Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:39:59 -0400
Organization: Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgah'nagl Fhtagn.
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <v52llf$2usni$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: fredp1571@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:40:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="135701bad7255964217cc25f17b69a9f";
	logging-data="3109618"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18i/1q+L1KSxRHeAaIobeR2"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KtEHbAKHEZi4IWSrH5iSFDY5Ytg=
In-Reply-To: <atropos-2D68A3.09340520062024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5269

On 6/20/24 12:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.
> 

Which is why they were cited.

Also why the McCloskeys were charged and pleaded guilty.

-- 
On May 30, 2024 Donald J. Trump was unanimously convicted on 34 felony 
counts in New York City... so I took this picture in my side yard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC 
Bible  25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0