XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Deadrat"  wrote   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >> "McGyver"  wrote in message   
   >> news:h4cm5q$p1o$1@news.albasani.net...   
   >>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in message   
   >>>> "Mr X"  wrote in message   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> So much for the right to remain *SILENT*.   
   >   
   > Where'd you hear about *that* right?  Dragnet?   
      
   Carmen ...   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> One of the most bogus rulings they've made, as the IDENTITY of a   
   >> suspect/perp *is* one of the prime elements necessary for the Gov't   
   >> to PROVE BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Forcing the suspect to   
   >> give up a requisite conviction element of a crime *is* -- ipso facto   
   >> -- self-incrimination.   
   >   
   > What are you talking about?  The government doesn't have to prove a   
   > defendant's identity, let alone his IDENTITY.  The government has to   
   > prove that the person in court is the one who did the crime.   
      
   Exactly, that the IDENTITY of the Accused is the IDENTICAL   
   person who commited the crime.   
      
      
   > To that end, witnesses will *identify* the person in court as the   
   > perpetrator.   
   > They point at the defendant; his name is irrelevant.   
      
   The name isn't irrelevant if the name establishes the IDENTITY   
   of the person who committed the crime as being one and   
   the same with the one previously IDENTIFIED as the perp.   
      
   >   
   > What you want is a right against assisting the police in one's   
   > apprehension.   
      
   And without apprehension there can be no conviction ... in civilized   
   societies anyway.   
      
   Only a vile lowlife fascist swine would assert that the Right to Remain   
   SILENT   
   actually means that the State can FORCE you to give ANY and ALL information   
   necessary to establish and assist their prosecution, short of actual   
   confession.   
      
   Sieg Heil!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)