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

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

[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.

[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.