Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:52:17 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:52:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f6723e81ced72bfe713efc1ebd17bbb"; logging-data="2773415"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AoEAJwIaDpEIKt4ASuFNJPhkQJeBCnhg=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:FMATtPuqm/gpojoqkQrMtELRNsk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4282 On 6/19/2024 7:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > moviePig wrote: > >> On 6/19/2024 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article , >>> moviePig wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/19/2024 12:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article , >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ST. LOUIS (AP) - A judge has expunged the misdemeanor convictions >>>>>>>>> of a St. Louis couple who waved guns at racial injustice protesters >>>>>>>>> outside their mansion in 2020. Now they want their guns back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I had no idea that four years later, this still hadn't happened. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was a gated community, which are all over St. Louis. They were >>>>>>>> trespassing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently 'trespassing' is a meaningless term when you're doing it for >>>>>>> 'social justice'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't you even *pretend* there's a built-in tug-of-war between >>>>>> "trespassing" and "peaceable assembly"? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe in a public place like a university quad, but not in a private >>>>> residential neighborhood. >>>> >>>> Under the presumption that each point of view must give some ground >>> >>> Why would you presume that? >> >> Why would you presume I presume it, especially after I've explicitly >> labeled it a 'presumption'? > > If you're not presuming it and I'm not presuming it and the courts > hearing the case in St. Louis didn't presume it, what was your point in > bringing it up here? > >>>> I'd say that the protesters' rights depend on history, geometry, etc. >>> >>> I'd say (and I'd be right) that no protester has rights to come onto my >>> private property at all. I'm the only one who gets to decide who's >>> allowed and who isn't. It's pretty much in the definition. >> >> So, e.g., we can suspend the right of peaceable assembly by temporarily >> transferring public property rights to some private party... > > What does such a fanciful scenario have to do with what's under > discussion here? St. Louis didn't temporarily sell a public > street/neighborhood to the residents of the neighborhood for purposes of > thwarting the BLM protest. That neighborhood had always been private > property, including the streets, since it was built decades ago. The 'fanciful scenario' illustrates that (as usual) absolutist positions on non-mathematical issues are untenable. To afford protesters *and* property owners meaningful rights, something's eventually gotta give.