He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

[goldstategop]

Its like stealing. When the government doesn't bother to ask our permission as to whether they can do something on OUR land, that's trespassing pure and simple. Its no more right when your land is invaded under color of official authority than it is if unknown individuals enter your property without asking you first if its OK. Private means exactly that - PRIVATE.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[tpaine]

In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.

~If~ [BIG if] he had a valid reason for killing, -- he killed the wrong men. The city officials forcing the issue were his enemies, not the workingmen.

[Moonman62]

You're just as nuts as he was. He should have shot himself first, rather than taking the lives of others.

[zbigreddogz]

Apparently you don't understand easements. You can look them up when you buy the property in the first place, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy the property. But it is silly to say that your right to your property is completely unfettered, no matter what, and there can be no pipes running under it, etc without your permission. This essentially puts us back to the stone age. No more running water, no more flush toilets, no more electricity, etc.

Using this definition, I suppose you think I have the right to launch a rocket at a plane if it is to fly over my property without my permission?

[MaDeuce]

"But killing these working men for "the principle" of the ability to act at will and without need for justification" is beyond rationality."

No it isn't. They were warned before. They violated that warning ... they rolled the dice and lost. If they respected this mans private property rights they would be alive today.
The gov't could have negotiated something with the land owner, but instead just decided to do what ever they pleased ... there are consequences to every action.

[tpaine]

There are just not enough facts in the article to reply to it. And the facts are not very thorough. His wife was served with process papers. Was that the first time Gary Knew they were coming. Certainly a police officer could have interviewed him before hand and then could have perhaps prevented the confrontation. We just don't know enough from the article which was basically touchy feely.

True enough..
I should have checked to see if a follow up article ever appeared with more facts.

[Thumper1960]

He warned them to not set foot on his property.

They did, he killed.

Fulfillment of a promise to defend his property. The choice made to not heed his warning.

Those shot knew they'd be shot. It was more like "suicide by landowner".

[Moonman62]

Don't get mad. If taking your complaint directly to the government doesn't work, take them to court. I also wonder if homeowners insurance would cover your damages.

[ClearCase_guy]

I don't want to go so far as to justify what this particular man did. But let's look at the general case, rather than the specific:

If you are a soldier, and an officer orders you to gun down the children at an Iraqi school, you have a choice: disobey the order, or start firing. Our military code says that if you start firing, you are committing a crime. The fact that an officer is "forcing the issue" is not an adequate defense for you.

It's personal responsibility. If you are an SS soldier and you are ordered to take the land of the Jews, you must realize that the Jews might start firing on you. Shouting, "Not at me! It is the officers you want to shoot!" will not get you very far. You could have refused to participate.

[Old Professer]

All this because of a shitty ditch?

[tpaine]

Thrash cans get you hot? -- Lordy Laz, I'd hate to see you around a dumpster.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Some governments fail to analyze how far they can push before someone pushes back.

[Old Professer]

When the property was taken doesn't make the taking any more just.

[ccmay]

In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.

Very true. But this is not one of those times.

Eminent domain is a power reserved by every sovereign government since the dawn of civilization. We are Constitutionally protected by the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay us fair value for land they require for public purposes.

However, we are not protected from eminent domain itself. This man was wrong. He had no right or standing to deprive these two men of their lives. He had no reason to leave their families widowed and fatherless.

Idiots like this do terrible damage to the Second Amendment rights we must preserve for the day of REAL injustice.

-ccm

[UpAllNight]

--In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.--

Statements like yours do nothing but help the anti-gunners.

[Old Professer]

Knowing you, I figured it would have been in the mailbox with postage due.

[goldstategop]

I do understand easements. Of course, no one is allowed to do illegal things on their private property - it has always been understood you don't have completely unfettered control over your property if that could result in harm to yourself or to other people. What I was getting it is restrictions on the LAWFUL enjoyment of our property that are being imposed by government beyond what is necessary to preserve the safety of the community. The real issue then is when does private property cease being private in character? That's the issue.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Thumper1960]

By all means, don't upset the anti-gunners. They're reasonable folks, after all.

[Charlespg]

In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.

Over a sewer easement!?
Lawyers trying to take house and land for some slimy developer I could understand,but this is a damm fool reason to kill somebody

[HEY4QDEMS]

Depending on what state your in, the city and or it's contractors require a bond before they work on a citizen's private property.

Try to find out if there is a bonding company involved, if so, file a claim on your home owners policy and provide the name of the bonding company. If you have a good relationship with your agent, he may handle it for you.

Situations like yours are exactly the reason that bonds are required.