XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Deadrat"  wrote in message   
   news:y9qdnY-NlfJgHffXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   > Eric Blair had a profound respect and talent for the English language.   
   > So quit taking his pen name in vain.   
   >   
   > You would like the 5th Amendment to allow you to tell the police nothing,   
   > but it only allows you to tell the police nothing the commission of a   
   > crime.   
      
   "... to tell the police nothing the commission of a crime."   
      
   LOL! ... guess your IDENTITY isn't Eric ...   
      
      
   >   
   > I guess it sucks to be you.   
      
   Ibid, suckboy.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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)