Death Threat Against FHP Trooper - FHP Not Willing To Invest - Page 8
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 92
 
  1. #71
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    chipdeblock,

    I'm all about free speech and having liberal rights, but this FHP forum is a cesspool of name calling, personal vendetta attacks, name calling, repetitive harassment, etc. Much of it borders hate speech.

    Just because the posters do not agree with an arrest someone makes or the way someone supervises, they have no right to publicly ridicule them on an on-going continual basis non-stop, in a perpetually retrieval and name indexed (Internet search engine) format.

    The TOS are essentially never enforced or interpreted so loosely that posters are permitted to continue with egregious conduct.

    The actions of the anonymous posters cause just as much harm to the careers of those they name and rant about, as the things which they complain about in their posts.

    There is no recourse from this Gomorrah. How could you expect any law enforcement agency to actually take anything you say seriously?
    I don't know if you know who I am, but you're definitely talking to the right guy. I am one of the two original co-founders of this site (back in 2002) and I retired in 2013 after 30 years law enforcement experience at the Tampa Police Department. After reading your accusation that the TOS (actually it's TOU) are never enforced, I take exception to that statement. We have over 500 agency message boards online with a ton of content. As such, moderation is a team effort between our moderators and our users. If you report a violation, I am actually copied on the email and I personally look into it unless Mod 1 or another moderator beat me to it. Mod 1 and I make sure the Terms of Use are uniformly applied to the message boards. But, then again, if you're not reporting the violations then we may not be aware of them. If users are talking about command staff, public figures or the like then they are legally required to be more exposed to scrutiny. If your a LEO and wearing your feelings on your sleeve, you are in the wrong profession. Our system of moderation has even been featured in The Washington Post, so I'd like to think we know what we're doing and that we're one of the best at doing it.

  2. #72
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Washington Post

    Officers' Site Sinks Into Outlet for Attacks Topics of Race, Sex Permeate Montgomery Police Union Message Board
    By Ernesto Londoño March 23, 2006

    What's up with the cop in Silver Spring who's ratting out colleagues? That was the question raised by a police officer who started a thread on the online message board of the Montgomery County police union on July 15, 2004.

    Within minutes, a flurry of responses began pouring in to the site, one of many online forums that have changed the way police gripe and gossip.

    They called the African American officer in question a "rat," a racist and a lazy cop who needed to "be put in her place." Then her husband -- the department's former diversity training teacher, who was brought in after the agency came under scrutiny over allegations of racial profiling -- was dragged into the online onslaught.

    "Let him jump out and scream profiling at me on a traffic stop," a writer identified only as "Irish Cop 4 Life" wrote. "The only profile he's going to see is mine driving him into the pavement by his racist skull!!!"

    The message board was designed as a forum where officers could trade tips, complaints and light banter. But several officers say it has become an outlet for personal attacks -- often laced with racist language, sexual harassment and disparaging remarks about police supervisors, county leaders, immigrants and residents.

    Copies of the messages from the password-protected Web site provided to The Post provide a rare glimpse of some officers talking among themselves. The authenticity of the messages, posted from 2004 to this year, was verified by officers with access to the site.

    The officer attacked in July 2004 was Cpl. Sonia Pruitt, identified on the site not only by her name but also her professional particulars: badge No. 1134, Silver Spring station, central business district. She said the attack stemmed from a misunderstanding of an innocuous episode involving an officer she believed did not follow proper procedure during an arrest.

    The threat about her husband would have been jarring in any context, Pruitt said. But coming from one of her colleagues -- only Montgomery County police officers have access to the forum -- it was downright bloodcurdling.

    "Who's to say a guy with a gun wouldn't hurt my husband on a traffic stop?" she asked.

    Officers concerned about what they describe as a spate of increasingly odious exchanges say union leaders and police supervisors have largely ignored their complaints. The union president said the site is deliberately uncensored, but he said he discourages its use as an outlet for personal attacks, harassment and racist language.

    Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said he has known for some time that some officers were unhappy with the message boards, but he said he was unaware of the nature of the offensive threads until a reporter read him a sample.

    "I'm very disappointed to know that we have a handful of employees that would write some of the things that are written in this forum," Manger said. "I know it does not reflect 99 percent of our employees. I will not tolerate any unlawful or improper conduct by any police department employee in the course of their duties."

    Five officers interviewed for this story said they think the uncivil messages are the work of a loud minority and do not reflect the values of most officers. But they say the messages offer a disturbing look into the minds of some of their colleagues, and they say they worry that the postings might influence rookies.

    "If you treat your brothers and sisters like this," said Detective Terry Ridgley, president of the department's black officers association, "how can we expect you to treat members of the community with respect?"

    The county's immigrants, a segment of the population whose trust the police department has worked hard to gain, have frequently been the target of offensive messages.

    A January thread that started with a message about a sign at a district station turned into a rant about the county's changing demographics. One officer identified only as "4D" -- the Wheaton district station -- wrote: "Half of the district NO HABLA!!!! COMPRENDE??" Another poster using the pseudonym "SE HABLA AWE SCREW IT, HANDS UP PACO" responded later in the thread, which had "Ig'nant" as a subject line: "HALF, TRY 90 PERCENT . . . BEANERS GO HOME."

    A February thread started by an officer looking for "a good painter that would be cheap" led to messages about the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group that recently started scouting day laborer sites in the county.

    "Casa de Maryland should be done away with, as should any safehaven for illegals," one writer, identified only as "." offered, referring to a group that assists immigrants in the county. "In 20 years you'll have 150 channels of Telemundo, and you'll be paying for English-language channels -- and you'll be at the day laborer center, waiting for a pick-up."

    Another poster, who said he was a Hispanic officer, shot back: "This is the trash I have to deal [with] in this department everyday and it's getting really old. Cut it off. Next time when you call a signal 13" -- code for an officer in distress -- "or help for translation look around and see who's backing you up. Be safe."

    Non-Hispanic immigrants have also been trounced on the site. In August 2004, officers criticized a group of African immigrants who protested after a Montgomery officer fatally shot Peter Ayompeuh Njang, 25, a Cameroonian immigrant, on Aug. 12 in Silver Spring.

    "What I'd like to know is how many of the protesters are illegals, and how many will be arriving to the demonstration in unregistered, uninsured vehicles with someone else's credit card," one officer identified as "Status Quo" wrote.

    Race and demographics are not the only volatile subjects on the boards. There have been sexually explicit postings. One depicted a fictional incident involving a female police commander in SWAT gear demanding sex from a female job applicant. Another posted under the name of a sergeant described how he masturbated while driving.

    Message boards frequented by law enforcement officials have proliferated rapidly in recent years, said Chip DeBlock, a detective with the Tampa Police Department who started www.leoaffairs.com, a site that hosts more than 150 message boards for law enforcement communities, which he said gets more than 4 million hits per month.

    DeBlock said the forums allow officers from different states to swap tips, discuss procedures and speak frankly to management -- frequently emboldened by anonymity.

    Keeping the exchanges civil on the leoaffairs.com boards has required the help of 150 volunteer moderators.
    [Is this the great Washington Post 'feature' about the LEOAffairs.com system of moderation? by the Washington Post?]

    In recent years, officers in Baltimore, New York and Detroit have been fired or suspended for running Web sites with online message boards that got out of hand, according to news accounts of those cases. In 2002, 24 District police officers were suspended after an investigation into the use of squad car computers to send offensive or threatening e-mail.

    Montgomery officers say the union has declined to require posters to identity themselves on the message boards, a simple step they say would tame the content.

    Walter Bader, president of the county's Fraternal Order of Police lodge, said some of the egregious messages could be the work of nonunion members who may have hacked into the site to undermine the union.

    "We don't censor it, we don't actively monitor it," Bader said. "It's free speech, it's 2006, it's technology. I don't agree with some of what I see on there. I don't think people should slander each other. But we're in a free country. We should embrace free speech."

    Montgomery officers say the command staff has known about the forum for several months but has not publicly denounced the destructive content. Although the department has no oversight over the board, officers said, commanders could easily restrict access to it from work computers.

    "I'm ashamed of my department if they allow this to go on," said Eric Mason, a detective with the department's major crimes unit.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/ar...=accessibility

  3. #73
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Have you read the TOU

    Quote Originally Posted by chipdeblock View Post
    I don't know if you know who I am, but you're definitely talking to the right guy. I am one of the two original co-founders of this site (back in 2002) and I retired in 2013 after 30 years law enforcement experience at the Tampa Police Department. After reading your accusation that the TOS (actually it's TOU) are never enforced, I take exception to that statement. We have over 500 agency message boards online with a ton of content. As such, moderation is a team effort between our moderators and our users. If you report a violation, I am actually copied on the email and I personally look into it unless Mod 1 or another moderator beat me to it. Mod 1 and I make sure the Terms of Use are uniformly applied to the message boards. But, then again, if you're not reporting the violations then we may not be aware of them. If users are talking about command staff, public figures or the like then they are legally required to be more exposed to scrutiny. If your a LEO and wearing your feelings on your sleeve, you are in the wrong profession. Our system of moderation has even been featured in The Washington Post, so I'd like to think we know what we're doing and that we're one of the best at doing it.
    Chip, I'll be the first to agree with you that written threats (that actually meet the threat threshold criteria) against LEOs should be investigated and prosecuted; as you Florida has a state law for that - 836.10 FS.

    I respect that you (and Jim) did your time and hope you are enjoying retirement; I have no ill will toward anyone or the site. I wish posters showed a little more restraint in some of the outlandish accusations and things they post. Again, these post are indexed by search engines online forever (search engine indexing can be partially stopped with the correct HTML code, if the site wanted to - but I doubt that). https://developers.google.com/webmas...obots_meta_tag

    But have you read the Prohibited Conduct section of the TOU? Seems like they should be read and applied like statutes. And that may be the problem - if they were, then the site wouldn't have any business left. lol
    It doesn't take long to find a post in the FHP forum that appears to clearly violate the TOU. The opinion of you and the mods is apparently a lot different.

    While I realize you cannot control what they post, the sysadmin/mods have the ability to clean up out of line items, when it is brought to your attention. We can agree to disagree if you say that always happens.

    A good example of this is when I have come across a post which appears harassing, slanderous or obviously in violation of the Prohibited Conduct portion of the TOU, where a mod has added a public response underneath saying they've reviewed a request about the post and don't think it is in violation of the 'Terms of Use'. These post are not even always about the agency CEOs or command staff.

    Just because you were in a fire storm at your agency and FDLE, had to sue or may like controversy - doesn't mean every other entry level officer deserves to be in the spotlight on the whim of anyone who wants to put the officer's name there forever and say horrible things about them.
    IMHO just because someone is an LEO - that shouldn't subject them to having their name drug through the mud (or is that "wearing your feelings on your sleeve" as you put it?).

    Law enforcement is para-military. Do the military vets of Bright Mountain, and the rest of BM agree with this philosophy of just taking it when someone publicly drags your name thru the mud (accurate or not), and writing it off as not wearing your feelings on your sleeve. Because where I come from, the military has honor, and setting the record straight with accuracy means something. Before it destroys careers.

    When you say command staff is subject to more scrutiny, I'll only agree with you to a small degree. Command staff aren't elected by the people like a sheriff (most places), or appointed by anyone special like a chief (usually appointed by a mayor or city manager) or colonel of FHP (appointed by executive director of DHSMV) - they are usually just in a position as a matter of promotion.

    Now that BM has taken over the site, maybe some full-time mods should be considered. Aside from the TOU rules for the site, the people this forum continues to effect may have available recourses under the cyberstalking law 784.048(1)(d) FS and civil action.

    Even in 2011, the national FOP urged for a boycott of this site according to a Tampa Bay Times article.
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...86768#comments

  4. #74
    Unregistered
    Guest
    My question is why is Chip so interested in FHP? Many people post things blowing off steam in their local news comments sections and you have to admit that the public has cause for concern when they hear in the news of police killing people only to find out the person was unarmed or it was an elderly person that has to use a cane as an aid to walk but gets shot because some cop got scared.

    Who protects the public from the police?

    So far their is little accountability for the police when they kill unarmed citizens, it all gets white washed because it was a police officer. Now due to the amount police killing unarmed citizens there are some prosecutions happening and they need to because you can't have your police going around shooting everyone because they are scared of their own shadows. The public is pissed off because this has all become the police hiding behind their badges and because of that it makes it alright. Well the public is not buying that anymore nor should they.

    It is pretty sad when an old man is pulled over for a simple traffic infraction and reaches for his cane to go back and deal with the officer but instead gets shot by that same officer because the officer was scared. That happened in South Carolina by the way. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a walking cane and long gun.

    You also have a very good point about how certain people are drug through the mud in these forums ruining their reputations with lies and deceit and LEO Affairs has no problems with that. The best thing that could happen is for this forum to be sued out of existence, but Chip knows that as long as they don't closely monitor these forums they are pretty well protected and that is why this place is pretty much nothing more than a cess pool.

  5. #75
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    My question is why is Chip so interested in FHP? Many people post things blowing off steam in their local news comments sections and you have to admit that the public has cause for concern when they hear in the news of police killing people only to find out the person was unarmed or it was an elderly person that has to use a cane as an aid to walk but gets shot because some cop got scared.

    Who protects the public from the police?

    So far their is little accountability for the police when they kill unarmed citizens, it all gets white washed because it was a police officer. Now due to the amount police killing unarmed citizens there are some prosecutions happening and they need to because you can't have your police going around shooting everyone because they are scared of their own shadows. The public is pissed off because this has all become the police hiding behind their badges and because of that it makes it alright. Well the public is not buying that anymore nor should they.

    It is pretty sad when an old man is pulled over for a simple traffic infraction and reaches for his cane to go back and deal with the officer but instead gets shot by that same officer because the officer was scared. That happened in South Carolina by the way. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a walking cane and long gun.

    You also have a very good point about how certain people are drug through the mud in these forums ruining their reputations with lies and deceit and LEO Affairs has no problems with that. The best thing that could happen is for this forum to be sued out of existence, but Chip knows that as long as they don't closely monitor these forums they are pretty well protected and that is why this place is pretty much nothing more than a cess pool.
    You hit a lot of good points. Coming from a cop, I agree rogue cops should be held accountable for their actions.
    I also say cops that are not rogue, should not be lumped in with the the bad apples, especially by having their name and reputation ruined anonymously - like this forum allows.

    While there are laws that protect the operator of the website like Chip to a large degree, the individual posters cant hide if they are in violation of established civil or criminal law like slander, cyberstalkering, or violation of injunction. If I recall correctly, their single case of litigation with HCSO did not have the force of any law violations behind it. That would have certainly changed the outcome of being forced to reveal the user IPs.

  6. #76
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    286
    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...book/81233158/

    INDYSTAR

    Sentence issued for man who threatened law enforcement on Facebook
    Joseph Paul, jpaul@jconline.com, Journal & Courier 5:33 p.m. EST March 2, 2016

    A sentence was issued Wednesday on two federal indictments against Samuel Bradbury, a Pine Village man who in a ranting Facebook post and ensuing legal battle toed the line between satirical free speech and legitimate threats on the lives of two police officers and two judges.

    After nearly two years of legal proceedings in a federal court in Hammond, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip Simon sentenced Bradbury to 41 months incarceration, two years of supervised release and $7,098 in restitution, according to a press release from U.S. Attorney David Capp.

    In a sentencing memorandum filed days before the hearing, the prosecution pointed to USA v. Gary Sigmund Corum, in which a punishment of 16 months incarceration and three years of supervised release was handed to a man accused of making several threats over the telephone to three synagogues in Minnesota.

    Authorities from West Lafayette Police Department and Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Office estimated extra man hours — including use of an explosive ordinance disposal team — assisting the FBI in the investigation cost both agencies several thousand dollars, which also is noted in the memorandum.

    Bradbury's mother, Linda Bradbury, and prosecuting attorneys weren't available for comment Wednesday.

    A grand jury indicted 23-year-old Bradbury in July 2014 for threats to use fire or explosives and again in May 2015 for maliciously conveying false information concerning the use of fire or explosives. Prosecutors were ordered a month later, however, to consolidate the two charges into a single count that they could prove in either of the two ways.

    A jury returned a guilty verdict in July 2015, after which Bradbury's defense filed two motions for a new trial — once in August and again in January. Simon, however, struck down both motions.

    In a Facebook rant in June 2014, Bradbury claimed to be the leader of an anarchist group called the "765 movement" and threatened the lives of an Indiana Supreme Court justice, a Tippecanoe County judge, a former Tippecanoe County sheriff and a West Lafayette police officer. The post also claimed the group had gathered enough explosives to blow up county offices and police stations.

    Bradbury posted the rant weeks after a Lafayette couple, who claimed affiliation with the anarchist group, murdered two Las Vegas police officers before killing themselves. He immediately followed the post with comments that it was entirely satirical and an exercise on free speech — an argument his legal defense would later use in an attempt to persuade the court to drop charges.

    Officers who served a search warrant days later, however, said they found evidence to the contrary. In Bradbury's bedroom, they reportedly found three bags of aluminum powder and three bags of black iron oxide — precursors used to make thermite, a substance that can be used for incendiary bombs, court documents state.

  7. #77
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Chip, I'll be the first to agree with you that written threats (that actually meet the threat threshold criteria) against LEOs should be investigated and prosecuted; as you Florida has a state law for that - 836.10 FS.

    I respect that you (and Jim) did your time and hope you are enjoying retirement; I have no ill will toward anyone or the site. I wish posters showed a little more restraint in some of the outlandish accusations and things they post. Again, these post are indexed by search engines online forever (search engine indexing can be partially stopped with the correct HTML code, if the site wanted to - but I doubt that). https://developers.google.com/webmas...obots_meta_tag

    But have you read the Prohibited Conduct section of the TOU? Seems like they should be read and applied like statutes. And that may be the problem - if they were, then the site wouldn't have any business left. lol
    It doesn't take long to find a post in the FHP forum that appears to clearly violate the TOU. The opinion of you and the mods is apparently a lot different.

    While I realize you cannot control what they post, the sysadmin/mods have the ability to clean up out of line items, when it is brought to your attention. We can agree to disagree if you say that always happens.

    A good example of this is when I have come across a post which appears harassing, slanderous or obviously in violation of the Prohibited Conduct portion of the TOU, where a mod has added a public response underneath saying they've reviewed a request about the post and don't think it is in violation of the 'Terms of Use'. These post are not even always about the agency CEOs or command staff.

    Just because you were in a fire storm at your agency and FDLE, had to sue or may like controversy - doesn't mean every other entry level officer deserves to be in the spotlight on the whim of anyone who wants to put the officer's name there forever and say horrible things about them.
    IMHO just because someone is an LEO - that shouldn't subject them to having their name drug through the mud (or is that "wearing your feelings on your sleeve" as you put it?).

    Law enforcement is para-military. Do the military vets of Bright Mountain, and the rest of BM agree with this philosophy of just taking it when someone publicly drags your name thru the mud (accurate or not), and writing it off as not wearing your feelings on your sleeve. Because where I come from, the military has honor, and setting the record straight with accuracy means something. Before it destroys careers.

    When you say command staff is subject to more scrutiny, I'll only agree with you to a small degree. Command staff aren't elected by the people like a sheriff (most places), or appointed by anyone special like a chief (usually appointed by a mayor or city manager) or colonel of FHP (appointed by executive director of DHSMV) - they are usually just in a position as a matter of promotion.

    Now that BM has taken over the site, maybe some full-time mods should be considered. Aside from the TOU rules for the site, the people this forum continues to effect may have available recourses under the cyberstalking law 784.048(1)(d) FS and civil action.

    Even in 2011, the national FOP urged for a boycott of this site according to a Tampa Bay Times article.
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...86768#comments
    My apologies, I just happened to see a couple of posts directed to me while updating data on the conviction of someone who threatened law enforcement on Facebook.

    For starters, I appreciate your post. Although you chose to post anonymously as a guest user, it was very well written and articulate. Yes, I'm aware of search engine indexing and the memorializing of data on a site like this. However, that's no different than other such sites on the internet or news blogs. Talking hypothetically about postings where the Terms of Use are enforced differently isn't the same as providing examples. Is it possible that a moderator could apply the TOU differently than myself or Mod 1? Yes. Have Mod 1 and I caught a moderator doing this and applied corrective action or termination? Sure. That said, it's been my experience that: (1) once such an issue is brought to our attention we address it immediately and effectively and (2) I suspect most of the posts you may be talking about have never been reported by a user or viewed by a moderator. I stand by my statement that we enforce our TOU uniformly and go to great lengths to make sure of it. I do suspect that you are interpreting our TOU differently than we are though.

    Your certainly entitled to your opinion and I actually agree with you on some. My stance on public officials and command staff taking it on the chin is meant to allow for what the law permits, and from where I sit rightfully so. I agree with you that people should not be libeled on this site and if you ever see any evidence of that, please report it immediately so we can take action. As for cyberstalking, I have never seen a fit for that statute on our site. You mentioned my firestorm with TPD and the FDLE (you left out the SAO) and the former FOP boycott of this site. I take no offense to this and assume none was meant. Most people know the background about what happened and I'm proud to have played my small part in it. In other words, I have no regrets and those experiences were what caused me to start this site with Jim Preston. The FOP boycott had a hidden agenda because we were allowing LEOs to expose corruption in Miami, North Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale on our message boards. I made the decision to stand by the troops and not cave in to the demands of the National FOP. I might have lost some advertising dollars for doing so, but I sat on the sidelines and watched one of our main FOP accusers (there were 4 of them) get indicted federally and another kicked out of office. I have no apologies.

    I think some things you wrote about were taken out of context, but again I believe in your right to have your own perspective. I hope if you write again that you post using your real name and that you afford me the opportunity to fix any of the postings you believe are bad. Thanks again!

  8. #78
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Sergeant
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    My question is why is Chip so interested in FHP? Many people post things blowing off steam in their local news comments sections and you have to admit that the public has cause for concern when they hear in the news of police killing people only to find out the person was unarmed or it was an elderly person that has to use a cane as an aid to walk but gets shot because some cop got scared.

    Who protects the public from the police?

    So far their is little accountability for the police when they kill unarmed citizens, it all gets white washed because it was a police officer. Now due to the amount police killing unarmed citizens there are some prosecutions happening and they need to because you can't have your police going around shooting everyone because they are scared of their own shadows. The public is pissed off because this has all become the police hiding behind their badges and because of that it makes it alright. Well the public is not buying that anymore nor should they.

    It is pretty sad when an old man is pulled over for a simple traffic infraction and reaches for his cane to go back and deal with the officer but instead gets shot by that same officer because the officer was scared. That happened in South Carolina by the way. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a walking cane and long gun.

    You also have a very good point about how certain people are drug through the mud in these forums ruining their reputations with lies and deceit and LEO Affairs has no problems with that. The best thing that could happen is for this forum to be sued out of existence, but Chip knows that as long as they don't closely monitor these forums they are pretty well protected and that is why this place is pretty much nothing more than a cess pool.
    I'll answer your question, although it looks like your real intent was to question deadly use of force by police. I have no more interest in the FHP forum than I do the other 500 plus law enforcement (agency) forums on LEOAFFAIRS. The reason I got involved was clearly because a bad guy threatened a FHP trooper on our site and I wanted to make sure the right thing was done.

  9. #79
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Search Warrant

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The OIG is too busy investigating Troopers to investigate a threat on a trooper. If the OIG office is contacted about certain Troopers they will not investigate them either. Certain Trooper can do whatever they want. What other ones can do little policy violations and get fired over them.
    Important to remember this site (under new management) will probably not be able to, nor have any interest in, attempting to protect it's users identity (IP addresses at a minimum) should the user be posting information and views related to an ongoing criminal investigation, since such a criminal investigation would make obtaining a search warrant for data logs extremely easy, thus allowing identification of additional possible parties who may have information related to the crime.

    Of course, that information would ultimately be available to all agencies after the criminal investigation, such as FHP as well.

    Govern yourselves accordingly

  10. #80
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Important to remember this site (under new management) will probably not be able to, nor have any interest in, attempting to protect it's users identity (IP addresses at a minimum) should the user be posting information and views related to an ongoing criminal investigation, since such a criminal investigation would make obtaining a search warrant for data logs extremely easy, thus allowing identification of additional possible parties who may have information related to the crime.

    Of course, that information would ultimately be available to all agencies after the criminal investigation, such as FHP as well.

    Govern yourselves accordingly
    Who cares, I do the "Ferguson Effect" which means I do as little as possible :-)

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •