something like this when I read some were not going to reply do to possible liabilities. My question is this: If we needed to defend ourselves using our Karh or ??, would being on this forum portray us in a negative light? As if we are shooting mongers just wait'n for a reason?

Thoughts?

[TheTman]

I don't think it'd be any worse than being an NRA member or anything like that. In a civil case the opposing attorney will use everthing they can get to portray you as a gun nut just waiting for the oppurtunity to use your weapon on someone.

[Barth]

I was going to reply to the post about "have you ever used your weapon in SD" or something like this when I read some were not going to reply do to possible liabilities. My question is this: If we needed to defend ourselves using our Karh or ??, would being on this forum portray us in a negative light? As if we are shooting mongers just wait'n for a reason?

Thoughts?

Just being on the forum is fine.
Posting specifics about a personal SD event is not.

The point is, I think, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".
It's not just what you say to police that may be admissible in court.
Plus there is the wonderful world of the U.S. version of Double Jeopardy.
Criminal and then Civil cases.
With civil being far more liberal on admissible evidence.
It's just not wise to say ANYTHING.
And I think your lawyer will be very clear on this.

I just don't trust a jury. They may not like me.
Might think I'm lying.
May be willing to disregard hard evedince for circumstantial.
Some people spend their whole lives in prison with no hard evidence at all.

I'm not counsel, and haven't been in that kind of trouble.
But you just can't put yourself at risk.

Better safe than sorry.....

[jocko]

hell getthis crapola. I seen where in a certain area of Florida they are pulling over dirvers who blink their lights on and off to oncoming cars warning tem of a police trap.. Now ain't that a crock of sh-t. I did read where one person took it to court and it was dismissed but my point is "when will this sh-t stop. Hw can they prove what u are actually doing and is blinking ur lights on and off, is that a crime???

[melissa5]

To some people I guess we would be seen as gun nuts no matter what we said online or for just for having a gun. I pray that I never have to use mine for self defense.

[wyntrout]

I don't know that being on this forum would be a negative... unless the lawyers look at what other people are saying and start talking about associations with people who talk about taking the law into their own hands.

Anything you've ever typed on the Internet can be found these days... and it can come back to bite you in the butt if introduced into a court of law. Lawyers... prosecutors and defense will use whatever they can find that gives the impression of you and others that they want to portray. You have to think about the future and if you ever do have to use your weapon for defense, the other side doesn't pull up where you once said you'd kill the BG MF... meaning that you would use the amount of force necessary to stop the attack on you or whomever you were trying to defend... or something to that end.

Wynn:)

[Barth]

hell getthis crapola. I seen where in a certain area of Florida they are pulling over dirvers who blink their lights on and off to oncoming cars warning tem of a police trap.. Now ain't that a crock of sh-t. I did read where one person took it to court and it was dismissed but my point is "when will this sh-t stop. Hw can they prove what u are actually doing and is blinking ur lights on and off, is that a crime???

They don't have to prove it.
This is America and you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
(unless you're an illegal alien of course!)

It's funny how some people watch CSI Miami, L.A. Law and Judge Judy
thinking any of that even slightly resembles the reality we live in.

(Yup, I'm cynical all right - LOL!)

[jocko]

judged by 12 beats being carried by 6...If ur gonna worry about what "could be" then never leave ur home.

Uncle sam knows I am what I am , not gonna change to please them!!

[jocko]

BARTH'Squote:It's funny how some people watch CSI Miami, L.A. Law and Judge Judy
thinking any of that even slightly resembles the reality we live in.



Aw come on BARTH, now ur gonna tell me that Judge Judy is not the real world, and oh my L.A. Law, what next??? NCIS don't u dare say anything negative about Jethro Gibbs.. and I guess Detective benson is really a man in disguise, ???Go on ruin my day!!!
I think I need a drink!!

[jocko]

yup, sure missed that one didn't I. I will change that quote.

[Popeye]

I'm not worried about it. You do have to be careful with what you say on the net because you never know who's reading. Always sort of chuckle when I hear members of another sight brag about carrying a couple 33 round bang sticks on them for those just in case days when things might get a little rough. Hope nobodies keeping track of those guys. LOL

[jocko]

WHO??

LET ME GUESS: pELOSIE!! hARRY REID. OR HOW ABOUT HARRY BELEFONTA!!

[Bill K]

I was involved in a shooting. Advise of my counsel then was not to talk about the incident, particularly to the press. If you work for a large company most likely asset management folks will want to "interview" you. If you have a management position and don't comply you will be disciplined up to and including termination. You could be disciplined even if you do comply but the company doesn't like your actions for whatever reason.

[jocko]

nice to hear from THE VOICE OF EXPERIENCE TO...

[Rainman48314]

...
I just don't trust a jury. They may not like me.
Might think I'm lying.
May be willing to disregard hard evedince for circumstantial.
Some people spend their whole lives in prison with no hard evidence at all.

I'm not counsel, and haven't been in that kind of trouble.
But you just can't put yourself at risk.

Better safe than sorry.....

Bad news. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Most cases do not involve multiple eye witnesses or taped confessions. Much of the rest falls into the circumstantial. The jails are filled with convictions based on circumstantial evidence..and few are innocent. Sorry.

[Barth]

Bad news. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Most cases do not involve multiple eye witnesses or taped confessions. Much of the rest falls into the circumstantial. The jails are filled with convictions based on circumstantial evidence..and few are innocent. Sorry.

And few are innocent?
Like you know?
If you don't have hard evidence.
You don't have squat.
10 guilty people are suppose to walk so one good guy doesn't go to jail.
Unfortunately, that's not really how it really works.
If juries, judges and lawyers had to do the time they wrongfully put on innocent people - things would change in a heart beat.
People would require, demand, real hard evidence.

But you're very right.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
And innocent people get convicted everyday based on that.
Right now, to me, it's a roulette wheel of death.
Where right and wrong don't have meaning.
Just who has the best lawyer wins (Go O.J. Go).

Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY?
I don't think so.

I already know the bad news.
And you better believe I'm already sorry about it.

[Thunder71]

As with anything you do, you take your chances... email, phone calls, forums, texts, the list goes on and on.

[Scoundrel]

I took a photo of myself holding something shiny and brand new, and sent it to my friends via e-mail. They had been bugging me for a picture because I'd told them I had purchased it, but they had not seen it yet. They got a little playfully rude about wanting the photo, as friends will. So when I took the picture, one of the hands holding the shiny thing was making a colorful gesture in the direction of the camera.

After oohing and ahhing, one of the recipients of the photo suggested that we all delete our copies of that picture, and definitely do NOT ever post it on a forum, because if I was ever involved in an incident (whether it included that particular object or not), then sure as hell, THAT is the photo that the media would use when writing up the story, and THAT is the photo the prosecution would use to prove that I was a nut with a bad attitude.

So the photo was henceforth deleted by everyone who got a copy of it.

Paranoid? Maybe. Smart? Probably. Note that I am even avoiding an explicit description of the photo.

[O'Dell]

I suppose I have a bit more faith in the system than Barth. Being an ex-lawyer, [never criminal] I've seen it work from both sides. Sure, the rules of evidence are more lax in civil law, but I think we're talking mostly criminal here. As Rainman said circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You could say that circumstantial evidence is based on coincidence. Let's say you were proven to be on the same street as the "victim" at the same time, you were known to hate him, and you had in your possession the exact same weapon that was used in the crime. Would you be convicted? No, 99% of the time - not without physical evidence linking you to the crime. Rarely are people convicted without some physical evidence, and then, only if the string of coincidences is overwhelming.

I know there are many, many more guilty people acquitted than innocent people convicted, and believe it or not, that's how it's suppose to work in our imperfect world. Is the system perfect? Of course not, but what man made system is? I think we should be more careful knocking what we have, unless someone, maybe you, comes up with a better way of doing things. So far, that hasn't happened.

[Rainman48314]

I suppose I have a bit more faith in the system than Barth. Being an ex-lawyer, [never criminal] I've seen it work from both sides. Sure, the rules of evidence are more lax in civil law, but I think we're talking mostly criminal here. As Rainman said circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You could say that circumstantial evidence is based on coincidence. Let's say you were proven to be on the same street as the "victim" at the same time, you were known to hate him, and you had in your possession the exact same weapon that was used in the crime. Would you be convicted? No, 99% of the time - not without physical evidence linking you to the crime. Rarely are people convicted without some physical evidence, and then, only if the string of coincidences is overwhelming.

I know there are many, many more guilty people acquitted than innocent people convicted, and believe it or not, that's how it's suppose to work in our imperfect world. Is the system perfect? Of course not, but what man made system is? I think we should be more careful knocking what we have, unless someone, maybe you, comes up with a better way of doing things. So far, that hasn't happened.I was reading about the Innocense Project and I found it interesting what a high percentage of the mistakes come from DIRECT evidence. Mistakes by "eye witnesses" or confessions.

[Scoundrel]

If you're in the mood for a long read about our lovely justice system and "hard physical evidence", including a little tidbit about how interested in justice Rick Perry really is, have a look at this one:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[Barth]

I suppose I have a bit more faith in the system than Barth. Being an ex-lawyer, [never criminal] I've seen it work from both sides. Sure, the rules of evidence are more lax in civil law, but I think we're talking mostly criminal here. As Rainman said circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You could say that circumstantial evidence is based on coincidence. Let's say you were proven to be on the same street as the "victim" at the same time, you were known to hate him, and you had in your possession the exact same weapon that was used in the crime. Would you be convicted? No, 99% of the time - not without physical evidence linking you to the crime. Rarely are people convicted without some physical evidence, and then, only if the string of coincidences is overwhelming.

I know there are many, many more guilty people acquitted than innocent people convicted, and believe it or not, that's how it's suppose to work in our imperfect world. Is the system perfect? Of course not, but what man made system is? I think we should be more careful knocking what we have, unless someone, maybe you, comes up with a better way of doing things. So far, that hasn't happened.

I was in a bit of a mood when I wrote that.
Must apologize for the rant.
And particularly to anyone in the legal field.
I do believe we here in the U.S. have the best judicial system in the world.

I just get upset when I hear of juries passing judgment on a person based on the way they look, dress or talk.
Are they believable? Are they likeable?
At times this seems more important than actual evidence.
Much like the best looking/sounding politician, that can read a teleprompter with feeling, wins the election.
It’s upsetting and disturbing.
Also, “who has the best lawyer wins” is absolutely true.
And how does that bode for the poor.
I don’t have a solution.
But I still demand constant review and improvement.
Some things, like family law for instance, are long over-due a revamp.

Anyway, didn’t mean to offend anyone.
I will endeavor to refrain from posting when upset.

Have a great day everybody…

[O'Dell]

I was reading about the Innocense Project and I found it interesting what a high percentage of the mistakes come from DIRECT evidence. Mistakes by "eye witnesses" or confessions.

Eye witness testimony is nearly always questionable unless the person being identified is well known to the witness. The average person is just not that observant. Nowadays, since science has entered the courtroom, various forms of forensic evidence is considered better physical evidence by prosecutors and juries.

[knkali]

Bart,

I do not think an apology was needed but thank you just the same for it. I, and many here, understood the point you were trying to make. We want, need and deserve perfection when it comes to our judicial system.

[O'Dell]

If you're in the mood for a long read about our lovely justice system and "hard physical evidence", including a little tidbit about how interested in justice Rick Perry really is, have a look at this one:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

You're right, it is very long.

Years ago I was a strong proponent of the death penalty, but time has softened that position. All human beings make mistakes, and police officers, investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries, are all human. The chain is long and there are just too many places for a mistake to enter and then be compounded. Your story is a good example of this. With one or two possible exceptions, I think the mistakes in this case were honest ones, but they were mistakes nevertheless.

Another factor that is particular to our time is the rapid development of scientific evidence. Most of the death penalty cases that are coming to a head today were tried years ago before some of these new techniques were discovered or perfected. DNA is a prime example.

Life without parole at least gives conscientious people the chance to correct any mistakes, before it is to late.

The third factor pales in the arena of life and death, but it is the cost. It's been proven that the cost of incarcerating a prisoner for life is less than fighting the death penalty appeals.

[O'Dell]

Bart,

I do not think an apology was needed but thank you just the same for it. I, and many here, understood the point you were trying to make. We want, need and deserve perfection when it comes to our judicial system.

Unfortunately, we'll only get that when God is judge and jury.

[Scoundrel]

You're right, it is very long.


I think it has to be that way, in order to really make its point and cover all of the angles.

[O'Dell]

I was in a bit of a mood when I wrote that.
Must apologize for the rant.
And particularly to anyone in the legal field.
I do believe we here in the U.S. have the best judicial system in the world.

I just get upset when I hear of juries passing judgment on a person based on the way they look, dress or talk.
Are they believable? Are they likeable?
At times this seems more important than actual evidence.
Much like the best looking/sounding politician, that can read a teleprompter with feeling, wins the election.
It’s upsetting and disturbing.
Also, “who has the best lawyer wins” is absolutely true.
And how does that bode for the poor.
I don’t have a solution.
But I still demand constant review and improvement.
Some things, like family law for instance, are long over-due a revamp.

Anyway, didn’t mean to offend anyone.
I will endeavor to refrain from posting when upset.

Have a great day everybody…




After I wrote my comment I meant to go back and remove your name, but I forgot to do so. I'm sorry - my remarks were general. I didn't mean to refer back to you. I agree that it's an imperfect system, and I see signs of improvement, but I, too, wish for perfection. Unfortunately, since it's a man made system that's beyond the possible.

[knkali]

Unfortunately, we'll only get that when God is judge and jury.

yep