Path: ...!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: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:13:14 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 71 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: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 05:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a2fbad305af87c7b41015176a1534a8"; logging-data="3763302"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uC6HzA8ulpjqOQV0GvlLvFmADW5vLLYw=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1is5W+HbHdDwrehSsgDCyq5+5PU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4412 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.