• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

IF being outside on your own property is in violation of a curfew that means in areas that have a juvenile curfew law, kids cant even be outside on their own parents property?

We aren't talking about a juvenile curfew. We're talking about an emergency curfew because of civil unrest. This guy and the three girls with him were not on their own property.
 
IF being outside on your own property is in violation of a curfew that means in areas that have a juvenile curfew law, kids cant even be outside on their own parents property?

Most curfew laws regarding teens would not restrict a person being outside in their parent's yard but nothing is said about being outside in another relative's yard.

The St. Louis statute involving teen curfew says this:

Curfew for juveniles.


It shall be unlawful for any juvenile to be or remain in or upon the streets, alleys, rights-of-way or similar places within the City of St. Louis at night during the period ending at 5:00 a.m. and beginning at 11:59 p.m. on Friday and Saturday Night and at 11:00 p.m. on all other nights, except as provided in this chapter.
(Ord. 63784 § 3, 1996.)

15.110.030 Exemptions to curfew restrictions.

A. When accompanied by parent of such juvenile; when accompanied by a person over the age of twenty-one authorized by a parent.

B. When juvenile is on the sidewalk of a place where such juvenile resides, or on the sidewalk of either next door neighbor not communicating an objection to the police.

C. When returning home, by a direct route from (and within one hour after the termination of) a school or city sponsored activity, or an activity of a religious or other association, or place of employment.​

I would imagine a general curfew such as in the case of the Ferguson riots would be much the same except it would require adults to be at their own home.
 
As another perspective:

It was obvious from the WAPO piece, if reported accurately, that they were well aware of the curfew and chose to go sit in the car rather than stand on the walk or in the yard because they knew that could be construed as violation of the curfew. It was very obvious to me that they knew they were supposed to go home by curfew and they very well knew why they were being arrested despite feigning innocence.

But as for the reason for the curfew, it seems to be a pretty benign and reasonable precaution when you have a situation in which people caught up in a mob mentality use something for an excuse to vandalize, commit theft and robbery and assault, and generally terrorize people. And, such occurrences more often happen at night most especially after some courage-inspiring alcohol or other drugs have been consumed. And because the cops are generally pretty busy on the night beat taking care of ordinary crime, the more they can minimize that mob mentality, the easier it is to do their jobs and the safer it is for the law abiding citizens.

Police misconduct happens and it should be addressed consistently and with appropriate severity. It should not be tolerable to any freedom loving people. But neither should a mob mentality and riots that punish and terrorize innocent people be acceptable or justifiable in any way to freedom loving people. If society rioted every time some hooligan or thug or bully or sociopath beat up on or murdered somebody, the whole country would be rioting al the time. Let's don't try to justify what happened in Ferguson just because somebody thought a police officer overstepped his authority even if that was the case.

I completely agree with you.
 
As another perspective:

It was obvious from the WAPO piece, if reported accurately, that they were well aware of the curfew and chose to go sit in the car rather than stand on the walk or in the yard because they knew that could be construed as violation of the curfew. It was very obvious to me that they knew they were supposed to go home by curfew and they very well knew why they were being arrested despite feigning innocence.

But as for the reason for the curfew, it seems to be a pretty benign and reasonable precaution when you have a situation in which people caught up in a mob mentality use something for an excuse to vandalize, commit theft and robbery and assault, and generally terrorize people. And, such occurrences more often happen at night most especially after some courage-inspiring alcohol or other drugs have been consumed. And because the cops are generally pretty busy on the night beat taking care of ordinary crime, the more they can minimize that mob mentality, the easier it is to do their jobs and the safer it is for the law abiding citizens.

Police misconduct happens and it should be addressed consistently and with appropriate severity. It should not be tolerable to any freedom loving people. But neither should a mob mentality and riots that punish and terrorize innocent people be acceptable or justifiable in any way to freedom loving people. If society rioted every time some hooligan or thug or bully or sociopath beat up on or murdered somebody, the whole country would be rioting al the time. Let's don't try to justify what happened in Ferguson just because somebody thought a police officer overstepped his authority even if that was the case.

I don't get it. I really do not see where you think that they knew they were breaking the law. I would have thought it was perfectly fine for me to be at any residence and that it was perfectly fine to be anywhere on the property. If I thought I wasn't breaking the law, I still might be cautious about needlessly drawing attention. So I would sit in my car. When the press asked me, I might say "I didn't want to seem as if we were loitering". These are not rabble rousing people. The guy maintains a business. He probably wasn't allowed to smoke in his aunt's house, he didn't want to stand around and draw needless attention, so he makes the choice for them to sit in the car instead of stand on the porch. This is a respectful, deferential course of action. It is the simplest explanation.

No one has been able to show any legal definition example where the law requires you to be at your own home, inside. No one has been able to turn up Missouri's state of emergency law. At the point where the police began their harassment, they had NO idea whether the guy and the other people were at their own home. There have been many examples of curfew having the legal definition of simply being out of public places and these people were. It is highly likely at this point that we will find that these people were in fact NOT disobeying the law.

Anyway, we are getting closer. Here is the actual executive order signed by the governor. I believe we will either find the Missouri definition of 'curfew' by looking up the relevant cited laws, or that the superintendent of the state patrol will have been given the authority to define the relevant parameters of the curfew. I don't have time at the moment to pursue the leads.

Executive Order 14-08 | Governor Jay Nixon

Executive Order 14-08
HomeNewsExecutive Orders

WHEREAS, the events occurring in the City of Ferguson, Missouri have created conditions of distress for the citizens and businesses of that community; and

WHEREAS, our citizens must have the right to peacefully assemble and protest; and

WHEREAS, the rule of law must be maintained in the City of Ferguson for the protection of the citizens and businesses of that community; and

WHEREAS, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, with the assistance and cooperation of the St. Louis County Police Department, has been patrolling in the City of Ferguson over the past week; and

WHEREAS, the conditions necessary to declare the existence of an emergency pursuant to Chapter 44, RSMo, have been found to exist; and

WHEREAS, an invocation of the provisions of Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, is necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Ferguson.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the state of Missouri, including Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, do hereby declare that a State of Emergency exists in the state of Missouri.

I do hereby direct the Missouri State Highway Patrol, through its Superintendent, to command all operations necessary to ensure public safety and protect civil rights in the City of Ferguson and, as necessary, surrounding areas during the period of this emergency.

I further order that such other local law enforcement agencies, as deemed necessary by the Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol to maintain order in the City of Ferguson, shall assist the Missouri State Highway Patrol when requested by the Superintendent and such law enforcement agencies, when operating in the City of Ferguson, shall cooperate with all operational directives of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

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.

This order shall be terminated upon execution of a subsequent Executive Order.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this 16th day of August, 2014.​
 
Last edited:
Funny. One would think that you would slink away in embarrassment when you are wrong, but you never do.
I pointed out what we were dealing with. Which was not your absurd juvenile curfew code from Boise, but with Curfew under a state of Declared Emergency.
Then there should be a written document about this. Please do provide.
:lamo
I do not need to provide anything to point that what he provided was not what was being spoken about.


And it should be very embarrassing for you not to realize what was being spoken about in the first place, which was the common and generally accept definition as provided. "a regulation requiring people to remain indoors."

Which these sources all agree.
[...]
None of which are law or part of any "Declared Emergency". It has often been shown that legal definitions can vary from those in dictionaries. With regards to what the police can do, only the legal definition is applicable, which is why such things are defined in laws.
You obviously are not paying attention.
I never said they were any part of a Declared Emergency.
So pay attention to what is being said. I mean damn, it was very clear, so clear that you truncated the portion which says exactly what they were. That is dishonesty on your part.
So again.
What was provided was the common and generally accept definition, "a regulation requiring people to remain indoors."


Again dispersing to where? They were already where they were dispersing to.
No they weren't.
Do you not think things through?
If the police tell them to get inside and they instead sit there and try to argue, they have failed to disperse.
So prove they were allowed to be where they weren't.
The fact that they were arrested pretty much says they weren't.
So show otherwise.


So police never make the wrong charges?
Irrelvent. And no one has provided any information, evidence or law that the police were in the wrong.


an aside, it's kinda of kewl to watch the avatars of Excon and Dezaad go back and forth. Almost makes you wonder if they're some kind of MPD person. ;)
His wanting to use the same cat was pretty uncouth.
 
He should have been asking, "Why am I sitting in a car in the driveway smoking when it's well after curfew?".
 
You are like a gift that keeps on giving.
:lamo
Said the gift that keeps giving.


I made it very clear that the reason I was giving the juvenile curfew definition was for two reasons: One, because I couldn't yet find an emergency curfew definition. And two, more importantly because I believe that definition is more properly the one that should be called a 'common' definition. It is the one that would be most likely to be used to understand what curfew means by the vast majority of people because that is the one people grow up understanding as a matter of the course of adolescence.
iLOL :doh
And you were wrong. Just admit it.
I also see that you do not understand that a curfew put in place under a state of emergency to quell looting, rioting and damage that covers everybody inducing adults, is different in purpose scope and reason than that for juveniles.

That is your fail. And one you should be embarrassed by. Not making excuses for.

I am the first one to have given the Dictionary.com definition, and no, it doesn't agree with your idea about what curfew means. Another of the definitions gives both notions.
Said the one who obviously didn't understand what they read, or is purposely lying.
The first two definitions given show you are not telling the truth.

Curfew
[kur-fyoo]

noun
1. an order establishing a specific time in the evening after which certain regulations apply, especially that no civilians or other specified group of unauthorized persons may be outdoors or that places of public assembly must be closed.
2. a regulation requiring a person to be home at a certain prescribed time, as imposed by a parent on a child.​
Curfew | Define Curfew at Dictionary.com


I think part of your delightfulness is that you often show a failure to comprehend what you are reading.
Says the one who was just shown not to understand the definition they read. Priceless.


It is YOU that lacks understanding. This is for the following reasons. You fail to have imagination and pragmatic intuitiveness about what might be. This seems to cause you to lock in on your first idea about a thing, which looks to be whatever it is that you were hoping a thing to be. You then fail to leave yourself open to whatever you find, and become blinded by early confirmation bias. After all this, almost as ridiculous as a court jester, you foolishly become condescending.
****ing hilarious. You are in the wrong and yet refuse to recognize it.
You can not transfer our failings onto me.


I think it is funny that you think the failure to disperse and the emergency curfew are likely not intertwined. Are you going to entertain us with more unwarranted condescension about that, too?
I think it is funny that you try to deflect with nonsense.
Especially as I never said any such thing.
 
I found other definitions. San Diego has a youth curfew, and it specifically states "at home" not inside. It includes the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the residence.

Did you find the specific curfew order for Ferguson? What it actually says?

Without it we are engaged in pure speculation.

I find it odd it isn't ANYWHERE on the internet that I can find.
:doh
:lamo
Juvenile curfews are not the subject.


"Generally" is not a term of law anywhere.
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.


Its written down somewhere what the specifics are. Dezaad will probably find it.
Let's hope he does. :lamo


Until then you're just playing the semantic games you always do.
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.



Excon actually obsessively replies. He can't NOT. Experimentally verified.
:doh
And apparently What if...? can't help but openly attack with lies.
Figures.
 
I don't get it. I really do not see where you think that they knew they were breaking the law. I would have thought it was perfectly fine for me to be at any residence and that it was perfectly fine to be anywhere on the property. If I thought I wasn't breaking the law, I still might be cautious about needlessly drawing attention. So I would sit in my car. When the press asked me, I might say "I didn't want to seem as if we were loitering". These are not rabble rousing people. The guy maintains a business. He probably wasn't allowed to smoke in his aunt's house, he didn't want to stand around and draw needless attention, so he makes the choice for them to sit in the car instead of stand on the porch. This is a respectful, deferential course of action. It is the simplest explanation.

No one has been able to show any legal definition example where the law requires you to be at your own home, inside. No one has been able to turn up Missouri's state of emergency law. At the point where the police began their harassment, they had NO idea whether the guy and the other people were at their own home. There have been many examples of curfew having the legal definition of simply being out of public places and these people were. It is highly likely at this point that we will find that these people were in fact NOT disobeying the law.

Anyway, we are getting closer. Here is the actual executive order signed by the governor. I believe we will either find the Missouri definition of 'curfew' by looking up the relevant cited laws, or that the superintendent of the state patrol will have been given the authority to define the relevant parameters of the curfew. I don't have time at the moment to pursue the leads.

Executive Order 14-08 | Governor Jay Nixon

Executive Order 14-08
HomeNewsExecutive Orders

WHEREAS, the events occurring in the City of Ferguson, Missouri have created conditions of distress for the citizens and businesses of that community; and

WHEREAS, our citizens must have the right to peacefully assemble and protest; and

WHEREAS, the rule of law must be maintained in the City of Ferguson for the protection of the citizens and businesses of that community; and

WHEREAS, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, with the assistance and cooperation of the St. Louis County Police Department, has been patrolling in the City of Ferguson over the past week; and

WHEREAS, the conditions necessary to declare the existence of an emergency pursuant to Chapter 44, RSMo, have been found to exist; and

WHEREAS, an invocation of the provisions of Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, is necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Ferguson.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the state of Missouri, including Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, do hereby declare that a State of Emergency exists in the state of Missouri.

I do hereby direct the Missouri State Highway Patrol, through its Superintendent, to command all operations necessary to ensure public safety and protect civil rights in the City of Ferguson and, as necessary, surrounding areas during the period of this emergency.

I further order that such other local law enforcement agencies, as deemed necessary by the Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol to maintain order in the City of Ferguson, shall assist the Missouri State Highway Patrol when requested by the Superintendent and such law enforcement agencies, when operating in the City of Ferguson, shall cooperate with all operational directives of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

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.

This order shall be terminated upon execution of a subsequent Executive Order.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the State of Missouri, in the City of Jefferson, on this 16th day of August, 2014.​

Did you see my Post #178? I am pretty sure the adult version of a temporary curfew would read much the same. And we all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Most especially when the law breaker takes measures to avoid drawing attention to himself that he is knowingly breaking the law.
 
You obviously are not paying attention.
I never said they were any part of a Declared Emergency.


Then what is this?:
Funny. One would think that you would slink away in embarrassment when you are wrong, but you never do.
I pointed out what we were dealing with. Which was not your absurd juvenile curfew code from Boise, but with Curfew under a state of Declared Emergency.


So pay attention to what is being said. I mean damn, it was very clear, so clear that you truncated the portion which says exactly what they were. That is dishonesty on your part.
So again.
What was provided was the common and generally accept definition, "a regulation requiring people to remain indoors."

"Common and generally accepted" is not law. Laws are written. A governor can not just go on TV and say "Hey I'm declaring a state of emergency. Oh and with that I'm imposing a curfew." Sure he can go on TV and summarize what he is doing. He has to issue a written executive order on these things. They lay out what he is doing. We've already shown that there is no one singular legal definition of a "curfew". In order to have the weight of the law there has to be a law behind it to give it weight. Where is this law?


No they weren't.
Do you not think things through?
If the police tell them to get inside and they instead sit there and try to argue, they have failed to disperse.
So prove they were allowed to be where they weren't.
The fact that they were arrested pretty much says they weren't.
So show otherwise.

Already have. They were staying at the aunt's house. You are not thinking it through. The curfew was in place and they were where they were staying. It would be a safe assumption that the aunt doesn't allow smoking in the house since they went outside to smoke. Now why they couldn't choose the back yard is beyond me. Somehow I doubt that the police would bother searching back yards. So unless there is something that specifically states that under this particular curfew that no one is allowed outside at all, which we have shown by several other laws such is not always the case, then there is nothing to show that they were in the wrong for being on the property where they were residing for the night. The fact that they were arrested means nothing as being falsely arrested is not an unheard of occurrence, and depending upon one's point of view could be considered an all too common occurrence.


Irrelvent. And no one has provided any information, evidence or law that the police were in the wrong.

In order for them to be in the right there has to be a law that allows them to do what they did. Otherwise they are violating the freedom of assembly and their personal liberties. Freedom of assembly, BTW is part of the 1st Amendment. All I am asking for is the written word that specifically states what actions the police are allowed to arrest people for under this curfew.
 
Most curfew laws regarding teens would not restrict a person being outside in their parent's yard but nothing is said about being outside in another relative's yard.

The St. Louis statute involving teen curfew says this:

Curfew for juveniles.


It shall be unlawful for any juvenile to be or remain in or upon the streets, alleys, rights-of-way or similar places within the City of St. Louis at night during the period ending at 5:00 a.m. and beginning at 11:59 p.m. on Friday and Saturday Night and at 11:00 p.m. on all other nights, except as provided in this chapter.
(Ord. 63784 § 3, 1996.)

15.110.030 Exemptions to curfew restrictions.

A. When accompanied by parent of such juvenile; when accompanied by a person over the age of twenty-one authorized by a parent.

B. When juvenile is on the sidewalk of a place where such juvenile resides, or on the sidewalk of either next door neighbor not communicating an objection to the police.

C. When returning home, by a direct route from (and within one hour after the termination of) a school or city sponsored activity, or an activity of a religious or other association, or place of employment.​

I would imagine a general curfew such as in the case of the Ferguson riots would be much the same except it would require adults to be at their own home.

I didn't see this post, so I will address it now that you have pointed it out to me.

According to your quote, juveniles are not required to be at their own home. Where do you get that adults be required to?
 
I didn't see this post, so I will address it now that you have pointed it out to me.

According to your quote, juveniles are not required to be at their own home. Where do you get that adults be required to?

Try reading the last line of my post please.
 
Try reading the last line of my post please.


I am asking you why you think that adults would be required to be at their own home under a general curfew. It has been shown that several states have defined general curfews as NOT requiring people to be at their own homes. It has never been shown that they do define general curfews as requiring people to be at their own homes. Although no one has been able to find Missouri's specific definition, it is a big jump to claim that it would be likely to include such a definition when the opposite has been shown for other states.
 
Then what is this?:
What?
You were already told that is me pointing out that the subjects are different.
What is not to understand about that?


"Common and generally accepted" is not law.
:doh
And again. That is what I referred to. Not the law. Learn to pay attention to what a person is saying.
It will serve you well.
If you can not distinguish between a legal argument and a non-legal argument, something is wrong.



We've already shown that there is no one singular legal definition of a "curfew".
No you actually haven't.
What has been show is irrelevant as it does not pertain to the State or was not applicable (juvenile curfew).

On the other hand, I have shown what the generally accepted and understood definition is.


In order to have the weight of the law there has to be a law behind it to give it weight. Where is this law?
Exactly. Where is it? That onus is on you to support your argument.

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.


Already have. They were staying at the aunt's house. You are not thinking it through. The curfew was in place and they were where they were staying. It would be a safe assumption that the aunt doesn't allow smoking in the house since they went outside to smoke. Now why they couldn't choose the back yard is beyond me. Somehow I doubt that the police would bother searching back yards. So unless there is something that specifically states that under this particular curfew that no one is allowed outside at all, which we have shown by several other laws such is not always the case, then there is nothing to show that they were in the wrong for being on the property where they were residing for the night. The fact that they were arrested means nothing as being falsely arrested is not an unheard of occurrence, and depending upon one's point of view could be considered an all too common occurrence.
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.

And the fact that juvenile curfew keeps getting brought up just shows that there is no understanding at how significantly different the two are.

Children are not full citizens and are under the supervision of their parents. So of course when they are on a supervising adults property they are considered under supervision.
Which is not the same as adult Curfews.




In order for them to be in the right there has to be a law that allows them to do what they did. Otherwise they are violating the freedom of assembly and their personal liberties. Freedom of assembly, BTW is part of the 1st Amendment. All I am asking for is the written word that specifically states what actions the police are allowed to arrest people for under this curfew.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
:naughty
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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.
 
Because you don't have an Aunt?
 
:doh
:lamo
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. :lamo


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.



:doh
And apparently What if...? can't help but openly attack with lies.
Figures.

So do not reply to this post. Easy enough.
 
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.
 
:naughty
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom