XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Deadrat"  wrote   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote   
   >> "Deadrat"  wrote in message   
   >>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >>>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote   
   >>>>>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>> "Deadrat"  wrote   
   >>>>>>>>> "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>> "McGyver"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>> "¦ 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Eric Blair had a profound respect and talent for the English language.   
   >>> So quit taking his pen name in vain.   
   >>   
   >> PS. Blair was a COMMIE !   
   >   
   > Blair was a leftist.  He fought for the Republican side in the Spanish   
   > Civil War.  But he was a fierce critic of communism.   
      
   The Republican government in Spain was supported by a number of factions,   
   including the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM - Partido Obrero   
   de Unificación Marxista), the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and the Unified   
   Socialist Party of Catalonia  which was a wing of the Spanish Communist   
   Party  backed by Soviet arms and aid.   
      
      
   >  Did you think  _Animal Farm_ was a story about talking pigs?   
      
   Always with the spoilers ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)