Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 04:29:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 84 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:29:21 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4387 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17db498f120688eb$175442$3053472$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4769 On 6/21/24 10:13 PM, moviePig wrote: > On 6/20/2024 10:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article , FPP >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/20/24 9:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >>>> In article , FPP >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/19/24 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? >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> They were in the street, not on McClosky's property. >>>> >>>> The street was private property, too, smooth brain. >>>> >>>> And there's nothing wrong with indicating to a screaming mob that's >>>> already trespassed on private property what will happen to them if they >>>> trespass any further. >> >>> There certainly was something wrong, and they were charged based on the >>> law as written. >> >> But we don't care about the law as written, remember? It's only the >> spirit we should be concerned with. And the spirit of private property >> laws certainly does allow for warning off mobs of people in the middle >> of nationwide violent riots from trespassing on your land and doing you >> harm. > > Even if that were (absurdly) the "spirit" of private property, there are > other laws, including common-sense ones, whose "spirit" figures in, too. Oath Keeper Twat is losing what little mind he had to begin with. I told him there was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and he roundly told me I was full of shit. I don't know who the fuck this anonyshit is, but he has a tenuous grasp of reality at best.