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.
Not at all. But you should have properly indicated the original date when you posted the thread, IMO.
Yes. Don't you?
It wouldn't even take me that long, but then again, I have some assets worth protecting.
--Yes. Don't you?--
That should have been clear from my post on my position much earlier before I had read the bill. I have been totally consistent on this.
Why is the easement thing even an issue? I would think that gunning down people would be more of an issue.
Who else is supposed to pay for it, the gubbermint? Deepockets Richguy?
I think it started when some homeowners were complaining to the city to get the sidewalks fixed. Little did they know that it would come back on them. Most homeowners are not as knowledgeable on this as you are.
Yeah, you'd think. I can't believe some of the crap I'm reading here. Did I get redirected to some spoof site?
As part of our property tax bill, we get a item for 'operation of street lights'.
Picky picky.
Anyone could have clicked the link and seen the publishing date. What's the big deal? -- When the incident happened has no bearing on the issues it raises.
Exactly.
The story is very incomplete, but I believe that for somebody to snap the way this guy Watson did, something had to be terribly, terribly wrong, and I will always give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who was home trying to mind his own business over the government intruders.
It was a horrible tragedy all the way around, and IMO it was up to the government to bend over backwards to make sure the homeowner was dealt with fairly, whatever it took. Everybody knew the situation was volatile because they were warned.
Regards,
LH
--Why is the easement thing even an issue? I would think that gunning down people would be more of an issue.--
It gets more fun when you have a MSM reporting the story as told by the tort lawyer of how he was mistreated by a 'jack booted thug (cop).
Some here who normally hate tort lawyers and normally disbelieve anything MSM reports will assail the out-of-control cops relying ONLY on the words of the tort lawyer as reported in the MSM. Go figure.
"How do you know that? Because it didn't make it in the story?
Don't forget. The victor writes the history."
That is such a dumb ass statement. You've been around on FR a long time and what you said is stupid. Shame on you.
Whatever. I am not interested in "understanding" a cold-blooded murderer or in trying to make him out to be some sort of anti-government "hero".
practice grabbing your ankles
You seem to be obsessed with this phrase. Childish.
This homicidal maniac could have taken this dispute to court. Instead, he decided to kill two other people and injure another before taking his own less-than-worthless life. Instead of striking a blow for property rights, this lunatic struck a blow for those who demand more control over guns. Marvelous.
Here's where you were unclear. I asked:
Do you have the right to carry a gun in a vehicle?
I have the right to carry a gun in my vehicle. I do not have the right to tresspass another's premises with my gun in my vehicle.
Clever non-answer. -- You are not trespassing - you are an employee with a right to carry a gun in your vehicle, -- as you admit.
-- The question remains, does your employers attempt to prohibit arms in vehicles meet with you approval?
"""I never said I supported him - - I said I "understand" why he did what he did (at least, so far as it goes given the incomplete information in the story). Meanwhile, work on that reading comprehension problem and practice grabbing your ankles."""
Same thing I posted (#233) to Kay Ludlow -
Timothy McVeigh probably thought alot like you do and that was a real blow for freedom was'nt it? Did you celebrate Oklahoma City like they did 9/11 in the streets of Lebanon?
People who feel this strongly should take up their argument with those in charge not the poor drones who simply try to earn a living and go home to their families.
McVeigh was acting out on the kind of anger you possess. All those dead people and what did he change or win for his cause?
You defend the murder of two men who probably had families of their own by an obviously mentally deranged man over a sewer line easement?
A real blow for freedom? I think not.
Sick.
I used to work in condemnation/ROW for a major utility company. I saw some crazy stuff, but that was for a new easement. Some folks thought they were going to get rich; some thought, like this guy, that it was going to come down to gunplay.
I'm against the stuff like Kelo(?), but eminent domain for real public utilities is a necessary thing. Do you think this guy would have sued if this his house flooded because of inadequate drainage?
--The question remains, does your employers attempt to prohibit arms in vehicles meet with you approval?--
You said you agreed with the GA bill. Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.
I'm glad there are others who find some of this thread as disturbing as I do.
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.