XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal
XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal
From: reality@check.it
"Deadrat" wrote in message
news:no6dneXcxYmH5vfXnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "¦ Reality Check© ¦" wrote
>> "Deadrat" wrote in message
>>> "¦ 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?
>
> I'd know your posts if I were reading them in the dark.
Which you aparently do often as in the instant case.
>
>> And if the arrest warrant for Felony Obtuseness issued to "Deadrat"
>
> Obtuseness is not a felony. At lease not in the second degree.
>
>> 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"?
>
> Why would that incriminate me? It might lead to my arrest, but that's
> not incriminating:
LOL!
So your forced self-identification as the individual wanted for the
specified crime isn't "incriminating"?
George Orwell would be proud.
> it just means the police fucked up again.
>
>>>>> 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?
>
> Confession is good for the soul.
Buy one, get one free.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
