Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
By Vin Suprynowicz
For years, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over the sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.
Residents say officials grew dissatisfied with their existing easement, and announced they were going to excavate a new sewer line across the landowner's property. Capt. Chris Ricks of the Missouri Highway Patrol reports Watson's wife, Linda, was served with "easement right-of-way papers" on Sept. 6. She gave the papers to Watson when he got home at 5 a.m. the next morning from his job at a car battery recycling plant northeast of Bunker. Watson reportedly went to bed for a short time, but arose about 7 a.m. when the city work crew arrived.
"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan told me last week. "Then the three city workers showed up with a backhoe, plus a police officer. They'd sent along a cop in a cop car to guard the workers, because they were afraid there might be trouble. Watson had gone inside for a little while, but then he came out and pulled his SKS (semi-automatic rifle) out of his truck, steadied it against the truck, and he shot them."
Killed in the September 7 incident, from a range of about 85 yards, were Rocky B. Gordon, 34, a city maintenance man, and David Thompson, 44, an alderman who supervised public works. City maintenance worker Delmar Eugene Dunn, 51, remained in serious but stable condition the following weekend.
Bunker police Officer Steve Stoops, who drove away from the scene after being shot, was treated and released from a hospital for a bullet wound to his arm and a graze to the neck.
Watson thereupon kissed his wife goodbye, took his rifle, and disappeared into the woods, where his body was found two days later -- dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Following such incidents, the local papers are inevitably filled with well-meaning but mawkish doggerel about the townsfolk "pulling together" and attempting to "heal" following the "tragedy." There are endless expressions of frustration, pretending to ask how such an otherwise peaceful member of the community could "just snap like that."
In fact, the supposedly elusive explanation is right before our eyes.
"He was pushed," Clarence Rosemann -- manager of the local Bunker convenience store, who'd done some excavation work for Watson -- told the big-city reporters from St. Louis. Another area resident, who didn't want to be identified, told the visiting newsmen, "Most people are understanding why Garry Watson was upset. They are wishing he didn't do it, but they are understanding why he did it."
You see, to most of the people who work in government and the media these days -- especially in our urban centers -- "private property" is a concept out of some dusty, 18th century history book. Oh, sure, "property owners" are allowed to live on their land, so long as they pay rent to the state in the form of "property taxes."
But an actual "right" to be let alone on our land to do whatever we please -- always providing we don't actually endanger the lives or health of our neighbors?
Heavens! If we allowed that, how would we enforce all our wonderful new "environmental protection" laws, or the "zoning codes," or the laws against growing hemp or tobacco or distilling whisky without a license, or any of the endless parade of other malum prohibitum decrees which have multiplied like swarms of flying ants in this nation over the past 87 years?
What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors?
In his 1985 book "Takings," University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein wrote that, "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification.
Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."
"Unfortunately," replies James Bovard, author of the book "Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen," "federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors are making private property much less private. ...
Park Forest, Ill. in 1994 enacted an ordinance that authorizes warrantless searches of every single-family rental home by a city inspector or police officer, who are authorized to invade rental units 'at all reasonable times.' ... Federal Judge Joan Gottschall struck down the searches as unconstitutional in 1998, but her decision will have little or no effect on the numerous other localities that authorize similar invasions of privacy."
We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason." No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise.
Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?
Interesting that nobody has suggested the guy was emotionally disturbed, though his actions indicate he was unbalanced.
You are right 100%. The shooter was obviously a nutcase. What a shame.
You are right 100%. The shooter was obviously a nutcase. What a shame.
Uhm, the man most likely purchased the land with the easements. Secondly, they weren't going to permanently change his land. The guy was a nut (and you may be too).
--Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?--
Totally different case. As I remember, it was the government that initiated the shooting. In this case, it was a whacko that decided to kill a few innocent people.
i believe there was to be a change in the easement, but it doesn't elaborate... i owned land with a power line easement... which allowed power line employees access... they broke into my shed and stole 400 bucks worth of tools... from then on i demanded to be notified of their access or i would put up a fence... they called...
i believe he was pushed...
teeman
The Colonies did not prevail until many years after the Tea Party. Also, we didn't conquer the British. In other words, they were able to retain history of the events. You're quote would apply much more to a people who were conquered.
--Randy Weaver was an individual who was framed by the BATF,or in other words, the U.S. government and took a stand against them. Do you defend the actions of your U.S. government that resulted in the murder of his wife, his son and his dog?--
Did Randy Weaver go around shooting innocents? I think not.
You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......
There's a reason for that. I think it's because if someone said "It's about damned time" they might be shown the door.
164 replies · 2,942+ views
The ratio is back to about normal now, -- 20 to 1 or so...
As to being "shown the door", - I think that ratio may be down a bit..
That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.
L
--You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......--
You require me to answer your question which presumes a position that I have not taken.
--You a politician? You didn't answer the question.......--
Your logic is nonsensical. Just because I find that a whacko shouldn't go around whacking innocent people you assume that I would defend that government going around and whacking people? Does not make sense.
Soldiers are only required to obey "lawful" orders. An officer that gave such an order should be disobeyed and then courts martialled.
I am pleased learn that you can distinguish between the ones who are responsible for this incident and those who were charged with implementing it.
Our good friend Vin included some other interesting material in that article:
"We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason."
No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise."
It would seem that both you and I are in agreement that the way Mr. Watson handeled this incident was somewhat excessive.
In post #32 above HEY4QDEMS wrote "Some governments fail to analyze how far they can push before someone pushes back."
In post #81 above,You replied. "You got that right. Ours is in the midst of pushing ~way~ to far, imho."
Again, we seem to be in agreement that the government at all levels is assuming much more authority over our lives and property that is considered reasonable by ordinary men.
With that in Mind, I want to ask you the same questions again. Be assured that the questions are not intended as an attack on your integrity but rather are to satisfy my curiosity about what a reasonable man such as yourself would consider justification for becoming involved in an insurrection or revolution.
Do we have to have some tribunal meet to declare that the government is acting in a tyrannical manner? Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
--Do we have to have some tribunal meet to declare that the government is acting in a tyrannical manner? Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?--
Good men act before the government crosses the line by working to correct through petitions and voting. Your point about 'tribunal' is enlightening. I think our founding fathers meant that we should reflect on our actions as a group rather than as an individual acting from emotion.
--That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.--
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'.
--That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.--
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.