No, I started out noting that refusing to allow a group to assemble in one particular place is not the same as banning them from assembling. It's a stark and relevant factor that you consistently blow off.
-- Who do you think the government would have had to take legal action against in order to stop the event? Hypothetical possible attendees? Or the sponsor? --
Action is always against the problem. Who is the problem, the hypothetical possible attendees or the sponsor?
Name the persons or groups to be restricted, all else goes on freely. COCI is free to have its meeting.
-- ... but nobody ever said the government had enough evidence, prior to the events that day, to make a case. --
Uhhhh, yeah, that is implied by the arrest of 180+ on probable cause of committing conspiracy.
-- Hell, you don't even think they have enough evidence to make their cases now ... --
That's true. But you, on the other hand, think the evidence is adequate, and that 180+ are guilty of conspiracy.
-- There is a large gulf between having evidence that a crime may occur and having evidence that is of a sufficient level to prosecute. --
You mean like the difference between probable cause (which justifies arrest), and "beyond a reasonable doubt" for conviction? For purposes of this disagreement between us, the standard is the lower, probable cause.
“refusing to allow a group to assemble in one particular place is not the same as banning them from assembling”
I’m quite certain that the defense lawyers would not agree with your sentiment if that case came up in court, so it’s not an issue you can’t simply wave away.
“Action is always against the problem.”
No it isn’t. Did you just make that up?
“Uhhhh, yeah, that is implied by the arrest of 180+ on probable cause of committing conspiracy.”
Since they weren’t arrested PRIOR to the events that day, no, it is not implied.
“That’s true.”
Good. So you admit that you on the one hand, blame the cops for not arresting them prior to the bloody massacre, but also blame the cops for arresting them after the bloody massacre. Seems like no matter what the cops would have done, you would find some way to find fault in it.
“For purposes of this disagreement between us, the standard is the lower, probable cause.”
Why should that be the standard? Are you advocating now that police should arrest people even if they know they won’t have enough evidence to prosecute, in a complex case like a criminal conspiracy case?