Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
It's a symptom of people who feel powerless and squeezed.
--which was separate from their easement.--
You don't know that. If fact a post earlier refuted that.
Well then, please show me your evidence that the original story about this was wrong.
--It's a symptom of people who feel powerless and squeezed.--
I won't argue that. So was the Oklahoma Federal building bombing.
Here in Vermont, land issues are very carefully negotiated and worked out by the board of selectmen, the Town Clerk and neigbors. In my town here in Vermont, if a neighbor is bullied in any way by the Town acting within the law, dozens of neigbors show up at the town hall to ask why.
This careful approach goes a long way to prevent misunderstandings over land use. The town might agree to plow a guys drive way for free for his cooperation, even if the town has a right to enter the persons land. They still make a mess, noise , and there is cleanup. Deals are worked out informally before any entry to land happens. I like that, even though the Town does not have to engage in such diplomacy.
I smart pol would find a way to tap into that feeling.
Where have you been since Kelo?
IF YOU COME ON MY LAND, I"LL KILL YOU ~ by Vin Suprynowicz
Clarence Rosemann, whose family runs the local Handi Mart in the deeply wooded community 100 miles southwest of St. Louis, told reporters for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he and his son dug up sewer lines on Watson’s property about a year back, when Watson couldn’t get the city to consider fixing them. After Watson paid Rosemann to dig up the pipes, Rosemann found that the clog was, indeed, on the city’s right of way, as Watson had contended.
Is that the part you're accusing me of being wrong about?
I haven't read this whole thing but I have followed a few sub-threads in it and now make the following observations:
Some think he should have sued the city rather than shoot the workers. To them I say, how far do you think his suit would have gone considering he would have had to pay an attorney while all the time he was also paying the city's attorneys through his taxes.
Some others think he was "more or less" justified in protecting his property with lethal force. While the idea of using such force is certainly anti-social it does get the attention of the powers that be - - much more so than a lawsuit buried in a city attorney's office.
Some will say (if they haven't said it already, as I said, I haven't read this whole thing) that the way to effect change is through the ballot box. To them I say, get real! Trying to change the way a city does things with one vote would be akin to p!$$!ng in the ocean and expecting a tsunami!
After a period of mourning, finger-pointing and castigation there is a possibility that the city will do a better job of contacting those whose property they are about to dig up. The shooter chose a harsh but effective way to make change. How many of us have done anywhere near as much with a lawsuit, a ballot or an anonymous comment on a public forum?
Please show me the post where someone refuted the part about the easement. I must have missed it.
--I smart pol would find a way to tap into that feeling. --
David Duke? OBL?
I do not condone civil violence. I condone the right to defend our property against being taken illegally. By not holding public hearings, by not allowing due process, the city was trying to illegally take part of the man's property.
Here in Boise, there is a proposed street widening project that has been working its way through the system for a couple of years now. The Ada County Highway District wants to expand Ustick Rd., and unfortunately, it will shear a few feet off some yards along the street. The process started with a public hearing, during which both sides of the debate were heard. Afterward, the ACHD offered to compensate the property owners, and wrangling has been going back a forth for a "fair" amount. If some, or even one, of the property owners refuses to sell, then it will go to the court. If the ACHD goes through all the proceedings it is legally obligated to do and someone still refuses to sell, well unfortunately, that's just a TS situation. The road will be widened, and the property owner will be "justly" compensated.
The Missouri case, evidently, was nothing of the sort. The city decided it didn't like the easement they had, and on the spur of the moment, decided it was going to "take" part of someone else's property for a new easement. For the life of me, I see no difference between the city's actions, and someone kicking down the man's door in the middle of the night to steal property from his house. Either way, the man's "castle" is being invaded.
Would I do the same if I were in the Missouri man's boots? I'd have to think long and hard about it, but unfortunately, he didn't have the opportunity to think, because they just showed up on his property to start digging. At least he gave them warning before he started shooting.
Are you familiar with the Donald Scott case, about 15 or so years back, in Kalifornia? Similar, but the JBTs kicked in his door in the middle of the night, wearing their ninja suits and carrying MP-5s.
You and I see things differently. That doesn't make either of us insane, it just means my line in the sand and yours are spaced pretty far apart.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
--While the idea of using such force is certainly anti-social --
Come on. It is MURDER!
The pol won't promise much, just that things won't get much worse for an entire demographic. And he'd probably win.
Would you please show me where you're getting your information. You claim I'm wrong about this, but all I have to go on are the article posted at the top of the thread, and a longer version of it that I posted a link to. If these are not accurate, I'd like to know where I can get the facts you're clinging to. Please advise.
--Is that the part you're accusing me of being wrong about?--
Seems like there were problems with the line and they were trying to correct those problems.
Strictly a matter of semantics.
For you, the workers and their families, the officials who had to clean up their mess and the police, it was indeed murder. For Mr. Watson, it was defense of his private property, his home and his family.
There was once a similar difference of opinion when a bunch of farmers shot and killed some members of the King's army. The king thought it was murder while the farmers considered it self defense.
Which side would you have been on?
No, it doesn't sound like that at all. Read it again. He paid someone else to dig up the sewer, after the city refused. Then they decided to run a new sewer line, without getting a new easement.
Again I ask, where are you getting information that's not posted in the article?
Luis:
No one is saying that you can't do that.
It's weird luis how you can rationalize your attempts to infringe by simply saying 'it isn't so'. Sheer denial.
You might however, have to shop places where there are no restrictions on the contents of your car, and work for employers who don't set rules of access to their property that you don't agree with.
Yes luis, we "might". -- If we are fools enough to allow such infringements, we "might" one day have the right to own arms without the right to carry them anywhere.
You and the NRA are trying to engage the power of government to violate everyone's right to make decisions for themselves.
'We the people' made the decision on carrying arms long ago luis. -- You businessmen cannot place restrictions on the contents of our vehicles. -- Learn to live with our Constitutional decisions.
UpAllNight wrote:
tpaine -- THIS ISSUE is much bigger than parking lots. --
I agree.
But that was the issue you put to me originally and the one we were discussing. Are you now disagreeing with the GA law? Are you saying that the GA law which is consistent with my position is a gun-grabbing law? I thought you agreed with it?
You seem obsessed with your vision of what the GA bill meant to achieve. -- Why is that, considering that you agree:
"--The issue is carrying a firearm in your private vehicle for protection of yourself and your family when you are traveling to and from work, to and from shopping and to and from any place law-abiding citizens normally go in the course of daily routines. --"
I will say this one last time, 'cause I'm getting tired of repeating myself: from what I understood from the story, the city's easement was not originally under this man's property, but elsewhere. The city didn't like where the existing easement was, so they decided to move it to the man's property, without giving him the opportunity to challenge it legally. In this situation, the city was wrong to have simply given the man's wife less than a day's notice that the digging would start. What they were doing was illegal. Period. Those are the facts I gleaned from the article.
A man has the right to defend his property from illegal taking, whether by a guy with a piece of paper, or by a criminal in the night. How he chooses to do so caries varying consequences, so he has to make that decision for himself.
Now, I hope you understand my point. Time to move on to further discussion.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.