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 16:36:45 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple References: User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:34:05 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 72 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-x4U0BICpB3R3pDPXcwJb+diYSDUB99rmMqPpFz4QLRTFdTsOSYmfIRYycFj2nAcN46B9YDRLU34CAdC!wkW4ZDAbAAtIQ3y97cdBdiKzfini2phYLjajkZeIiMBmUhGVrAqwRqgyv9cPSlbcoq0KYdMf/UDI!x3o= 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: 4490 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.