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

MaggieD said:

It is telling that the guy didn't say, "Hey!! I live there!" He said no such thing. He and four other guys were sitting in his aunt's driveway. That's not "at home" or on his own private property. That's on somebody else's private property. The purpose of an emergency curfew is that people go home or are holed in where they'll be sleeping for the night. It's a chicken-**** arrest though. But it does let them get people off the streets.

Click to expand...

That's where he was. If the curfew is in place at that time and he's there, he certainly not going to be going home to any other place since he's not allowed on the streets, is he? The same with the others. For whatever reasons he was obviously staying at his aunts house for at least that night.

Excon said:

Try again.
Focus on what I actually said this time, and not what you think I said.
But way to show it is too difficult for you to find. :lamo

Click to expand...

See your kitty twin above. ^ (from the quoted post. Not where this one ends up )

Dezaad said:

I also suspect that it will be possible in some states for the Governor to define it as he sees necessary. I can certainly imagine a variety of situations where it would be advantageous to have a flexible definition.

Click to expand...

I can see that as well, but there would still have to be something somewhere that give the Governor that power and there would have to be the executive order issued that details what that specific curfew entailed. All I am asking is for official legal wording that shows that these individuals were indeed violating the curfew and not just the victims of some overzealous police and city officials.

Excon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then there should be a written document about this. Please do provide.

Which these sources all agree.

Curfew - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
curfew: definition of curfew in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
curfew - definition of curfew by The Free Dictionary
Curfew | Define Curfew at Dictionary.com​

Click to expand...

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.

It is also funny that you ignore what they were actually charged with, failing to disperse.

Click to expand...

Again dispersing to where? They were already where they were dispersing to. Since the curfew is in place at the time of their arrest they certainly were not going to be traveling to any other residence. Therefore they were at the place where they were going to be spending the night. It would be interesting to know if they have applied this same standard to a single person who was outside smoking during curfew hours.

Excon said:

No they didn't.
That is why they were charged with it.

Click to expand...

So police never make the wrong charges?

As 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.

Dezaad said:

So, you think that the curfew does not permit you to stay at another person's residence for the night? I don't agree that an emergency curfew necessarily insists that people "go home". I think that may merely be the way the actual wording is most often interpreted, and the cops may even be confused about it. They aren't lawyers and don't always know what the law really says. I really do want to see the wording.

However, regardless of the wording, I will still need convincing that there wasn't reason for confusion. Actually, no one will in fact be able to convince me because I am confused about what the law would say even now. Again, youth curfew laws DO allow for you to be at any private residence, and since the word curfew is used in both cases, people may come to believe that the laws are very similar. And also again, when we do question exact boundaries, we expect laws to make sense. People being permitted to gather in small social groups on private property seems harmless or at least could seem harmless, especially to people who are just actually being social. As long as they won't be leaving the property to return to their own homes, they might think they were ok. I think it is ridiculous that people are assuming that these people were intentionally trying to be difficult.

Click to expand...

There's obviously some confusion about exactly what was imposed: I've been unable to find the exact wording of the order. Regardless, it would be a chicken arrest, in my opinion. Would cops approach a car like that with extreme caution? I sure would. They were ordered out of the car and didn't comply. The guy says he was afraid to reach down for the door handle. I might have been, too. I'm just arguing principle here. By the young man's own admission that's just "stopped by". That indicates they weren't home and intended to leave at some point. These are dangerous times. The guy was an idiot. He belonged at home. You KNOW there's rioting all over the city. You KNOW the cops are jumpy. You KNOW you intend to violate curfew because you're not at home. Their actions were reckless. Period.

Mr. Invisible said:

Please explain to me why they should be arrested for smoking in a driveway, not being a bother to anyone. It really isn't making sense.

Click to expand...

I don't think they should be arrested. This was FUBAR by the police from the get go. This shouldn't have been handled like desert storm...it was over the top. Some bright-eyed wanna-be caused the death of a human being and there was over zealous reaction. Even the curfew is lame but, the situation is out of control.

Someone has to stop, back up and let the dust settle. I do not think a powder-keg situation where people are all hopped up on adrenaline is the place to take a stand.

I would rather lose the battle and win the war.

Excon said:

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.

You should be embarrassed simply for providing such nonsense in the first place. :doh

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.

Curfew - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
curfew: definition of curfew in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
curfew - definition of curfew by The Free Dictionary
Curfew | Define Curfew at Dictionary.com​

Yeah, you should really be embarrassed for not knowing what the word generally meant and for not knowing specifically what was being discussed.
I guess that is what you get for assuming as you usually do.


Apparently you are confused, and should be ashamed that you are.
I never said I did show such, did I?

You see, most folks know we are dealing with a curfew put in place under a state of emergency to quell looting, rioting and damage.
A curfew that includes adults, which is different in purpose scope and reason than that for juveniles.

And I never said what you assumed, I merely pointed out that we are dealing with an entirely different type of curfew than the juvenile curfew you supplied. You obviously didn't realize that and assumed something totally different. Your failure.

They are not the same, and you should be extremely embarrassed for providing it.

And hell, unlike you, some of us know that a general curfew that covers adults is held to a different standard of review/scrutiny in courts than that of a juvenile curfew.



What is funny is that you get to be shown wrong every time you speak such nonsense.



Yeah, I have.
You clearly didn't know the general definition, even though most sources say the same thing. D'oh!


That's funny.
I am speaking about the generally known and accepted definition as provided, and you go off on a "legal concept" tangent.
Maybe you should pay attention to what has been said as you were told.

So again:

So that is why you lack understanding. You failed to realize that generally curfew means a regulation requiring people to remain indoors.

Good thing that you have now been educated. That way you wont make the same mistake the idiots did in getting arrested for not dispersing. iLOL​

And let me ask since your thought processes seem convoluted; What exactly do you think is meant by "a regulation", when defining Curfew? Do you absurdly think that they are not referring to the legal concept of regulation and are all wrong in their definition? iLOL :lamo


It is also funny that you ignore what they were actually charged with, failing to disperse.

Click to expand...

You are like a gift that keeps on 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.

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. I think part of your delightfulness is that you often show a failure to comprehend what you are reading. It was because the dictionary definitions were at odds with each other about the specifics that I began to turn more to the legal definitions as a way to decide which dictionary definitions should be considered correct. Indeed, the legal definition would still be what some people thought to be the common definition. Pragmatically speaking, those people would be more correct, since this is what actually affects people. It has been shown in glaring clarity in several posts I made from last night that the legal definition is at least often similar to only SOME of the dictionary definitions.

Yes, I think some of the dictionary definitions have been shown by me in several posts to be wrong, both for juveniles and for emergency curfews. They are wrong because at least several states define curfew as simply being vacated from public places, just as I thought they might, and the dictionary definitions are too specific in defining it as the need to be 'home'.

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.

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?

MaggieD said:

There's obviously some confusion about exactly what was imposed: I've been unable to find the exact wording of the order. Regardless, it would be a chicken arrest, in my opinion. Would cops approach a car like that with extreme caution? I sure would. They were ordered out of the car and didn't comply. The guy says he was afraid to reach down for the door handle. I might have been, too. I'm just arguing principle here. By the young man's own admission that's just "stopped by". That indicates they weren't home and intended to leave at some point. These are dangerous times. The guy was an idiot. He belonged at home. You KNOW there's rioting all over the city. You KNOW the cops are jumpy. You KNOW you intend to violate curfew because you're not at home. Their actions were reckless. Period.

Click to expand...

You are speculating about the part that they intended to violate the curfew at some future moment. They might have intended to stay the night at the house at which they had arrived. For all we know, they went there because it was in range, and they didn't have time to reach their desired destination. They MAY have been complying the best they could in their specific situation. You don't know anything about that. Bottom line: They probably weren't violating the specific legal order, but that remains to be seen when someone comes up with what the order actually was. I am open to that possibility. And they certainly weren't violating any 'common' definition, unless two of the dictionary definitions defines what people commonly understand.

csense said:

Violating the curfew by being outside is the definition of doing something wrong. C'mon Henrin, you're smarter than this. Most people who are law abiding are aware of the societal norms that surround them. If a curfew is in effect, then they follow it. They may bitch about it, but they follow it, because they also know that such a curfew makes it significantly easier for law enforcement to isolate the troublemakers.

If you are so dense that you don't know what is required of you during a curfew, then maybe getting arrested is a good lesson for you...

Click to expand...

No, people that will break the law will do it under a curfew or not. It has no real effect on people breaking the law. On top of that you will have people out and about because they can not otherwise avoid it or because they are purposely breaking curfew laws to practice their right to assembly or other activities.

Keep in mind that minority populations tend to view curfews as an instrument of political oppression and have a much higher tendency to ignore them.

Dezaad said:

Yep. That's exactly what I always thought it meant, and that is most often what it does in fact mean (under normal circumstances). Except that it also includes that you can't be in businesses either.

I am frustrated that I can't find a local news source, like the St. Louis Post Dispatch, that actually tells people what they are actually supposed to do. You would think that in the midst of their breathless accounts of the controversy, they would actually you know, do some reporting and tell people useful information.

I have been to the Missouri government site, law sites, local newspapers, etc etc. As far as I can tell, the Missouri law doesn't refer to 'Emergency Curfew' by the word 'curfew' within the writing of their laws.

Click to expand...

I did the same thing. Nothing about it.

Unconstitutionally vague, probably, considering I could find NO specifics either.

Maybe that how they're interpreting "state of emergency" as "whatever's we say it is at any given time".

You would think there'd be a local news report with the specifics, but nada.

Kinda strange, actually.

Excon said:

​

Maybe you two can explain why you thought it meant differently than it's commonly understood definition?

Curfew

cur·few
ˈkərˌfyo͞o/
noun
noun: curfew; plural noun: curfews

a regulation requiring people to remain indoors between specified hours, typically at night.
"a dusk-to-dawn curfew"
the hour designated as the beginning of a curfew.
"to be out after curfew without permission was to risk punishment"
a daily signal indicating the start of curfew.​

https://www.google.com/search?q=Cur...a:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs​

Or is it that you do not know what "remain indoors" means?

Click to expand...

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.

dirtpoorchris said:

Pretty sure hes trolling. Thats why I simply stopped arguing with him. He keeps flaunting that old world, tyrannical definition as if thats what the spirit of this curfew was supposed to address. Keeping looters off the streets and harassing people on private property are obviously 2 very different things. I think he simply hates "thugs". Had it been some old white guy smoking pipe tobacco on his porch maybe he'd show leeway?

Click to expand...

Excon actually obsessively replies. He can't NOT. Experimentally verified.

Excon said:

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.

You should be embarrassed simply for providing such nonsense in the first place. :doh

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.

Curfew - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
curfew: definition of curfew in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
curfew - definition of curfew by The Free Dictionary
Curfew | Define Curfew at Dictionary.com​

Yeah, you should really be embarrassed for not knowing what the word generally meant and for not knowing specifically what was being discussed.
I guess that is what you get for assuming as you usually do.


Apparently you are confused, and should be ashamed that you are.
I never said I did show such, did I?

You see, most folks know we are dealing with a curfew put in place under a state of emergency to quell looting, rioting and damage.
A curfew that includes adults, which is different in purpose scope and reason than that for juveniles.

And I never said what you assumed, I merely pointed out that we are dealing with an entirely different type of curfew than the juvenile curfew you supplied. You obviously didn't realize that and assumed something totally different. Your failure.

They are not the same, and you should be extremely embarrassed for providing it.

And hell, unlike you, some of us know that a general curfew that covers adults is held to a different standard of review/scrutiny in courts than that of a juvenile curfew.



What is funny is that you get to be shown wrong every time you speak such nonsense.



Yeah, I have.
You clearly didn't know the general definition, even though most sources say the same thing. D'oh!


That's funny.
I am speaking about the generally known and accepted definition as provided, and you go off on a "legal concept" tangent.
Maybe you should pay attention to what has been said as you were told.

So again:

So that is why you lack understanding. You failed to realize that generally curfew means a regulation requiring people to remain indoors.

Good thing that you have now been educated. That way you wont make the same mistake the idiots did in getting arrested for not dispersing. iLOL​

And let me ask since your thought processes seem convoluted; What exactly do you think is meant by "a regulation", when defining Curfew? Do you absurdly think that they are not referring to the legal concept of regulation and are all wrong in their definition? iLOL :lamo


It is also funny that you ignore what they were actually charged with, failing to disperse.

Click to expand...

"Generally" is not a term of law anywhere.

Law is reason devoid of passion.

It is specific, not general.

Its written down somewhere what the specifics are. Dezaad will probably find it.

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

What if...? said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah I spent the last 20 minutes searching the Missouri Statutes online and couldn't find a definition for curfew or what the governor's emergency powers are or the wording of the order.

Not that it's likely to matter. Despite people's comments about private property the government legally treads all over property rights all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the governor could legally mandate that people stay in their homes during a state of emergency.

~SAL said:

I gotta ask here, how high does one's IQ have to be in order to fully comprehend that there has been death and destruction and now a curfew is in place for the good of everyone?

At a certain point I have to say, if you have no common sense, if the need to be defiant, or stupid over-rides basic common sense, I have no further sympathy.

With all that has occurred in this community WHY do people have to stretch the limit out?

They guy does not deserve to die for being stupid, but he didn't so I say, man up be glad you are still breathing and don't be a wiener.

wow hey dude, there's a curfew, it not be pertaining to me though, I be right in a car, in my auntie's driveway smokin'...they be arrestin' me, not my fault bro

yes it is, and if you need an explanation here as to why, your road is going to be a rocky one in the real world

Click to expand...

Yes, because arresting peaceful people who are on their private property certainly is a valid exercise of curfew laws. :roll:

I have to wonder how high does one's IQ have to be in order to fully comprehend abuse of power and that government action is supposed to be limited. Wow, people who have run ins with the authority should just STFU and be happy they leave the situation alive....great. There's the America we all know and love :roll:

Ikari said:

Yes, because arresting peaceful people who are on their private property certainly is a valid exercise of curfew laws. :roll:

I have to wonder how high does one's IQ have to be in order to fully comprehend abuse of power and that government action is supposed to be limited. Wow, people who have run ins with the authority should just STFU and be happy they leave the situation alive....great. There's the America we all know and love :roll:

Click to expand...

you entirely missed my point but that's okay, hope your rant helped along with the eye exercise:lol:

~SAL said:

you entirely missed my point but that's okay, hope your rant helped along with the eye exercise:lol:

Click to expand...

No, your point has been well made. Cower in fear of the authority and do as they tell you, be happy you're still breathing.

Ikari said:

No, your point has been well made. Cower in fear of the authority and do as they tell you, be happy you're still breathing.

Click to expand...

Yes we agree, I too think my point was well made repeatedly in this thread and others on this topic. In fact, no one but you had a comprehension problem.

The fact that you can not comprehend said point however is not an issue for me. Neither is your assumptive leap regarding what I fear or my behavior due to it.

Suit up well before ya tackle the National Guard okay....let us know how that works for you k... :wink:

~SAL said:

Yes we agree, I too think my point was well made repeatedly in this thread and others on this topic. In fact, no one but you had a comprehension problem.

The fact that you can not comprehend said point however is not an issue for me. Neither is your assumptive leap regarding what I fear or my behavior due to it.

Suit up well before ya tackle the National Guard okay....let us know how that works for you k... :wink:

Click to expand...

Bow down before the one you serve, huh. Interesting.

Dezaad said:

You are speculating about the part that they intended to violate the curfew at some future moment. They might have intended to stay the night at the house at which they had arrived. For all we know, they went there because it was in range, and they didn't have time to reach their desired destination. They MAY have been complying the best they could in their specific situation. You don't know anything about that. Bottom line: They probably weren't violating the specific legal order, but that remains to be seen when someone comes up with what the order actually was. I am open to that possibility. And they certainly weren't violating any 'common' definition, unless two of the dictionary definitions defines what people commonly understand.

Click to expand...

A "common definition" means GO HOME. They weren't home. It's a small point and hardly worth all this effort. They won't even be charged.

MaggieD said:

A "common definition" means GO HOME. They weren't home. It's a small point and hardly worth all this effort. They won't even be charged.

Click to expand...

No. There are two dictionary definitions out of four that means that. But, it wasn't my intuitive understanding, nor was it reasonable to think that is what the law would be, nor has it been shown at all that it is a common definition from a legal standpoint. Quite the opposite really. Did you read anything that has been said in the thread?

Dezaad said:

No. There are two dictionary definitions out of four that means that. But, it wasn't my intuitive understanding, nor was it reasonable to think that is what the law would be, nor has it been shown at all that it is a common definition from a legal standpoint. Quite the opposite really. Did you read anything that has been said in the thread?

Click to expand...

If you aren't supposed to be out from midnight to 6 AM, then home is where you belong...unless you work nights or are staying over at someone's house. Who the hell cares? I won't get stopped or arrested. You will. *shrug* Until you have the actual wording of the curfew, you're making stuff up. So am I. I'll err on the side of caution. You go sit in your car in your friend's driveway with three other people and get hauled down to the station. *shrug again*

MaggieD said:

If you aren't supposed to be out from midnight to 6 AM, then home is where you belong...unless you work nights or are staying over at someone's house. Who the hell cares? I won't get stopped or arrested. You will. *shrug* Until you have the actual wording of the curfew, you're making stuff up. So am I. I'll err on the side of caution. You go sit in your car in your friend's driveway with three other people and get hauled down to the station. *shrug again*

Click to expand...

Well, then, I don't think you get to say "common" definition. Cautious would be a better descriptor.

MaggieD said:

If you aren't supposed to be out from midnight to 6 AM, then home is where you belong...unless you work nights or are staying over at someone's house. Who the hell cares? I won't get stopped or arrested. You will. *shrug* Until you have the actual wording of the curfew, you're making stuff up. So am I. I'll err on the side of caution. You go sit in your car in your friend's driveway with three other people and get hauled down to the station. *shrug again*

Click to expand...

Actually if there is a curfew and you go out in public to get to your work at night then you have broken the law.

dirtpoorchris said:

Actually if there is a curfew and you go out in public to get to your work at night then you have broken the law.

Click to expand...

Depends. I'd expect that exceptions for people who have to be at work are routinely made except in the most extreme circumstances.

What this really tells me is dude needs to stop smoking.

MaggieD said:

A "common definition" means GO HOME. They weren't home. It's a small point and hardly worth all this effort. They won't even be charged.

Click to expand...

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.

MaggieD said:

You cannot be outside. Is that too difficult a concept for you?

Click to expand...

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?