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: <B7WcnT_drY_sm-_7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v4t2ai$1imbc$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-1CD7DC.18410418062024@news.giganews.com> <v4uvta$21spc$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-DE6AC6.09273119062024@news.giganews.com> <v4v8ug$23o16$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-542467.12091619062024@news.giganews.com> <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-393657.16151819062024@news.giganews.com> <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me> <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com>
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 <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me>,
>   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/2024 7:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/19/2024 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <v4v8ug$23o16$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 12:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <v4uvta$21spc$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <v4t2ai$1imbc$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>       "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> 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.