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.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.
What law were they charged under? Failure to disperse? Where the hell is that in Missouri law? I'm not finding it.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.
At no point have I brought up the juvenile curfew, so go discuss that particular point with your twin.And the fact that juvenile curfew keeps getting brought up just shows that there is no understanding at how significantly different the two are.
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!"This, as provided by another, is what the Governor declared.
If you want to have a legal discussion try starting by researching this.
The Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol is who determines what terms and conditions are necessary and appropriate.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.
And likely will do so under counsel to effect the temporary Curfew imposed by the Governor.
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.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.
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.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.