XPost: alt.true-crime, aus.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.legal   
   From: reality@check.it   
      
   "Deadrat"  wrote   
   > "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote in   
   >> "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.   
   >   
   > True, but the motivation of many of the foreign supporters of the   
   > Republican cause was opposing the Fascists.   
      
   Your irrelevant inanity is noted.   
      
   >   
   >>>  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)