Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:18:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v57108$3rn1f$2@dont-email.me>
References: <B7WcnT_drY_sm-_7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <atropos-77F41E.19244320062024@news.giganews.com> <v55fgb$3ir36$1@dont-email.me> <20240622130801.00001a7c@example.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:18:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38586e4b900edccc9e578beee4abad4e";
	logging-data="4054063"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/i2mEdirkRtiNW4OITdHImVa6ADWOtp0c="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Nl4X4+1cT4pBAy8o3j6JKcKNfY=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 4967

Rhino  <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:13:14 -0400
>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, there
>> are other laws, including common-sense ones, whose "spirit" figures
>> in, too.
>> 
>> 
>Only in your febrile mind, infected as it is with wishful thinking
>rather than reality. You WANT the protesters to be able to go anywhere
>they like to say whatever they want so you just IMAGINE they have the
>right to do that even if there is no law that says they can: there
>OUGHT to be (in your mind) so there IS (again, in YOUR mind), reality
>be damned. 

I'm (barf) gonna say moviePig accidentally made a valid point in spirit
here, if the spririt of what he means is that the spirit of protest is
upon private property, for if the protest takes place in spirit only,
there's no trespass.