Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:17:35 -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: 60 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 09:17:36 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3163 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17dafa563c68a967$159724$3694546$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3482 On 6/20/24 8:35 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. Lying sack o' shit alert. Can you prove to us the McShitbags owned the street? Of course you can't because you're a lying sack o' shit. > > 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.