Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:43:10 -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: 7bit Lines: 76 Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:43:11 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 4225 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17daf52f3d90fef0$518536$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4544 On 6/20/24 11:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > moviePig wrote: > >> 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. > > Protesters have NO rights on other people's private property. Nothing > has to give there. More lying from a different right wing asshole.