Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:38:10 +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 18:35:28 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 52 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-yrtZgI/PYri8gAAvI5jN3svlOlQ8wX2OXvGFqbcNkBtZ3T5FlycF+QfqH7ikrfN/WKq7Ud203mPrGup!46wfjoCctWxN90zHP19hjTcb4Qg+ECCTpf50RxywSzt9yTlyWRPFvOi13Ar7wI2A9PK3SsUQ/Lxf!y+k= 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: 3329 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.