@dood111 saidThere was no "riot".
Did any of the rioters that broke down the gate and trespassed on private property have to stand up in court and admit to their crimes?
I don't think anyone was charged and I have my doubts any would stand given the Mayor's house was in that community - 1st Amendment and all.
@no1marauder said1st Amendment gives people the right to tresspass on private property?
There was no "riot".
I don't think anyone was charged and I have my doubts any would stand given the Mayor's house was in that community - 1st Amendment and all.
They can talk to the mayor at his office, breaking into a gated community because he lives there is hardly a 1st Amendment right.
If you really are a lawyer you must be a crummy one to say such a thing.
@dood111 saidHow many times do I have to cite to the video showing no one "broke into" the community? The gate was undamaged when the protesters walked through right before the Mccloskeys confronted them with guns.
1st Amendment gives people the right to tresspass on private property?
They can talk to the mayor at his office, breaking into a gated community because he lives there is hardly a 1st Amendment right.
If you really are a lawyer you must be a crummy one to say such a thing.
I stand by my analysis though it was not tested in this case. There's nothing in the First Amendment saying public officials can escape the People's right to petition them by declaring a street "private property."
@no1marauder saidIt's a gated community, not a public street.
I stand by my analysis though it was not tested in this case. There's nothing in the First Amendment saying public officials can escape the People's right to petition them by declaring a street "private property."
You can't possibly have any sort of legal background.
@dood111 saidStudy this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
It's a gated community, not a public street.
You can't possibly have any sort of legal background.
The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.
@no1marauder saidI read the case.
Study this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.
Now I KNOW you are a self-taught legal expert.
The case was about a "company town" where all the stores/streets were on company property. People HAD to go downtown to shop, etc.
The McCloskey case involved a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY where only property owners were allowed or people that had a reason to be there by invitation.
Two entirely different things.
2 edits
@dood111 saidThat's a distinction without a difference; in both cases the private property owners wished to prevent outsiders from exercising their 1st Amendment rights on the private property. What is the difference if in one it was one corporation and in the other an organization of individual owners one of whom was the Mayor of the city? None.
I read the case.
Now I KNOW you are a self-taught legal expert.
The case was about a "company town" where all the stores/streets were on company property. People HAD to go downtown to shop, etc.
The McCloskey case involved a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY where only property owners were allowed or people that had a reason to be there by invitation.
Two entirely different things.
@no1marauder saidthe town was open to the public
Study this case while you're working on your law degree: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/326us501
The whole town was privately owned in Marsh v. Alabama yet the SCOTUS ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses had a 1st Amendment right to distribute their materials in it and could not be prosecuted for trespassing for doing so.
@no1marauder saidSo if someone wants to come on my property and "Exercise their 1st Amendment rights" I can't tell them to GTFO my property?
That's a distinction without a difference; in both cases the private property owners wished to prevent outsiders from exercising their 1st Amendment rights on the private property. What is the difference if in one it was one corporation and in the other an organization of individual owners one of whom was the Mayor of the city? None.
You are NOT a lawyer.
1 edit
@dood111 saidNormally you can, but you're not the Mayor.
So if someone wants to come on my property and "Exercise their 1st Amendment rights" I can't tell them to GTFO my property?
You are NOT a lawyer.
Tell me, how many of those protesting outside the Mayor's house on private property were arrested?
@no1marauder saidSo being the mayor means people can come on your property and harass you?
Normally you can, but you're not the Mayor.
Tell me, how many of those protesting outside the Mayor's house on private property were arrested?
Don't think so.
Once again, you ARE NOT a lawyer as you claim.
1 edit
@dood111 saidHere's an article with lots of pictures of the protesters in front of the Mayor's house in the gated community. https://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/pictures/photos-protesters-march-to-mayor-krewsons-home/collection_cab79d8a-2742-5449-a43f-941071e2152c.html#10
So being the mayor means people can come on your property and harass you?
Don't think so.
Once again, you ARE NOT a lawyer as you claim.
They did it again a week later: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/protesters-march-chant-and-shut-down-parts-of-i-64-friday-night/63-e7f3cf33-f6e3-415a-9d7d-bc767ea4b1b2