Self Defense Self Incrimination

[sgtmac_46]

Call me a forward thinking paranoid if you like. I'm perfectly content with you not seeing it as plausible. Share what you want and say whatever you feel. No harm, no foul...probably. I choose to be more circumspect.

It's all about risk......and since no example of a scenario you describe, i.e. someone being prosecuted and convicted, with the decision hinging on some internet comment made months or years before about self-defense, i'm going to have to go with pretty darned remote odds, non-examples to the contrary.

Now i'll agree with you about not making statements about committing a criminal act.......but the notion of not discussing self-defense scenarios because we're afraid Lawyer Ninjas are going to jump out and get us is taking it too far.

 

[MJS]

I'll say this....I can see people, probably LEOs, searching the facebook, myspace and other 'social networking' sites, for that kind of stuff, but a martial arts forum.....

 

[MarkBarlow]

It's all about risk......and since no example of a scenario you describe, i.e. someone being prosecuted and convicted, with the decision hinging on some internet comment made months or years before about self-defense, i'm going to have to go with pretty darned remote odds, non-examples to the contrary.

Now i'll agree with you about not making statements about committing a criminal act.......but the notion of not discussing self-defense scenarios because we're afraid Lawyer Ninjas are going to jump out and get us is taking it too far.

I'm sure we'll never agree on this and that's not a problem for me. You say that because there is such a slim chance that it will ever be a problem, trash talk on the internet is O.K. I believe that the mere possibility, however slim, that it might come back to haunt you is reason enough to avoid online machismo. Good enough.

We've both expressed our views and that's really all these posts are about, sharing viewpoints that sometimes differ. Best of luck to you in your training.

 

[Bruno@MT]

You FAILED to make your point.....your example does not represent the concern of the above...he STATED he was going to commit an illegal act, and it was used to acquit SOMEONE ELSE of a crime.......many things are used by defense attorneys to get their clients acquitted, statements made by police officers about committing a criminal act are admissible.......that's not the premise of the author of this thread.
.

It's true that my example was not about a violent self defense situation.
But if I read the article correctly, he did not state he was going to commit a criminal act.

He just made statements that by themselves were innocent enough, but a defense attorney used them to make a difference.
This is the example that came to mind first. But the premise is valid.

Or how about Hans Reiser? His google searches combined with the fact that he had manuals on police procedures were not evidence of a crime. But they were used for building a succesfull case against him.
Ok he did it, and he could have been convicted without it, but it was a part of his case.

googling a name and some keywords takes only a couple of minutes, and if you find a potential jackpot (like participation in an MA forum or facebook) then it only takes another half hour to do more research.
Like it or not, this is happening. These days, many employers do a google search for their shortlist in order to see if skeletons come falling out of the closet.

EDIT: yes, I know, again not a self defense scenario. But even then it is not impossible.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'll say this....I can see people, probably LEOs, searching the facebook, myspace and other 'social networking' sites, for that kind of stuff, but a martial arts forum.....

Unless it's a statement about committing the specific criminal act alleged, it's not going to be admissible against a defendant anyway.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm sure we'll never agree on this and that's not a problem for me. You say that because there is such a slim chance that it will ever be a problem, trash talk on the internet is O.K. I believe that the mere possibility, however slim, that it might come back to haunt you is reason enough to avoid online machismo. Good enough.

We've both expressed our views and that's really all these posts are about, sharing viewpoints that sometimes differ. Best of luck to you in your training.

There's a difference between 'trash talk' and 'machismo' and discussing what you plan to do in the context of a discussion on self-defense in a given scenario......it often boils down to one man's plan being another man's 'machismo' when he disagrees with it.

 

[blindsage]

There's prudent, and then there's 'what if's' that have never occurred......if it has occurred, or is becoming quite common place, then i'll certainly acknowledge my error accordingly......at this point I mean no offense, but in my estimation this ranks up there with 'What if I was attacked by an al-Qaeda death squad while visiting Baskin Robbins'......yeah, it could happen.......but it's not something i'm going to dwell on. IMHO.

But at Ben and Jerry's? I mean I'm always lookin' out for the al-Qaeda death squad's at Ben and Jerry's.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's true that my example was not about a violent self defense situation.
But if I read the article correctly, he did not state he was going to commit a criminal act.

He just made statements that by themselves were innocent enough, but a defense attorney used them to make a difference.

A defense attorney used them to create reasonable doubt on his own clients guilt........not remotely the same thing, or the concern of the average citizen when defending themselves.

This is the example that came to mind first. But the premise is valid.

The premise doesn't become valid until we find an example of it actually happening......it's a hypothesis at this point. It's like envisioning some strange particle in physics. It's a great theory, it might even gain wide-ranging support.....but UNTIL at least one real world example is found, it's still just a hypothesis.

Or how about Hans Reiser? His google searches combined with the fact that he had manuals on police procedures were not evidence of a crime. But they were used for building a succesfull case against him.
Ok he did it, and he could have been convicted without it, but it was a part of his case.

And there's the rub.......he committed a criminal act. What we are discussing is an online discussion turning a perfectly legitimate use of force SUDDENLY in to a criminal act........apples and handgrenades difference.

googling a name and some keywords takes only a couple of minutes, and if you find a potential jackpot (like participation in an MA forum or facebook) then it only takes another half hour to do more research.
Like it or not, this is happening. These days, many employers do a google search for their shortlist in order to see if skeletons come falling out of the closet.

That may be the case, but it's certainly not frightening to me. I don't say things in the context of this forum I wouldn't say to my boss.

At the same time, I don't consider it credible that statements made in a forum such as this are any kind of reasonable threat in a criminal case, unless it's a confession of a crime or criminal act, of course. I'll have to see at least ONE case of a hypothetical self-defense discussion on line turning in to a criminal case against someone before I consider anything other than 'what if?' fears.

EDIT: yes, I know, again not a self defense scenario. But even then it is not impossible.[/quote] I never said it was impossible.......I did want to see at least one example of same in this entire nation of 300 million plus people before I began considering it a valid threat.

 

[sgtmac_46]

But at Ben and Jerry's? I mean I'm always lookin' out for the al-Qaeda death squad's at Ben and Jerry's.

Well OF COURSE Ben and Jerry's.......they give that 'Jihad' discount!

 

[MarkBarlow]

There's a difference between 'trash talk' and 'machismo' and discussing what you plan to do in the context of a discussion on self-defense in a given scenario......it often boils down to one man's plan being another man's 'machismo' when he disagrees with it.

Please read my initial post. I spoke specifically about chest beating and tough talk, not about discussing martial arts in general.

For whatever reason, you've decided to take this personal. I choose not to play. Again, good luck in your training.

 

[tellner]

Gather ye right close and hear the Wisdom of the Ages as I first saw it mimeopgraphed and taped to the wall of an engineer's office:

Samson slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ***.
Every day thousands do themselves in with the same weapon.

 

[Thesemindz]

Admitting the commission of a crime is an entirely different story. But the notion that one shouldn't share 'What if' scenarios, which are a very good training tool, out of fear of NINJA LAWYERS is a whole different level of paranoia.

I agree with your position here.

I'm not saying the likelihood of "ninger lawyas" is high. I'm saying don't put youself in compromision positions. Sometimes I see people say things like,

"I'd never turn over my guns."

"I'd kill anyone who broke into my home, and tell the cops it was self defense."

"When the cops got there, I told them it was an accident."

"I lie on my taxes, census report, federal audit etc. etc."

While I may sympathize with their thoughts, I wouldn't voice those thoughts where, god forbid, someone could print them off and use them against me in court.

Which is why I always pay my taxes, comply with law enforcement in every concievable way, and am completely honest on all government forms.

Because if I end up in court, that's the only statement I want them to be able to introduce as evidence.


-Rob

 

[sgtmac_46]

Please read my initial post. I spoke specifically about chest beating and tough talk, not about discussing martial arts in general.

For whatever reason, you've decided to take this personal. I choose not to play. Again, good luck in your training.

You've gotten me all wrong......i'm not taking it personally. I just disagreed with the premise. No harm no foul. I forget sometimes that some folks don't debate for sport, and mistake that for taking something personally.

I am curious as to what, specifically, you're referring to as chest beating and tough talk......given the threads proximity to the 'What would you do with a robber' thread, am I correct in assuming that was the primer?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree with your position here.

I'm not saying the likelihood of "ninger lawyas" is high. I'm saying don't put youself in compromision positions. Sometimes I see people say things like,

Lets examine these.......

"I'd never turn over my guns."

I personally wouldn't........nor would the founders. That's why they drafted a 2nd Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights of this country........where's the 'tough talk'? Would it be 'tough talk' to say 'I will never stop practicing my religion', 'I will never be silenced from using my free speech rights'? I guess to a hopolophobe it might be considered 'bravado', but it's no different than the rest.

"I'd kill anyone who broke into my home, and tell the cops it was self defense."

The State of Missouri, where I live, has put in statute that very notion.....that if someone breaks in to your home you may PRESUME they are there to harm you, and that it is, prime facie self defense. Don't see the issue.

"When the cops got there, I told them it was an accident."

'I told them it was an accident' presumes it's something that has already occured.......it's an admission of filing a false police report. I've already addressed that.

"I lie on my taxes, census report, federal audit etc. etc."

Again, admission of committing a criminal act.......apples and bowling balls.

While I may sympathize with their thoughts, I wouldn't voice those thoughts where, god forbid, someone could print them off and use them against me in court.

You're intentionally mixing one kind of comment with other, admission of criminal act comments, for the purposes of lumping them all together.

Which is why I always pay my taxes, comply with law enforcement in every concievable way, and am completely honest on all government forms.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion.

Because if I end up in court, that's the only statement I want them to be able to introduce as evidence.


-Rob

Again, two of your examples of admissions of criminal acts.......the other two were nothing of the sort.......there is no comparison.

My point this entire time is that I truly suspect that some folks find certain discussions unpalatable.....I think you've illustrated that with the reference to the 2nd Amendment and the reference to self defense against burglary.

As to the stated hypothesis........because i've yet to see an example of someone making a perfectly legal statement in this kind of forum being used against them in the pursuit of criminal or civil charges.......not one single example. It's a lot like big foot........until one is captured, i'll continue to believe they don't exist............and until someone is prosecuted for speaking their mind freely, i'll continue to endorse the notion.

 

[MJS]

Unless it's a statement about committing the specific criminal act alleged, it's not going to be admissible against a defendant anyway.

Good point, and I think its safe for me to say, that if a post like that was made on here, it would be dealt with by the mods.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Good point, and I think its safe for me to say, that if a post like that was made on here, it would be dealt with by the mods.

I got faith that mods would be all over that.

 

[Guardian]

Thank you SgtMac and anyone else who agree with him.

If you afraid of what might come, you would almost have to shut this site down and the sites like it and go home and pray that your door is not approached. That's ridiculous folks. Thanks for pointing that out SgtMac, you beat me to it.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Thank you SgtMac and anyone else who agree with him.

If you afraid of what might come, you would almost have to shut this site down and the sites like it and go home and pray that your door is not approached. That's ridiculous folks. Thanks for pointing that out SgtMac, you beat me to it.

That was not my point. I am not 'afraid'. I am 'careful'
For example: in the poll 'what would you do to a burglar', one of the options is 'kill him'. Now, it may be perfectly fine to do this if you live in texas, but there are many states and countries where the legality of such an action depends on the threat level and the context.

For example, in Belgium, deadly force is only allowed in certain circumstances. Unqualified statements like 'I'll kill any burglar that enters my house' can get you in trouble later on if you should actually kill the burglar and there is doubt about legal justification.

This has nothing to do with fear, but everything with reality and not taking unnecessary risks (no gain and easily avoided). Just because it is unlikely does not mean you shouldn't care. It doesn't cost you anything to be careful. You don't lose anything because of it. Even if none of the unlikely scenarios ever come to pass, you still haven't lost anything.

It's like wearing a seatbelt in-flight at cruising altitude. For most people it never makes a difference whether they wear it or not. But if ever something were to occur like temporary loss of lift (in some rare cases of turbulence, this happens) then it makes a huge difference. And even if you never needed it, it didn't hurt you the least to take the precaution.

 

[Guardian]

That was not my point. I am not 'afraid'. I am 'careful'
For example: in the poll 'what would you do to a burglar', one of the options is 'kill him'. Now, it may be perfectly fine to do this if you live in texas, but there are many states and countries where the legality of such an action depends on the threat level and the context.

For example, in Belgium, deadly force is only allowed in certain circumstances. Unqualified statements like 'I'll kill any burglar that enters my house' can get you in trouble later on if you should actually kill the burglar and there is doubt about legal justification.

This has nothing to do with fear, but everything with reality and not taking unnecessary risks (no gain and easily avoided). Just because it is unlikely does not mean you shouldn't care. It doesn't cost you anything to be careful. You don't lose anything because of it. Even if none of the unlikely scenarios ever come to pass, you still haven't lost anything.

It's like wearing a seatbelt in-flight at cruising altitude. For most people it never makes a difference whether they wear it or not. But if ever something were to occur like temporary loss of lift (in some rare cases of turbulence, this happens) then it makes a huge difference. And even if you never needed it, it didn't hurt you the least to take the precaution.

Answer me this question please? Is is permissiable to kill an intruder in your home in Belgium? If the answer is yes, then the rest of the conversation from their is almost a moot point is it not, for we have already met your certain circumstances. If not, I'm very curious as to what circumstances you are speaking of, because if an intruder inside your house doesn't qualify, I'd be at a loss as to what would, but I would be curious if you don't mind.

The airplane point is not an appropriate analogy to use in defending why saying I would kill an intruder in my house is not a good thing to say on an internet, they don't meet the same circumstances in my view.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I am not a lawyer, but here is the layman's version as I understood it:

- You can kill an intruder if it is dark and he surprises you. If you hit someone on the head with a frying pan because he was sneaking up the stairs in the night, then that's fine.
- If someone actually threatens you or your family (or anyone in your care) then it's fine too. Although even then, the defense has to be proportionate to the threat.

That's it. If someone doesn't threaten you, or if he just turns and walks out with your vcr... you'd better not harm him because you're in a heap of trouble.

So suppose I was to say something like 'Hey, if someone is stealing my stuff, he is dead, no matter what'. Yep. Busted. Because if I was unlucky enough to ever end up in such a situation, and there is a confrontation and the burglar ends up dead, then it is uncertain what will happen.

If the DA believes that the burglar attacked me, or if he thinks that there was some sort of confrontation that went out of hand, then I am home free. But if he somehow finds my machismo talk, then I am in deep ****. Because then he can make a good case that I was already predetermined to kill that burglar, and that I initiated the confrontation with deadly intentions.
It's crazy, but I might end up paying compensation to the family of the poor dead burglar, on top of doing 10-30 year in prison.

Yes, it stinks.
No, I don't agree. My home should be my castle.
But it doesn't make a difference what I think. This is reality.
Btw, this is true in many other countries. Most European countries in any case.