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.
--When someone decides to operate as an employer, they must respect the rights of their employees.--
The employer has the right to hire ONLY those that respect his rights. Which union do you belong to?
--This isn't difficult to figure out. This thing was probably going on for awhile. He couldn't afford a lawyer to make his case, neither could he make his case adequately by himself.--
It's kind of hard to make a case that the county doesn't have an easement when it was in the deed when you bought the property.
If you're willing to spend enough on a lawyer you can pretty much renegotiate anything.
--Thanks for the additional details. Clearly, Watson was a nutcase. And you are right, the piece by Suprynowicz is sloppy and deceptive. --
Good post.
"Please show us a trend."
Two things I ask of you.
1. Try not confuse the actor with the act.
2. Try to remember, I do not know all the answers, and I cannot see into the future. That is why I ask questions.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
--You haven't noticed that America has been invaded by a government. It's everywhere! They put up street lights so they can see you at night. They build roads to get to you faster. And they steal our raw sewage -- who knows what they do with it!--
Good post. From now on they will not get my raw sewage unless they can pry it from my cold dead hands.
--Try to remember, I do not know all the answers, and I cannot see into the future. That is why I ask questions.--
I didn't ask you to pry into the future. You intimated that following this event, we could expect more. That was 7 years ago. Time enough to show a trend if there was one.
Mr. Watson was just one of many precursors to what will be a very trying time. People are becoming more and more afraid - of their neighbors, of those "other people" on the other side of town, and of their government. Neighbors used to work together to build fences. Now they look with suspicion at each other until a fence becomes neccesary. Every town has its "bad side" where the good people never venture else they get mugged or shot or raped. And when was the last time you suddenly felt more safe when a police car pulled into traffic behind you?
All this pressure causes strain where little or none was present a hundred years ago. Like any pipe or hose, the pressure can build until something gives. There's always a weak spot that will blow first. We rush to repair it and strengthen it but there'll be another weak spot later.
When government and/or civilization is applying the pressure the blow-out is becoming less frequently a harmless show of anger and more often a violent act, striking out at whatever element of society is closest at hand. Police and lower-level government workers will feel the brunt of the peoples' anger first, simply because they are most visible. In time though, appointed and elected officials will live in fenced and guarded compounds, traveling to and from their similarly guarded offices in armored cars.
Have you gone to the local federal building lately? Can you look up the home address of you local congresscritter? We're getting closer.
"and the thing became a huge issue in his mind.?
once again; a suggestion of mental deficieny, a lack of clarity, "intellectual"
inferiority, a lack of financial resources, a general lack of coping skils....etc., etc.
(in old soviet union the authorities were always right, the enemy of the revolution always wrong.)
once again; a suggestion of mental deficieny, a lack of clarity, "intellectual"
inferiority, a lack of financial resources, a general lack of coping skils....etc., etc.
(in old soviet union the authorities were always right, the enemy of the revolution always wrong.)
Alrighty then, let's look at it objectively. How well did his solution solve the problem? On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it a zero.
--Have you gone to the local federal building lately? Can you look up the home address of you local congresscritter? We're getting closer.--
My local congresscritters home address is in the telephone book and he has no guards at his local office door, only a very polite secretary.
"Not only are you making up words, now you're making up laws."
No. When the employer can provide a title to the vehicle, that has their name on it, then they can claim sovereignty over the interior of the vehicle.
" Post the law to back that restriction up."
You're an expert in "property rights". Look it up.
Re: "Sovereignty of the vehicle's interior belongs solely to the employee."
"You're making a case for the right to steal from your employer"
Ridiculous! Whose name appears on the title?
" Sovereignty to the contents of the land belongs solely to the person who owns it,"
The contents of the land? I suppose you think an employer can act in a negligent fashion, with regards to his employee's health and safety? It's rather clear that you think an employer can violate any right of the employee, as they see fit to do so. That's not the case.
"There is a sign that advices you that in order for your vehicle to enter the property, you must agree to a search by the security guards, and that it will be searched again on the way out."
The employer has the right to maintain a loss prevention program which is reasonable. I'll not consider those cases where the loss prevention reasonably includes the possibility of a violent assault, because of the nature of the business. That doesn't include Post Offices.
Otherwise, if a vehicle is searched, their must be probable cause and only the employer's property is to be considered, nothing else.
--(in old soviet union the authorities were always right, the enemy of the revolution always wrong.)--
In another post, someone referred to Hitler, now you are referring to the soviet union. Be real. This is NOT nazi germany and Bush is not Lenin.
--Alrighty then, let's look at it objectively. How well did his solution solve the problem? On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it a zero.--
You miss the point. This guy is the libertarian anarchists' hero. He gave his life for freedom and also managed to eliminate a few of the oppressors. To the L/A it matters not what progress is made.
The word right applies. When the employer can show his name appears on the title of the vehicle, then he has a right to decide what items the vehicle's interior can contain.
"Which union do you belong to?"
The United States.
---It's rather clear that you think an employer can violate any right of the employee, as they see fit to do so. That's not the case. --
It is really in bad taste to make up things in a vain attempt at slurring them.
"Don't get mad. If taking your complaint directly to the government doesn't work, take them to court."
You know, people said the same thing about emminent domain. And the court betrayed the constitution. What's the next step?
--The word right applies. When the employer can show his name appears on the title of the vehicle, then he has a right to decide what items the vehicle's interior can contain.--
What right do you have to trespass on HIS property? Get real.
It's an observation. It was not made up, as your union comment was.
--Otherwise, if a vehicle is searched, their must be probable cause and only the employer's property is to be considered, nothing else.--
These issues all started when some guys took their guns out of their trunks in the parking lot. So drop the act about 'being secured in the trunk'.
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.