Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
On 6/20/2024 10:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Only in your febrile mind, infected as it is with wishful thinkingIn 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>,They were in the street, not on McClosky's property.
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.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.