Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:54:43 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:09:16 -0700 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Once again, it was necessary to recreate the attribution line. Once
again, I remind H.G. that he MUST retain attribution lines associated
with retained quotes so that the read can tell who said what. This is
necessary for communication on Usenet.

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...

How the H can you make that logical leap? He clearly said he was
talking about his private property.

What does logic have to do with anything moviePig said here, has said in
the past, or might say in the future? I don't know the history of gated
communities in St. Louis. Some were created as such from the initial
subdivision. Others were created upon vacating public right of way to
private owners. Either way, it wasn't TEMPORARY and moviePig raised an
irrelevancy.

There are instances of temporary transfers. I was in the Chicago Loop
yesterday and saw temporary grandstands being assembled for NASCAR,
which take weeks to erect and more weeks to disassemble. The event
itself will close off city streets and much of Grant Park. No, protests
will not be allowed.

If somebody carries a large rock near a car in my carport (and my wife
HAS had a 10" rock through her rear windshield) I'm entitled to assume
ill intent.

You would assume ill intent of a trespasser BEFORE that rock was thrown to
begin with.