: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.