Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
In article <v4vgil$258cf$1@dont-email.me>,And yet, Mark McCloskey pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, both misdemeanors.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2024 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:If you're not presuming it and I'm not presuming it and the courtsIn 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?
Why would you presume I presume it, especially after I've explicitly
labeled it a 'presumption'?
hearing the case in St. Louis didn't presume it, what was your point in
bringing it up here?
What does such a fanciful scenario have to do with what's under>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.
So, e.g., we can suspend the right of peaceable assembly by temporarily
transferring public property rights to some private party...
discussion here? St. Louis didn't temporarily sell a public
street/neighborhood to the residents of the neighborhood for purposes of
thwarting the BLM protest. That neighborhood had always been private
property, including the streets, since it was built decades ago.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.