Given the option of 'control' versus 'anarchy' - I'll chose control every time. I'm a proponent of order, you prefer chaos. This is not an onerous chore, providing simple identification. He is not claiming mental incompetence, and there is no requirement for producing 'legitimate' documentation.
And once again - he can leave any time he wants. He simply has to say "My name is ....". Until then, he is in a self-imposed 'holding pattern'.
I’m not advocating anarchy, I’m advocating the CONSTITUTION. He should be given his due process (which he is apparently being denied) and tried for not giving his name.
There is nothing legal about holding someone indefinitely without charges for not giving their name. BTW, the Utah statute involved makes no mention of indefinite ‘holding pattern’, and in fact says the opposite that he should be brought before a magistrate or judge ‘swiftly’.
For the last time, he does not LEGALLY have to give his name in order to be tried.
FWIW, I wouldn’t give my name either, would demand a lawyer, and insist on being tried as Jane Doe, just on principle. And yes I know it would be a class B misdemeanor.
Get back to me when you learn to read the law rather than falsely imprison people.