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.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
--Too late to debate me, son.--
Typical. When one cannot support their argument, they try to put on an attempt of superiority by referring to the other as "son". Most readers will see this for what it is and it lessens your credibilty on this board.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
--And incidently, refer to my post #495.--
I already responded to #495 and showed how you were making that up.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
So have I. When I was much, much younger I worked as a party chief for a civil engineering company. A lot of our jobs involved the initial survey and later the staking out of high tension power line easements over private property for a large power company. On more occasions than I can remember I was threatened with death or serious injury by very unhappy and very angry property owners, sometimes at gunpoint.
One lady I remember very well shoved a pistol in my chest while raving and screaming and vowing to kill me if I stepped on her property. Needless to say I didn't take that step, and she was later confined to a mental hospital on a judge's order. Although I understood their anger and sympathized with their situations I was caught in the middle and those confrontations were not pleasant to say the least.
I'm just glad I never had to confront Mr. Watson under those circumstances. The mentally ill lady had her finger on the trigger of her semiauto pistol while she pointed it at me but thank the good Lord she wasn't looney enough to pull it. Apparently Mr. Watson was.
--And I told you I had logically inferred from the article that there was a problem, then posed to you the question, "why would a man go to the expense and hassle of digging up his yard if no problem existed?" You didn't answer that one. If you have a answer, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, begone, as I've wasted enough time on this thread.--
You had previously posted it as "Fact". As I said before, I did respond to your question.
Yes. They murdered him.
Brush up on your debate skills, and maybe I'll waste time on you again at some point in the future.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
--You didn't answer that one. --
I did. And when I gave you the answer, you replied:
"Look, stick to the subject at hand, if you want to continue the debate with me."
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
-- Post 532, you threw out another diversion, and it spiraled downward from there.--
Oh, the minor issue about Gary NOT allowing them to use their easement to fix the problem. I guess in your mind this is a diversion since it spoils your whole argument.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts out! Cavalry Ho!
--I never stated it was "fact". --
It appears if you are reiterating the 'facts' from the article so everyone is understanding as you want them to understand.
"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?).:
--Would you please answer the question I asked you in 495, and quit throwing diversions??? Why would a man dig up his yard if there wasn't a problem? --
That is NOT the question you asked in 495 and I answered in 499.
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.