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: <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> <v52l9a$2qv7o$10@dont-email.me> <atropos-597F57.18352820062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-597F57.18352820062024@news.giganews.com>
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 <v52l9a$2qv7o$10@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/19/24 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?
>>>
>>>> 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.