Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:16:55 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple
References: <B7WcnT_drY_sm-_7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v51hle$2kkd7$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-295153.09363520062024@news.giganews.com> <v51vfa$2n6c1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <1oucnSudyL3aAen7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:16:55 +0000
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3uFRuO9MC+SaUHaYU+nEv1o/CDh+f42+gZJrXIhzomznWN9DBRqOy/HacdUU/VdHn9jE12Gddy2TCeN!jNkrWAjN/o2eQrxTWmfoyfb5X7VZC/n2yJxX3h3uqTtBC0ravz9jsJ+HHxJMyLcPE2Y7MMIlJgWr
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: 3167
X-Original-Lines: 45

On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:21:14 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2024 12:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  In article <v51hle$2kkd7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>  On 6/20/2024 1:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>  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"?
>>>> 
>>>>  They broke through a locked gate to get into the neighborhood and
>>>>  lied that it was simply their route to get somewhere else because
>>>>  there's only the one way in and out of the community. So they weren't
>>>>  passing through. They broke and entered.
>>> 
>>>  Then, sure, I'd be royally pissed, too ...but still must ask whether
>>>  deadly force is an appropriate threat to protect one's lawn.
>>  
>>  We don't decide appropriateness in the criminal courts. We decide
>>  whether conduct violates the law.
> 
> Though not why I asked it, I think the question -- however phrased -- is 
> indeed appropriate to a courtroom.

Courts are obligated to issue rulings based on the law, not on whatever
feelings of societal etiquette a particular jurist may have.