f648ccb0   
   XPost: aus.legal, misc.legal, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Naughtius"  wrote in message   
   news:8a149a59-a533-48b0-ac01-41cff8d492bd@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...   
   On Jul 24, 10:06 am, "McGyver"  wrote:   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   > messagenews:7chvo1F27pp8jU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >   
   > > "Mr X"  wrote in message   
   > >news:h3vucc$3uf$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...   
   > >> If someone is arrested for an offence and they refuse to give their   
   > >> details or say anything at any point what will happen to them? Are they   
   > >> be charged or tried without giving a name?   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > If a person who has been arrested refuses to provided their name, and if   
   > there is a law in that state/county making it illegal to refuse to provide   
   > one's name in that situation, then that person can be charged with a crime   
   > and can be properly convicted.   
   >   
   > The crime is in the category of obstruction of justice. The U.S. Supreme   
   > court held that a state law making it a crime to refuse to provide one's   
   > name and address to an arresting officer is constitutional, and more   
   > specifically, is not a violation of a person's constitutional right to be   
   > free of required self-incrimination. Therefore, the "right to remain   
   > silent" is limited.   
      
       Mmm... NO...   
      
      You're Referring To "Hiibel"... of "Hiibel v Nevada" of course, and   
   your [Notice the CLEVER Change-Up from The Apostrophe'd Version]   
   "Interpretation is Off By a Tad Bit More than a Half-a-Bubble...   
      
      First, "Hiibel" is an UTTERLY DESPICABLE Denouement of Civil Rights   
   under mmm... *perhaps* the 1st, but Certainly 4th, 5th, and 14th,   
   Amendments to the US Constitution...   
      
      It Does NOT "limit" protections under the 5th, as You Seem To   
   Assert... IF Anything, The Practical Effect of "Hiibel" is to   
   "Embrace" and "Bring To The Fore", Citizen's Understanding & Evocation   
   of 5th Amendment Rights... That is, WHEN One is Accosted by a Suck-Ass   
   Pig, *Allegedly* "Investigating Crime, HAVING The STILL-REQUISITE   
   "Reasonable Suspicion", and that SAP "Requires" *WHERE Such a Statute   
   EXISTS*, the Accosted Citizen to "Provide his/her name, That Citizen   
   CAN BE PROSECUTED for Refusing To Supply his/her... WAAAIiiit For   
   Iiit... ->NAME<-   
      
      _BUT_... The EASY OUT for Citizens UNwilling To Be COMPLICIT in the   
   Ongoing Erosion of Fundamental Rights is to... WAAAIiiit For Iiit...   
   OPINE "I Refuse To Answer That Question On The Grounds That Anything I   
   Say may tend to Incriminate Me"... [Standard 5th Am Evocative   
   Language]...   
      
      ALL Who DISbelieve What I Say are directed to GOOGLE the Various   
   ACLU "Bust Card" Sites/Mirrors where they can View the Updated "Bust   
   Card", Updated Specifically to Address/Contravene this DESPICABLE [I   
   Think Hiibel is a *Rehnquist Court* Monstrosity] Decision... IN   
   "Hiibel"... v Nevada...   
   ================================   
      
   This is exactly what happens when they let A."Benito" Scalia write legal   
   "opinions".   
      
   Sieg fuckin' Heil, Il Duce !!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)