Re: Criminal Records Expunged for St. Louis Gun Couple

On 6/21/24 10:13 PM, moviePig 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.

Oath Keeper Twat is losing what little mind he had to begin with. I told him there was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and he roundly told me I was full of shit.  I don't know who the fuck this anonyshit is, but he has a tenuous grasp of reality at best.