Xequecal wrote:
shuyung wrote:
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?
If you refuse to testify in court, you can be locked up until you agree to testify. This is true even if you're almost certainly innocent of any other crime other than refusing to testify.
I do not see how this is any different. If you don't identify yourself, you can be held until you do. Giving your name is not self-incrimination, so there is no reason why the police/government can't require you to identify yourself.
At your own trial? No, you can't be compelled to testify.
Xequecal wrote:
If you're chatting with some random guy on the street that you met fifteen minutes ago and he asks your name, do you refuse to give it to him? Of course you don't trust this guy you just met, but you're still going to give him your name. Refusing to give cops your name demonstrates rampant paranoia that goes far beyond mistrust.
If said random guy was going to immediately research whether I had committed any wrongdoings with the intent to incarcerate or otherwise punish me, no I wouldn't give this person my name. Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't give some random guy on the street my name anyway.
_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko