The Glade 4.0

Yes. He might have done something else wrong somewhere, and the fact that he refuses to identify himself makes it highly probable that he did, and he is not exercising any right against self-incrimination by doing so.

If that's not to your satisfaction, you're out of luck. I have yet to see a good reason to let him go presented.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So if he doesn't identify himself do you keep him incarcerated forever, assuming that the longer he goes without giving his name, the more guilty he must be of something else?

So the entirety of your stance on why this gentleman (and, we can assume, anyone else) should remain in custody for refusal to provide verbal (or better) identification regardless of fulfillment of sentences applied for convictions, is that he might be guilty of something else somewhere? Have I got that right?

_________________

Gee, when you put it that way, it sounds rather draconian.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Why would going longer make him more guilty? Either he's been found guilty of or charged with something somewhere else, or he hasn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No. Not even close. It's not a matter of "might" it's a matter of "there is no other real reason for him not to identify himself, beyond simply principle on his part, which is both unlikely, and his own damn fault." Quit strawmanning. In fact, quit asking what my position is. Either you know what it is and are simply using predjudicial language to alter it in your continued "so basically your position is.." posts, or you're unable to grasp it, in which case there is no help for you.

Have you got any good reason why he should not be held beyond "he might not be guilty of anything else"? This is not a man yanked off the streets at random. He was convicted of a crime, and, him being in lawful custody, his custodian has a legal duty to hold him for anyone else that has a lawful warrant. His stymying of attempts to determine if he has a warrant or not constitutes simple obstruction of the judicial process, and nothing more. If he is innocent, why would he not give his name? His name is not, and cannot be, a material fact fo guilt or innocence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My point was, that if they are unable to identify him, and he doesn't provide a name, once he serves the sentences for the crimes he's been convicted of, he should be set free (regardless of whether they can determine if he's committed other crimes).

How is it not even close? It looks like the only phrasing you have a problem with is the use of "might" where you would have used "probably". Why don't you state your position as accurately and detailed as possible using the words you find most appropriate?

Any good reason? Yes. I am sorry you don't also possess them. Do you also feel that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?

_________________

It needs to go on his record, though.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

Holy ****. I find this view extremely intolerable.

So were you right? Is he wanted for something else?

In this case, I think the guy was enjoying messing with the police, and he didn't have to be anywhere anytime soon. If his family hadn't identified him, he was probably trying for a test case on this issue.

There should probably be one, to set the standards Elmarnieh mentioned earlier.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

How about just not being a Dbag and letting the cops do their job so you can go on your merry way? I mean, how hard is that?

I bet, if he was just cool with the cops when they came out in the first place and wasn't an obnoxious dbag, he wouldn't have been arrested and sat in jail for however long.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So I'm not the only one who suspects he only got arrested for criminal trespassing after refusing to identify himself to the polics. That's good. Why is that acceptable behavior on the part of the police? If he wouldn't have gotten arrested if he'd just told the police his name, then why was he arrested in the first place? If he'd have gotten off with a warning, or perhaps just gotten off because he wasn't actually doing anything illegal, then why was he arrested?

I don't buy into this idea that police need broadly applicable "disorderly conduct" charges that they can put on anyone they damn well please in the absence of a real crime. It reeks of swine.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Meh. I'd be much more on board with "Being a douchebag to a cop" laws. Their jobs are hard enough without people trying to "stick it to the man".

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Ahh yes special powers for a special class of privileged enforcers of our betters?

Excellent - why didn't someone ever think of this before?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Should it be illegal to be a douchebag to anyone else? Why should cops get special treatment?

Authoritarianism is at the heart of this discussion. I hold that every human is sovereign, any authority held over someone else is simply a matter of "might makes right." As such, it behooves anyone without the might to undermine that authority as much as you can possibly get away with.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'd quite like laws that illegalized douchebaggery.

Seriously though, in this guy's situation, how difficult would it have been to provide ID, and talk to the cops as if they were people trying to do a difficult job?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Sure. Why not?

As long as the cops are treating you with respect, why not treat them the same way in turn?

Or is it easier to go out of your way to be a douchebag to prove a ridiculous point?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It's not disrespecting someone to refuse to tell them who you are. You can be perfectly polite and respectful and simply not identify yourself.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not hard, but that's not the point. The point is, should he go to jail for this? And more importantly, should he go to jail for something else because of this? Should he stay in jail with no know crime because of this?

Being a douchebag is not a crime.

Which, apparently, he was.

"Or is it easier to go out of your way to be a douchebag to prove a ridiculous point?"

Apparently it is for the cops. Its rude for anyone to go up to a person on the street and demand their contact information and identity don't you think?

And as for "Sure. Why not"? I give you the human history of dictatorships. When you get done that in 40 years we can talk more.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I already did. It's not my fault you need to ask for clarification over and over again.




An utterly irrelevant principle to this issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How do you know what would have happened in any of those cases?



Disorderly conduct is not a charge that exists because the police need it; it's a charge that exists because the public needs it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't think any charge should exist that has no concrete standards for being applied. They always end up as the "I don't like you" charge for abusive officers.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville