English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A question was "How many people must be joined together in order to constitute a riot or rout?" I replied with 2, which is the correct answer, but the professor said that by saying joined together, my answer was wrong. He says 'joined together' means physically combined. But if you combine the definition of joined with the definition of together, it does not mean physically combined. What is your opinion? There is a lot riding on this decision so please be precise. thanks

2007-05-23 13:08:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

3 answers

I would argue that "joined together in a common cause or enterprise" is a reasonable interpretation.

2007-05-23 13:21:45 · answer #1 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 0 0

The words joined together are used in many wedding ceremonies. Now, it is symbolic of a couple becoming one, but it doesn't happen physically, you don't become siamese twins because you are married. Nor are you even handcuffed. It is a joining of lives for a specific reason, in this case marriage and possibly family.
People also join together and raise their voices in praise of God ( please, to all others out there, I am not making this about religion). People are asked to join together to support many ethical causes. These people in these cases are not made into one person, mixed and poured out as a new one, or physically bound to each other ( aside from the old mostly peaceful chains of people protecting old trees and buildings etc).
I would think being joined together in order to constitute a riot would be joined together for the specific reason that is behind the riot. Riots happen for a reason. Many times from people gathering to protest a specific thing ( abortion, political decisions etc). So the rioters would be joined together by a mutual dislike of abortion.
Hope that helps. What is riding on this?

2007-05-23 20:23:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Neither of you are correct. The definition for "joined together" is reasonably susceptible to various interpretations and definitions. I suggest that you look to case law for a similar pattern of facts (such as 2 people equating a riot). Cite that case law in favor of your definition. Find case law that defines "joined together" as your professor defines it, and distinguish that from the cases you are using.

2007-05-23 20:25:11 · answer #3 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers