Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:39:16 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple References: <273351066.740513925.531451.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:36:36 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 36 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-5VSyTjdVQvYPH9pPVQLUR6HS3NHLw/uX333ZgM7uSWIJMCZ7rZycKVzYFbcY6C5wDmB2OPxtOkMfLoc!YR5+tUGmW8wwBoUdXMf9bZGGXjzdKi5rddmTt7mBAg336JVfoyuBtsNMSp0QDiQXVRMfu8FopSp8!OhU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 2714 In article , moviePig wrote: > On 6/20/2024 1:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote: > > 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"? > > > > They broke through a locked gate to get into the neighborhood and > > lied that it was simply their route to get somewhere else because > > there's only the one way in and out of the community. So they weren't > > passing through. They broke and entered. > > Then, sure, I'd be royally pissed, too ...but still must ask whether > deadly force is an appropriate threat to protect one's lawn. We don't decide appropriateness in the criminal courts. We decide whether conduct violates the law.