Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:50:11 -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> <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me> <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com> <v51v78$2n6c1$1@dont-email.me> <1oucnSidyL1gBun7nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <1oucnSidyL1gBun7nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 89
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!news.1d4.us!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:50:11 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4832
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17daf5911f132f67$518540$1616079$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 5240

On 6/20/24 4:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:16:56 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/20/2024 12:34 PM, 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.
>>
>> Why do you think protesters need an explicit Constitutional right to
>> protest, if not because of conflict with other "rights"?
> 
> There is no conflict with private property rights in the 1st Amendment's right
> of assembly. It's simply not contemplated that it would even be a question
> that strangers have a right to trespass on your property so long as they're
> 'protesting'.


Yeah, it sounds like the "trespassing" part is nonexistent, but don't 
let this stop you from being a lying right wing asshole.