Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/414/890.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:11:44+00:00

Document:
According to the court below the 'riot' was underway when the officer returned and attempted to arrest A. B., the officer's actions being referred to as an attempt to 'quell a riot that had been instigated and encouraged by this appellant's cursing and obscence language to excite the crowd.' Miss., 269 So.2d 641. Since appellants challenge the facial constitutionality of a statute which, according to the Mississippi Supreme Court, defines the congregation of blacks in this case as a 'riot,' the fact that A. B. and Leon Thompson forcefully resisted the police intervention does not end the case. The fact that their action might fall within the statute if it were constitutionally narrowed, does not negate their ability to challenge the statute. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521 . [414 U.S. 890 , 892] Any statute which classifies the congregation of blacks in this case as a riot raises serious constitutional questions. The state court places no limiting construction upon the statute. It first notes that the statute is similar to the Federal Riot Control Statute, then discusses whether other Mississippi statutes are constitutional, and finally concludes that the challenged statute 'sufficiently informed the defendants of the essential elements of the offense.' Miss., 269 So.2d 641. The challenged statute is not like its federal counterpart. 18 U.S.C. 2102, unlike the Mississippi statute, necessitates a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury. The conclusory statement that these defendants were sufficiently informed of the essential elements, in not an answer to the matter of overbreadth.
[ Footnote * ] There was further testimony that he pointed the gun at A. B.'s chest and said: 'You don't believe I'll shoot you.' R. 149, 162. There is a great deal of conflicting testimony but the record strongly suggests that the officer's provocative conduct engendered the crowd mumbling and 'rambling' which the court below held a 'riot.' This merely underscores the desirability of our hearing appellant's claim.
'Because a claim of constitutionally protected right is involved, it 'remains our duty in a case such as this to make an independent examination of the whole record.' Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 ; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 , 205, n. 5; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 335 ; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 385 -386.' Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 , 545, n. 8, 85 S. Ct. 453.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.