TexasCHLforum.com

Its not too hard to find what you've been doing on the internet, as far as posting comments on the internet...

Enter anyone's "screen-name" into Google, Yahoo, MSM etc etc, into those general search engines and see what happens...

Now you know why, when you hear of investigations into some crime or alleged crime one of the things they grab is your computer...

As far as the consequences...Charles mentioned this in some discussions as well, here and in some seminar type get togethers at PSC day(s) IIRC...

Yep, I'd be careful what you post anywhere in the internet...

txinvestigator wrote:You get in a shooting and someone who does not like you and wants you suffer some consequence notifies the authorities that Jim XYZ, who shot that dude, uses the internet handle SEAMUSTX, and he has posted some things on forums that show he was; looking to shoot someone, ignorant of the law, didn't care about the law, etc.

I agree that it possible in a case like the unfortunate Mr. Harold Fish, where the DA wanted to convict at all cost.

It would require
1. that a friend of the bad guy knew that I was seamusTX
2. that the DA wanted to investigate such a thing (most seem unaware of the Internet generally)
3. that Charles Cotton gave investigators access to my registration, or they got a subpeona
4. that the they could trace the e-mail address in my registration to me, which would require at least one more level of inquiry or subpoena
5. that I had posted such irresponsible statements, which I never have, here or anywhere else

I have to remark that I have seen people posting on other sites about shooting cops or politicians that they don't like. I think that is rash (to put it mildly). If they wrote a threat against a named national figure, they are quite likely in a file somewhere.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: I agree that it possible in a case like the unfortunate Mr. Harold Fish, where the DA wanted to convict at all cost.

It would require
1. that a friend of the bad guy knew that I was seamusTX

Not necessarily. Suppose there was someone who didn't know the bad guy, but who knew YOU, (and didn't like you) and knew you were seamusTX. That's all it would take.

seamusTX wrote: 2. that the DA wanted to investigate such a thing (most seem unaware of the Internet generally)

I believe you're mistaken about that. Seizing a computer is SOP for many crimes these days. I think pretty much any DA is aware of what may be unearthed by means of a forensic examination of a computer (including recovering deleted files, etc.).

seamusTX wrote: 3. that Charles Cotton gave investigators access to my registration, or they got a subpeona

But they would get a subpoena, and Charles Cotton would have no choice except to go to jail himself.

seamusTX wrote: 4. that the they could trace the e-mail address in my registration to me, which would require at least one more level of inquiry or subpoena

To which the entities involved would hand over your information in a heartbeat when presented with the right paperwork.

seamusTX wrote: 5. that I had posted such irresponsible statements, which I never have, here or anywhere else

And that's really the key here.

By the nature of the beast, the overwhelming majority of CHL'ers are good responsible people who would not make or post ignorant statements of the type we are referring to here.

That, and the fact that computer files and "web trails" are no where near as relevant to deadly force encounters among strangers is what makes this pretty much a minor issue.

But I can think of a "stranger" scenario where computer data could be a factor. Suppose a CHL'er was involved in two or three street encounters that led up to deadly force. Note: I am not referring to a storekeeper here. I'm referring to street encounters. Now say that this happened by pure chance. (Yes, highly unlikely. But in a country of 300 million people, almost anything that can happen will happen, right?) I would expect the DA to grab the CHL'ers computer and look through it to see if they had some kind of Charles Bronson wannabe on their hands. Heck, they'd probably look through the CHL'ers house to see if he had the "Death Wish Boxed Set - Director's Cut" DVD collection.

(Is there even such a set? I don't even know. But if there was, and the CHL'er had it, I wouldn't be surprised in a case as I describe above if the DA tried to paint the CHL'er as a Paul Kersey wannabe.)

Sure, it's all far-fetched. But it illustrates the principle.

seamusTX wrote: I have to remark that I have seen people posting on other sites about shooting cops or politicians that they don't like. I think that is rash (to put it mildly). If they wrote a threat against a named national figure, they are quite likely in a file somewhere.

- Jim

Any kind of talk or postings about things like that is stupid and reflects badly on the poster.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I can think of a "stranger" scenario where computer data could be a factor. Suppose a CHL'er was involved in two or three street encounters that led up to deadly force.

That has happened. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I've read about two types of cases:

1. Good-for-nothing troublemaker who makes the life of everyone in a small town miserable, frequently threatening people or trying to pick fights, is killed by someone claiming self defense.

2. Neighborhood activist who tries to drive away drug dealers, prostitutes, and their customers, is attacked by a criminal and has to defend himself.

These cases go two ways. Either it's absolutely justified self-defense and no charges are filed -- end of story, or the person who defended himself pleads to some lesser charge.

District attorneys don't have unlimited resources (unlike the feds). They would much rather get a plea bargain if they think a person is guilty, and wrap it up quickly. Most accused people don't have the resources to go to trial, unless it's with a public defender, which is risky.

I agree that the proposed scenario can happen, but history demonstrates that it's much more likely that you'll win the Powerball lottery.

[Later] Using books and magazine a person has read or videos that he has viewed as evidence has to pass a first-amendment test. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it's an obstacle that a defense attorney can use.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It would require
1. that a friend of the bad guy knew that I was seamusTX

Your last name isn't by chance Casey? Because if it is, you just made it easier for the BG's friend.

(note: I'll edit that out if you want )

I practice some privacy law. I guarantee you that nothing you put on the internet is private. If an attorney wants to find out what you have said on on this site or any other, they will. And it won't be all that difficult.

When you write on any site, assume it is all public. It really is.

tornado wrote:Your last name isn't by chance Casey? Because if it is, you just made it easier for the BG's friend.

My name is Jim Casey and I live in Galveston. I'm in the phone book (though there is another person in Galveston with a similar name).

I stand by everything I've said in this forum. I realized a long time ago that there is no such thing as being anonymous or untraceable.

- Jim

Good deal.

My dad taught me long ago to never put anything in writing that I wouldn't want to read aloud in open court.

I'm leaving my name out at this point because carrying is against the rules at work (a state agency), and even though I don't carry there, I don't want the extra scrutiny.

tornado wrote:I'm leaving my name out at this point because carrying is against the rules at work (a state agency), and even though I don't carry there, I don't want the extra scrutiny.

That's certainly prudent.

I don't work on my employer's premises, and the company isn't run by busybodies.

- Jim