Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 23:17:56 +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>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:15:18 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-393657.16151819062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 60
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-32ByFJ4Kr1dq0kz/Za6ldNIOSOC5Llydafkk6gRvCqHgAHjRzqRWkPWmjthd/cLs3ejznQx2GVkv3JJ!uBnF3gX9YhlmntAdTJWz+N+6RuIK/tt/6DrgveIWSXlYquAvvOU4JCvizNMJpSMK+0wR8UZIwIzv!Jrc=
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: 3804

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.