Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple

On Jun 20, 2024 at 12:21:14 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/20/2024 12:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  In article <v51hle$2kkd7$1@dont-email.me>,
    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 6/20/2024 1:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

  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"?

>
  They broke through a locked gate to get into the neighborhood and
  lied that it was simply their route to get somewhere else because
  there's only the one way in and out of the community. So they weren't
  passing through. They broke and entered.

>
  Then, sure, I'd be royally pissed, too ...but still must ask whether
  deadly force is an appropriate threat to protect one's lawn.

    We don't decide appropriateness in the criminal courts. We decide
  whether conduct violates the law.

>
Though not why I asked it, I think the question -- however phrased -- is
indeed appropriate to a courtroom.

 Courts are obligated to issue rulings based on the law, not on whatever
feelings of societal etiquette a particular jurist may have.