Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: castledoctrine; kelo; privateproperty; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,061-1,079 next last
To: oldfart

--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.


461 posted on 01/28/2007 9:54:37 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

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 ...


462 posted on 01/28/2007 9:55:25 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: wku man

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.


463 posted on 01/28/2007 9:56:59 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: wku man

--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.


464 posted on 01/28/2007 9:57:39 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: 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.--

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


465 posted on 01/28/2007 9:58:53 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

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


466 posted on 01/28/2007 9:59:28 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: oldfart

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.


467 posted on 01/28/2007 10:00:14 AM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

--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?


468 posted on 01/28/2007 10:01:26 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

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


469 posted on 01/28/2007 10:01:49 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

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


470 posted on 01/28/2007 10:02:42 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
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!

471 posted on 01/28/2007 10:02:42 AM PST by wku man (Claire Wolfe's "awkward time" is quickly coming to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"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.

472 posted on 01/28/2007 10:03:41 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

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


473 posted on 01/28/2007 10:03:42 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: wku man

--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?


474 posted on 01/28/2007 10:04:51 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

--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.


475 posted on 01/28/2007 10:06:02 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"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?

476 posted on 01/28/2007 10:08:16 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
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.

477 posted on 01/28/2007 10:09:42 AM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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

What was flawed about the 'authorities'?


478 posted on 01/28/2007 10:10:33 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight
Read his post.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

479 posted on 01/28/2007 10:12:50 AM PST by wku man (Claire Wolfe's "awkward time" is quickly coming to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: wku man

You ducked the question. Did you make that up?


480 posted on 01/28/2007 10:14:54 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,061-1,079 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson