Police believe hostage died early in standoff (more information on Abbeville, SC gun battle)

The State (Columbia, SC) ^ | 10 December 2003 | Rick Brundrett

[Moose4]

After agonizing for hours about the condition of Abbeville County sheriff’s Sgt. Danny Wilson, hostage negotiators using a robot finally learned his fate.

A video camera mounted in the robot showed the 36-year-old deputy lying in a pool of his own blood — with his hands cuffed behind his back — about 10 feet inside the home of Rita and Arthur Bixby.

His death was a bitter blow to State Law Enforcement Division Chief Robert Stewart, whose SWAT agents had tried desperately all day to win the officer’s release, hoping he was still alive.

They later would learn that Wilson likely died that morning, a short time before Constable Donnie Ouzts, 63, was shot outside the small, rural home at 4 Union Church Road, along S.C. 72 just west of downtown Abbeville.

“They never really had a chance,” Stewart said Tuesday in reconstructing the daylong standoff.

It ended nearly 13 hours later after several gunbattles between police and Steven Bixby, 36, and his 74-year-old father, Arthur Bixby, Stewart said. The 30-year law enforcement veteran described the exchanges as “the most horrific I’ve ever been involved in.”

Stewart estimated his agents fired “hundreds” of rounds during Monday night’s gunbattles and nearly ran out of ammunition. “It’s an absolute miracle that eight or 10 SLED agents were not killed,” he said.

Wilson and Ouzts were wearing bulletproof vests, he said, though Ouzts’ vest was “not effective ... with this type of weapon.”

Nine guns, most of them high-powered weapons, were seized from the home, he said.

Steven’s mother, Rita Bixby, 71, who authorities say was not in the house at the time, also faces charges.

Authorities said the Bixby family was angry with the state for taking about 20 feet of their land for a road widening.

Stewart, who coordinated the negotiations, and other authorities gave this account of the ordeal:

Wilson went to the home about 9:15 a.m. Monday. A short time later, two people in Abbeville, whom Stewart declined to identify, received phone calls that the “first officer has been shot.”

They notified police. Abbeville sheriff’s Lt. Deborah Graham arrived to check on Wilson, with Ouzts following a few minutes later.

Wilson’s squad car was idling outside the home and the deputy was nowhere in sight.

As he stepped from his car, Ouzts was shot in the back, about 25 yards from the home.

Several officers responded, and dragged Ouzts away. He died on his way to the hospital. Graham escaped unharmed.

By then, Wilson probably had been shot, Stewart said, though police didn’t know it yet. He wouldn’t say how many times he had been shot.

The SWAT team tried repeatedly to negotiate with the father and son, but they didn’t answer phone calls or respond to other measures.

Meanwhile, Rita Bixby had holed up in her son’s apartment, about a mile away. She threatened to start killing people in the apartment complex if anything happened to her husband or son, Stewart said.

A second SWAT team was able to talk her and another disabled son out of the apartment before nightfall; she refused to help negotiate with her husband and Steven.

Investigators confiscated a pistol from the apartment and a rifle from a vehicle outside the apartment.

A suicide note and a will purportedly made by Steven Bixby, along with “antigovernment material” and information about high-powered weapons, were found in his nearby apartment, Stewart said.

“This thing was planned all the way,” Stewart said.

After it became dark and negotiations had gone nowhere at the Bixby house, a SLED armored vehicle equipped with a hastily made steel battering ram broke open the front door, which allowed a police robot equipped with a video camera to go inside.

Wilson was seen lying handcuffed in a pool of blood. A short time later, officers rushed into the house and pulled him from the home as Stewart and other SLED agents battled a sudden fire in a propane grill outside the home.

Stewart said he believes the hostage takers did not open fire on officers then because they wanted them to extinguish the grill blaze.

Gunfire erupted, though, about 9 p.m. after the robot re-entered the home and showed one of the hostage takers in a bedroom. Several more gunbattles ensued.

Steven Bixby came out of the house and surrendered after a tear gas round was fired into the house. His wounded father gave up in the house about two hours later.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

[Moose4]

This confirms what some people on the main thread yesterday were talking about--that the Bixbys were upset over losing 20 feet of their property for the widening of SC Highway 72. Whether they were being compensated or not, we don't know.

}:-)4

[Bikers4Bush]

This will happen more often as governments attempt to seize private property.

[Crowcreek]

" along with “antigovernment material” and information about high-powered weapons"

Uh-oh, here it comes. More of those 'Gunzanammo Constitutionalists', breeding too close to the gene pool.

I feel like I've got enough to worry about with the guys in the white box vans.

[azhenfud]

"Whether they were being compensated or not, we don't know."

What we do know is they'll surely get a lot more than they bargained for.

[BenLurkin]

Of course they would be compensated. That is guaranteed in the U.s. Constitution and probably in the South Carolina Constitution as well.

Eminent Domain is not "seizing property". It is a court administered transaction at fair market value.

That highway needed to be widened for safety, and to allow people and goods to get to where they needed to go. These alleged killers probably used that same highway to get to work or to the store where they bought goods trucked in on that highway.

What a tragic and unnecessary incident. These alleged killers are contemptibly ignorant. (Of course that's just my opinion.

[Papabear47]

I agree that in this instance eminent domain was probably used for the good of the public,however it is often used as a means to enhance the tax base and serves no true public service such as schools,hospitals,water and sewage treatment etc.It is also used in sweetheart deals to profit private individuals and corporations.

[trebb]

Eminent Domain is not "seizing property". It is a court administered transaction at fair market value.

Yes, and who gets to decide this "fair market value"? I've seen people kicked out and paid thousands less than the going value and not compensated at all for the relocation costs of moving/storage. The big problem is that this so-called emminent domain is being abused and property is being taken from citizens so business people can make money, not for true necessity.

[Bikers4Bush]

When someone doesn't want to sell and the government forces them to it's siezing property. Regardless of whether or not we think these people were loonies, if their property was taken from them without their consent then in their minds it would rightly be considered theft.

I can't hand you $500 bucks and take your car even though it may only be worth $200 bluebook and have that be a legal transaction. Why the government can do that whenever it sees fit is beyond me.

And no I'm not saying these people were in the right by killing two men who had nothing to do with them losing their property but members of my family have been in similar situations and I was sickened at how they were treated by the local government that was also widening a road. They were treated like crap because they were elderly and had our family not stepped in they would have been railroaded.

Eminent domain is being abused and we will continue to see more situations like this.

[dljordan]

There is an easement along most public roads. The govt. owns so many feet on each side for future use.

[dljordan]

Ya beat me to it. I can't really go along with what these people did but if someone was forcing them out of their house to build a Walmart that might be a different story.

[BenLurkin]

Fair Market Value is determined by the the jury. Each side can bring their appraiser to trial. They ofer their opinions of value and the jury decides the amount of just compensation.

As for Relocation Assistance, it also is Federally mandated on any project which uses Federal money (typically most major highway projects include Federal money. In California Relocation Assistance is mandated by law for any displacement related to the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

[PresbyRev]

Bixby was citing the New Hampshire Constitution as justification for his murders on local tv here in Abbeville.

He referenced Ruby Ridge and Waco. Bixby seems to me a delusional nut, a black-helicopter type.

The road widening project was undertaken, among other reasons, due to the volume of traffic on Hwy. 72. It is increasing and was/is an issue of public safety.

The constable Ouzts was shot in the back. Deputy Wilson may well have been executed given that his hands were cuffed behind his back, though that is just speculation. Bixby's 71 year old momma ran to a nearby Apartment complex once the situation was underway and threatened to open fire on bystanders.

This was hardly a noble defense of property rights or the Constitution. It was a family of border-line personalities that decided to do some killing.

[Moose4]

Well, like I posted on the thread yesterday, there's compensated and then there's fairly compensated. My father lost his first business to eminent domain in the late 1960s and was "compensated" with about 15% of the property's market value. Maybe they thought they weren't getting paid enough. At least, with eminent domain, people DO get paid, as opposed to some of the environmental wackiness where the government can restrict your land usage to effectively nothing, but doesn't have to compensate you for the loss because they don't actually take ownership.

Eminent domain or not, that's no justification for what they did. Like you said, it's idiotic. I'm just real curious to hear exactly what their "high-powered rifles" were, and what that "anti-government literature" was.

}:-)4

[BenLurkin]

Before any government can exercise the power of eminent domain a resolution of necessity (or similalrly entitled document must be voted upon and approved by the appropriate authority. City Councils, State Highway Transportation Commission and the like.

Your first opportunity to oppose the taking is at this phase. It is the entity's burden to show that the acquisition is 1) for a public use in a matter of public necessity (road widening is classic case)and 2)entails the least possible infringement of private rights. If you can beat them at that point then there won't be a taking. If you fight them and the project still goes forward this defense is also still available at trial if handled correctly procedurally.

Bottom line is most projects do benefit the larger community. If a road widening is necessary to reduce accidents, or to improve mobility, the public can not let the obstinance of one owner to stop the safety or improvement project.

[BenLurkin]

"At least, with eminent domain, people DO get paid, as opposed to some of the environmental wackiness where the government can restrict your land usage to effectively nothing, but doesn't have to compensate you for the loss because they don't actually take ownership"

Ah, "Regulatory Takings". A hot topic for another day.

[Bikers4Bush]

"Before any government can exercise the power of eminent domain a resolution of necessity (or similalrly entitled document must be voted upon and approved by the
appropriate authority. City Councils, State Highway Transportation Commission and the like."

Here in the Cleveland area the city of Lakewood tried to sieze 53 homes and a number of businesses due to "blight". The blight in questions was that the homes did not have attatched garages. Oddly enough nether the mayors home nor any of the folks on councils homes had attatched garages either. Had the homeowners not managed to force a city wide vote on the issue their homes would have been taken from them and given to a private developer to build upscale condo's and a shopping center.

Now I don't know about you, but to me that is abuse of eminent domain.

In the instance of my family members who's property was taken, against their will might I add, the intent was to divert traffic ONTO their road to ease traffic from other roads. What the city offered was complete BS, in other words not a dime. They said that they weren't taking property because they were only increasing the size of the easement and then using that easement. In addition they were going to be putting sidewalks and trees in the trees in as well that they were going to force the homeowners to be responsible for. A tree dies, you pay the city to replace it, sidewalk sinks because the stormwater sewer cracks and erodes the base under it, you pay the city to fix it.

We decided that was a bum deal and not only forced the city to pay for the amount of property they were taking but also forced compensation for reduced quality of life because of the increased traffic and had the property exempted from having to maintain the CITIES property in front of the home.

The residents that agreed to terms earlier did not get the same deal. Does that sound like the city was playing by the rules to you?

[jim_trent]

Before people go off the deep end on this again, an article posted yesterday on this had the following:

> The state had purchased all the needed right of way from the home’s previous
> owner, Haskell Johnson, in August 1960, when S.C. 72 was first conceived
> as a potential four-lane highway from Clinton to Atlanta, officials said.

I guess this sums it up. The killers did not even own the land they were "defending". So much for the killers having something "taken" from them.

[Question_Assumptions]

At least they weren't trying to take all of his property to put up a strip mall or housing project to benefit a rich contributor. This sort of taking for public use is allowed by the Constitution with compensation ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" which means that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation).

[Question_Assumptions]

Whether you like it or not, taking private property for public use with just compensation is explicitly mentioned in the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

[Bikers4Bush]

It's the "just compensation" and "public use" parts that are not being followed.