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

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

[UpAllNight]

--For Mr. Watson, it was defense of his private property, his home and his family.--

He may have thought that but he was wrong. And you are wrong to be supporting a murderer.

[UpAllNight]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1774791/posts?page=222#222

It's amazing what you can find out if you don't rely JUST on the opinion of one person ...

[BykrBayb]

It's worse than you think. This article left out some details that were in the original. The legal easement was on Watson's property. When he told the city it needed repair, they refused to check out the problem. There was a clog in the sewer pipe, that caused some type of problem that was noticible to Watson. In other words, it flooded his property with raw sewage.

See my post 448.

[UpAllNight]

--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.--

I am getting tire of repeating that you are wrong.

--Now, I hope you understand my point. Time to move on to further discussion.--

No. I cannot understand how you can support a murderer just by reading an opinion column with researching the facts.

[UpAllNight]

--It's worse than you think. This article left out some details that were in the original. The legal easement was on Watson's property. When he told the city it needed repair, they refused to check out the problem. There was a clog in the sewer pipe, that caused some type of problem that was noticible to Watson. In other words, it flooded his property with raw sewage.--

None of that is in the news accounts published at the time.

[BykrBayb]

Thank you. I have to run out soon, but will check these out as soon as I can.

http://www.hannibal.net/stories/090800/com_0908000007.html http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/officer.shot.03.ap/index.html http://www.amarillo.com/stories/090800/usn_mankills.shtml http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/08/officer.shot.ap/index.html http://www.morningsun.net/stories/091000/kan_0910000006.shtml

[durasell]

There was once a similar difference of opinion when a bunch of farmers shot and killed some members of the King's army






Was this also regarding a sewer dispute?


Every conflict between the gubmint and citizens is not noble. This one is just tragic because it was so unnecessary.

[UpAllNight]

--You seem obsessed with your vision of what the GA bill meant to achieve. -- Why is that, considering that you agree:--

Because you were inititally obsessed with the bill and whether I agreed with it or not even though my position as posted to you before I saw the bill agreed with the bill. I say I agree with the bill, you say you agree with it but you called me a gun grabber. I ask you again, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GA BILL?

[BykrBayb]

Was Mr. Rosemann lying, or was Mr. Suprynowicz lying when he attributed that statement to him?

[UpAllNight]

There was another post where the guy explained the legality of the notice but I got tired of looking for it.

[wku man]

Read it. So let me get this right...the city had a easement on his land, but refused to fix the leakage problem, or to compensate him when he took matters into his own hands. So he had 1) raw sewage backing up into his yard, and 2) to bear the expense of fixing a serious problem (can you say health risk, aside from the awful smell?). Then, without due process and little more than half a day's notice, the city showed up to create another problem by digging up his property again?

If so, yeah, you'd better believe I'd have a serious problem with it.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[spunkets]

"the employer has the right to make his decision on whether you get to park on his lot based on what you freely decided to carry in your car."

No. The emploer's parking desion must be restricted to considerstionof the vehicle only.

"" Freedom belongs to both the employee and the employer, not just to the employee."

Sovereignty of the vehicle's interior belongs solely to the employee. Respect for the rights of the employee applies. The employer's right ends at the vehicle boundary.

[UpAllNight]

Where does it say ANYWHERE that his property was flooded with raw sewage?

[UpAllNight]

--So he had 1) raw sewage backing up into his yard, and 2) to bear the expense of fixing a serious problem (can you say health risk, aside from the awful smell?).--

Did you just make that up?

[UpAllNight]

--Sovereignty of the vehicle's interior belongs solely to the employee. Respect for the rights of the employee applies. The employer's right ends at the vehicle boundary.--

Uh, when you go to work for the employer, you agree to abide by his rules. The constitution does not give you the right to trespass his property.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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."

There are plenty of places available to you to do your shopping and everything you wish to do, where you can park your car without any restrictions, what you want to do is remove from EVERYONE the right to control access to their property. You don't have unfettered access to every piece of property in the US.

There is additionally the issue of the property owner's OWN right to self defense, and if that property owner believes that being the only armed individual within the confines of his own property, then what right do you have to violate his own unalienable right to self defense.

Do business in those places without parking restrictions (that's the vast majority of shopping centers in the US), and work for those employers who don't care what's in your vehicle while you're at work, but don't try using the Constitution to violate the rights of property owners.

Here's the question you refuse to answer...what right do you have to be on someone else's property against their wishes?

[tpaine]

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."

Normally, I agree with Vin.
But killing these working men for "the principle" of the ability to act at will and without need for justification" is beyond rationality.
A new sewer line running under his property was a justifiable cause for killing?

All this happened in the real world, where irrational bureaucrats drive irrational property owners into corners that should not exist under our Constitution.

The shooters 'principle' about property was flawed. So was that of the 'authorities'.

Lancy:
One thing I've noticed throughout this (fairly long) thread is how many people mention the tragic murder of the "maintenance men", the "working men" - - it is instructive that not one single poster has noted with any concern that a politician was also killed in the confrontation.

Good point. -- Lets hope some local bureaucrats get the picture, -- that they too are bound by our constitution.

[UpAllNight]

--The shooters 'principle' about property was flawed. So was that of the 'authorities'.--

What was flawed about the 'authorities'?

[wku man]

Read his post.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[UpAllNight]

You ducked the question. Did you make that up?