Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 191 to 198 of 198

Thread: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

  1. #191
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,947

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Exactly. Where is it? That onus is on you to support your argument.
    My argument is that there isn't a law that supports the police being allowed to arrest them for being in the aunt's yard. That there isn't a legal definition of curfew that states that they have to be inside any home yet alone their own. Since you can't prove a negative and you are the one asserting a positive, that such power does exist by law, it is on you to prove it.

    I was speaking to the generally known definition, as I keep pointing out, and apparently you keep ignoring. Not a law.
    And I supported my position.
    You have not.
    A generally known definition. Not the only one and certainly not one that is usable as justification for the arrest of the people in the linked article of the OP. It's like saying that the generally known definition of marriage is between man and woman when the law doesn't state as such.

    Wrong.
    You are not thinking things through at all.
    They were charged.
    Show the charge was wrong. You can't. You can't because you do not know the law and can not provide the law.
    What law were they charged under? Failure to disperse? Where the hell is that in Missouri law? I'm not finding it.

    And the fact that juvenile curfew keeps getting brought up just shows that there is no understanding at how significantly different the two are.
    At no point have I brought up the juvenile curfew, so go discuss that particular point with your twin.


    This, as provided by another, is what the Governor declared.
    If you want to have a legal discussion try starting by researching this.
    I further order the imposition of a curfew in the City of Ferguson under such terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate by the Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
    The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol is who determines what terms and conditions are necessary and appropriate.
    And likely will do so under counsel to effect the temporary Curfew imposed by the Governor.
    I will admit to having missed Dezaad posting that. However, the MSHP Super still needs to put out these conditions and I've yet to see those. It's not like he can on a moment's whim decide what those conditions are. "Hey they're looking out the window!...um, yeah that's a curfew violation now. Arrest them!"

    And no one arguing this has yet been able to show if the state has it's own definition for such.

    So until such time, any argument you make is irrelevant.
    It is very relevant. If there is nothing that legally defines what a curfew is then that leaves it up to the police or other enforcement individuals to make things up on the fly. Which means that they can arrest some people for being in yards and decide others are not violating curfew in that manner.

    While the police do make mistakes they don't go around purposely making mistakes.
    And as it stands, these folks were arrested for not dispersing.
    You think that was wrong? Show it to be so.
    As it stands I am going to bet that you can't.

    All you have is a dislike. That is all.
    Again, if the argument is that they are arrested for something that isn't against the law, there is nothing to prove. It has to be proved that they did indeed break the law. Ok wait....***points to the entirety of the state laws*** see, not there. Show me where I missed seeing it.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #192
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    My argument is that there isn't a law that supports the police being allowed to arrest them for being in the aunt's yard. That there isn't a legal definition of curfew that states that they have to be inside any home yet alone their own. Since you can't prove a negative and you are the one asserting a positive, that such power does exist by law, it is on you to prove it.

    The onus is on you to prove your position. Not on me to disprove it.
    You are mixing up ideas of formal debate and misapplying them.

    The group was arrested. Period
    You say there isn't a law that allows that. The onus is on you to prove it.
    Not on me to disprove your claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    A generally known definition. Not the only one and certainly not one that is usable as justification for the arrest of the people in the linked article of the OP. It's like saying that the generally known definition of marriage is between man and woman when the law doesn't state as such.
    And go back to the argument being made. It wasn't a legal argument was it?

    This is a side argument and not specifically to the word Curfew ...
    Laws are based on commonly held definitions of known words. What do you think is used in court if there is no legal definition in the specific jurisdiction's law?
    The commonly held and understood definition.

    So those definitions are not per se automatically irrelevant.
    They only become irrelevant when the law defines it differently.
    And at this time we have no applicable law to reference.



    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    What law were they charged under? Failure to disperse? Where the hell is that in Missouri law? I'm not finding it.
    Not my problem. That is what the article said they were charged with.

    But since you are being honest ...

    Refusal to disperse.

    574.060. 1. A person commits the crime of refusal to disperse if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, he knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot.

    2. Refusal to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.

    (L. 1977 S.B. 60)

    Effective 1-1-79
    CHAPTER 574


    Like I said about thinking this through...
    If the police tell them to get inside and they instead sit there and try to argue, they have failed to disperse.

    So I guess all you have to do now is show the Command wasn't lawful.
    If the neighborhood is the scene, or part of the scene of the riots that were taking place, I seriously doubt you have a leg to stand on.


    Which of course has nothing to do with a Curfew, or the control the State Police were given over such a Curfew.


    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I will admit to having missed Dezaad posting that. However, the MSHP Super still needs to put out these conditions and I've yet to see those. It's not like he can on a moment's whim decide what those conditions are. "Hey they're looking out the window!...um, yeah that's a curfew violation now. Arrest them!"
    I keep pointing out that they were charged with "failure to disperse" for a reason.
    Why does no one grasp that?
    They were not charged with a Curfew violation.
    Is that so hard to understand?
    Apples and oranges.


    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    It is very relevant. If there is nothing that legally defines what a curfew is then that leaves it up to the police or other enforcement individuals to make things up on the fly. Which means that they can arrest some people for being in yards and decide others are not violating curfew in that manner.
    No it isn't relevant.
    Any such argument is irrelevant because you do not know what it is, or even "if" it is.

    And more importantly, and making it even more irrelevant, is that they were not charged with a violation of Curfew.


    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Again, if the argument is that they are arrested for something that isn't against the law, there is nothing to prove. It has to be proved that they did indeed break the law. Ok wait....***points to the entirety of the state laws*** see, not there. Show me where I missed seeing it.
    For purposes of debate, the fact that they were charged is prima facie evidence. You have to disprove it if that is what you want to argue.
    Like I said. I doubt you can.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Because you don't have an Aunt?

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post


    Juvenile curfews are not the subject.


    ANd?
    Are you confused?
    I was not referring to any law but the generally know definition that you apparently didn't know.
    So stop trying to squirm.


    Let's hope he does.


    I am not playing any semantics game.
    What is meant by Curfew is generally known. The provided and common definition shows that. All you did is show you did not know it.




    And apparently What if...? can't help but openly attack with lies.
    Figures.
    So do not reply to this post. Easy enough.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #195
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    So do not reply to this post. Easy enough.
    I do not let you dictate what I do. Do you not understand that?
    So do not reply to this post. Easy enough.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    I do not let you dictate what I do. Do you not understand that?
    So do not reply to this post. Easy enough.
    I rest my case.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  7. #197
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,419
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    The onus is on you to prove your position. Not on me to disprove it.
    You are mixing up ideas of formal debate and misapplying them.

    The group was arrested. Period
    You say there isn't a law that allows that. The onus is on you to prove it.
    Not on me to disprove your claim.


    And go back to the argument being made. It wasn't a legal argument was it?

    This is a side argument and not specifically to the word Curfew ...
    Laws are based on commonly held definitions of known words. What do you think is used in court if there is no legal definition in the specific jurisdiction's law?
    The commonly held and understood definition.

    So those definitions are not per se automatically irrelevant.
    They only become irrelevant when the law defines it differently.
    And at this time we have no applicable law to reference.



    Not my problem. That is what the article said they were charged with.

    But since you are being honest ...

    Refusal to disperse.

    574.060. 1. A person commits the crime of refusal to disperse if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, he knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot.

    2. Refusal to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.

    (L. 1977 S.B. 60)

    Effective 1-1-79
    CHAPTER 574


    Like I said about thinking this through...
    If the police tell them to get inside and they instead sit there and try to argue, they have failed to disperse.

    So I guess all you have to do now is show the Command wasn't lawful.
    If the neighborhood is the scene, or part of the scene of the riots that were taking place, I seriously doubt you have a leg to stand on.


    Which of course has nothing to do with a Curfew, or the control the State Police were given over such a Curfew.



    I keep pointing out that they were charged with "failure to disperse" for a reason.
    Why does no one grasp that?
    They were not charged with a Curfew violation.
    Is that so hard to understand?
    Apples and oranges.


    No it isn't relevant.
    Any such argument is irrelevant because you do not know what it is, or even "if" it is.

    And more importantly, and making it even more irrelevant, is that they were not charged with a violation of Curfew.


    For purposes of debate, the fact that they were charged is prima facie evidence. You have to disprove it if that is what you want to argue.
    Like I said. I doubt you can.
    They weren't charged. They were photographed and released with a pending charge.

    Its right there in the OP article.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  8. #198
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: ‘I just kept asking: Why am I being arrested for sitting in my aunt’s driveway?’

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    They weren't charged. They were photographed and released with a pending charge.

    Its right there in the OP article.
    Okay? Do you not understand I was speaking towards their arrest for failure to disperse then?
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •