Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:51:13 +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> <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> <v52ngo$2v630$8@dont-email.me> <atropos-77F41E.19244320062024@news.giganews.com> <v55fgb$3ir36$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:48:51 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-144AB3.12485125062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XY5uOPnsZ1XNqkHaDHpAhutQ+30BK61DeOy2glbaPC+5cfEh9E1voImc/29CUK7mxbtBlo3S55U1iFe!QeQfwObO1KdALDGwsu8VRs9VkgJ11pHNceItvHy/mdT9jE59rkC9rmQNGADeihZhO4WoYi+e0szU!IdI=
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: 4616

In article <v55fgb$3ir36$1@dont-email.me>,
 moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2024 10:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <v52ngo$2v630$8@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 6/20/24 9:35 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> > 
> >> There certainly was something wrong, and they were charged based on the
> >> law as written.
> > 
> > But we don't care about the law as written, remember? It's only the
> > spirit we should be concerned with. And the spirit of private property
> > laws certainly does allow for warning off mobs of people in the middle
> > of nationwide violent riots from trespassing on your land and doing you
> > harm.
> 
> Even if that were (absurdly) the "spirit" of private property

Of course it's within the spirit of private property laws. Private 
property laws are meaningless if they provide you no remedy.