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   
   >>> "¦ 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.   
   >   
   > Your irreverant insanity is likewise.   
      
   Is there any other kind?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>  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)