XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Deadrat"  wrote in message   
   news:a42dnY2Sxr-h8ffXnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   > You've confused the label (identity) with the thing (identical person).   
   > That doesn't seem like you.   
      
   So you can't identify me, can you?   
      
   And if the arrest warrant for Felony Obtuseness issued to "Deadrat"   
   and the police came by your house suspecting that Deadrat   
   was hiding there and demanded you identify yourself  would it not   
   incriminate you to confess that you are in fact "Deadrat"?   
      
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Thanks for sharing.  That seems unlike you as well.   
      
   So can you identify me as one and the same with the earlier post?   
      
   Would it be easier or harder for you to make your case if I confessed   
   my identity as being one and the same with the person you're seeking?   
      
   >>   
   >> Only a vile lowlife fascist swine   
   >   
   > Now *that's* more like it.   
   >   
   >    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)