Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:36:45 +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> <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-393657.16151819062024@news.giganews.com> <v51j7g$2kkd7$3@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:34:05 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x4U0BICpB3R3pDPXcwJb+diYSDUB99rmMqPpFz4QLRTFdTsOSYmfIRYycFj2nAcN46B9YDRLU34CAdC!wkW4ZDAbAAtIQ3y97cdBdiKzfini2phYLjajkZeIiMBmUhGVrAqwRqgyv9cPSlbcoq0KYdMf/UDI!x3o=
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: 4490

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.