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.
Yep, and that whacko killer was an FBI agent who ended up getting promoted.
Like I implied in an earlier post, this country needs a lot more Garry Watsons, though preferably with better target selection.
--Like I implied in an earlier post, this country needs a lot more Garry Watsons, though preferably with better target selection.--
Garry was a troubled person that came off the night shift and 'lost it'.
Yes, I agree he could have planned a lot better.
--Like I implied in an earlier post, this country needs a lot more Garry Watsons, though preferably with better target selection.--
Too bad you are not "man" enough to fill those shoes.
Hard to tell from the article if this was an existing easement, or something new. Of course if new, then eminent domain applies. From the article:
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.
My line would be crossed if the city 'took' an easement without reasonable compensation. ---- I would go after the officials responsible, not the workingmen.
-115-
In post #81 above, You replied.
"You got that right. Our [governments are] 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?
No
Just where is the line that must be crossed before good men are allowed to act?
You ever read "Unintended Consequenses" by John Ross? Good example of 'my line'. -- A clear effort by our governments to deprive us of any of our fundamental individual rights would involve me in an insurrection or revolution.
Well, I presume you're a girl (liberal fat chick?) but you will certainly never find out if I'm "man enough" because I don't associate with mice. Regardless, I hope I am never in a position like Watson where I am pushed to the limit by oppressive and tyrannical government.
Have a nice life and don't get wet,
LH
--A clear effort by our governments to deprive us of any of our fundamental individual rights would involve me in an insurrection or revolution.--
Some don't understand 'being involved in an insurrection or revolution' and 'losing it and blowing away a few local civil servants.'
--Regardless, I hope I am never in a position like Watson where I am pushed to the limit by oppressive and tyrannical government.--
Come on. The entire town is what, 400 people?
Did you mean to make a reply?
You say you wish there were more like the subject guy. Well, step up and put your gun where your mouth is. When they arrest you, just give your handle here and we will all know that you are a man of action.
-Well, I presume you're a girl (liberal fat chick?) --
Not the first time you were wrong and I doubt your last.
You're a liar.
I apologize for thinking that you thought that more people should have the guts of Watson. You said that these things need to happen more often. From that I inferred that you were one of the 'many, many'.
"Sadly, citizen responses like Watson's need to happen more often, only it should be the scumbag politicians who are held accountable for their greed and tyranny, not their minions. Watson did what many, many people only wish they had the guts to do."
Not yet, but, I will get around to it soon.
Good example of 'my line'. -- A clear effort by our governments to deprive us of any of our fundamental individual rights would involve me in an insurrection or revolution.
Thank you very much for that very frank answer.
You might want to think about your last answer. Did you really mean to include my rights? Again in an effort to satisfy my curiosity, is this thing about rights just for you to decide. Will you leave me on my own to stand up to tyrants, or is it to be a community affair?
Who decides just when the shooting starts?
Semper Fi
An Old Man
--You're a liar.--
BTW, as a non-newbie, you should know that it is against rules to call one a liar here. You may refute the statement but personal insults, particularly the one you used are not. Besides, it usually detracts from the credibility of the one that resorts to such tactics.
If I get caught with a gun in my car in our parking lot and I not only lose my job, but I lose my access to any future jobs as soon as they ask why I left my previous job. As of now, they don't do random vehicle searches of cars coming onto company property. But if you forget and leave one in your briefcase as you go through the metal detector ....
I think that if the parking lot is open to the general public, then the employer has a harder case to make. OTOH, he is your boss! If you don't like his policies, work to convince him otherwise or go find another job.
Like shooting maintenance men working on a sewer? A sewer that falls directly into "public use" covered by the Constitution that you "libertarians" pretend to uphold?
Most of us also agree that we can spread our views from behind a computer or a piece of paper in order to try to convince other fools to do the right thing.
Trying to convince others to become the next Drega or Watson isn't the right thing. In fact, it's one of the reasons that we have a Second Amendment in the first place. If violent wacked out freaks think they are going to bully their way into establishing their own warped view of reality, the rest of us have a right to defend ourselves.
So will you my boy. -- Very soon.
I'm not your boy. And unlike Suprynowicz and his ilk, I know that God exists, and that I ain't him.
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.