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 22:56:14 +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> <atropos-144AB3.12485125062024@news.giganews.com> <v5ffou$1ns3d$9@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:53:52 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-C0087A.15535225062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hZVum7sxhXc5ToBgDtcz0VHXsaRIbr3+WAKAoD7xXQhOnWeBSLWtOJLfOGmE+74erSrgtaK243ziWJr!0+ilFSldpfxUbWLzkJ5mHM8L9DPcSXrKSRfiPIktEbalGQgONy7Zk8HsKIxb0Uv2INa5iBw2OJDt!bnw=
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: 5121

In article <v5ffou$1ns3d$9@dont-email.me>,
 moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/25/2024 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It's in the spirit of private property to kill trespassers?

Who killed (or even tried to kill) anyone here?