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

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

[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.

[UpAllNight]

--Loss prevention programs can include search of the employee, or any containers in the employees possession when exiting an area containing property, but not the vehicle, wnless there is probable cause.--

Sometimes one has to wonder where posters get these strange ideas. They must not live in the real world.

[UpAllNight]

--Ridiculous. Whose name appears on the vehicle title?--

Whose name appears on the property title?

[ripley]

"let's look at it objectively then. how well did his solution solve the problem."

question; what was the authorities' solution? to just go onto his property in the midst of a dispute? how well did their solution solve the problem?

(in old soviet union, revolutionary authority was always right, no matter what)

[ripley]

"and bush is not lenin..."

we're talking about a local authority here. i'm sure the federal government wasn't poised to send in the national guard.

"be real." the local authorities cannot always be right in what they do. all the circumstances are not known. you do not know what that man was subjected to by what very well might have been abusive local authorities.

(in old soviet union, mental capacity and competence was always questioned. as always, authorities won.)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Loss prevention programs can include search of the employee, or any containers in the employees possession when exiting an area containing property, but not the vehicle, wnless there is probable cause."

Post the legal statutes that you refer to, or post the law making it illegal for a property owner to require vehicle searches prior to granting access to private property.

"Biblically, violating anyone's rights was never permitted by God."

God does not own the property, the owner does, and that owner sets rules of access.

"Ridiculous. Whose name appears on the vehicle title?"

Whose name appears on the deed to the land that you're wanting to park on?

[spunkets]

" You: No, you can't search my car. Employer: Then you can't enter the property. What are you going to do at that point?"

You mean what have I done on behalf of others. I pointed out, that it was not their vehicle and they no right to search it, and made it clear, that the rest of the crew and most of the management would all walk if they pressed the matter. In some cases, it was sufficient to say, that I would walk.

None of that means the employer couldn't fire anyone for no cause. Nor does it mean the employer had justification to violate the employee's property right. What it does mean, is that the employee has a right to seek govm't action, to remedy the situation, regardless of whether the remedy already specifically exists, or must be sought from a civil, or legislative action.

[Jezebelle]

I didn't say the notice wasn't served properly, and you know it. The point is the timing of it. They served it the afternoon before they were coming.

Where's the post refuting the "new" easement aspect?

[UpAllNight]

--we're talking about a local authority here. --

That is why I find posts like yours refering to the oppressive behavior of socialist NATIONAL goverments strange. They have no relevance to this issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No one has ever argued anyone's right to carry a gun in a vehicle, he just wants to park it on someone's property, against the owner's wishes, and in vilation of that owner's property rights.

To these guys "I have the right" somehow translates to others not having rights.

[tpaine]

Luis insists, as did Watson:

"-- You have absolutely no right to be on someone else's property without their permission. --"

And if permission is absolutely refused -- Watson [and Luis?] claimed the 'right' to shoot the trespasser.

Thanks luis, you've made my point.

UpAllnight:
Uh no. The county had LEGAL permission to be on the easement. The nutcase was trying to illegally revoke their right by denying them access.

Exactly. -- Nut-cases ~insist~ they have absolute rights. -- Just like Watson & Luis.

Luis admits:

if you stand at the edge of my property and I warn you that I will shoot you if you enter it, you entering my property gives me cause to defend myself.
527 posted on 01/28/2007 10:50:16 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez

Thank you fellas, for your candor.

[UpAllNight]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1774791%2C260

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What it does mean, is that the employee has a right to seek govm't action, to remedy the situation."

There's the anti-conservative response.

Get the government's help in violating other people's rights.

Something the government will always be more than happy to do.

Immediately after you do that, some other bozo will equally engage the government's help in violating YOUR rights in the name of some other equally worthless cause.

P.S. by "remedy" you mean the Court system...

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972)
Shopping mall owners may prohibit demonstrators from assembling in their private malls since the First Amendment applies to public, not private property.

Thornton v. Caldor (1985)
Private companies are free to fire people who refuse to work on any day they claim is their Sabbath, because the First Amendment applies only to government, not to private employers.

The question of whether or not an employer has to abide by the employee's Constitutionally protected rights has already been settled.

The answer is no.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So t, what do you want a gun for if you don't think that you can use it in self defense?

[spunkets]

"God does not own the property, the owner does, and that owner sets rules of access."

God owns heaven and hell. He will decide where folks reside according to how they treat other folks in this life. In particular, those folks that violate the right of their employees to maintain sovereignty over the interior of their vehicles, will be granted a parking lot and an infinite number of cars to search for all eternity.

[UpAllNight]

--Thank you fellas, for your candor.--

How about a little candor on the GA bill? Do you still support the bill which allows the employer to prohibit weapons being brought onto his private property by his employees?

[Jezebelle]

No, the existing sewer line leeched waste onto/into Watson's property. Watson himself paid to fix it because the city wouldn't do anything about it. After that, the city decided to move the sewer line to a location not included in their easement.

[UpAllNight]

--No, the existing sewer line leeched waste onto/into Watson's property. Watson himself paid to fix it because the city wouldn't do anything about it. After that, the city decided to move the sewer line to a location not included in their easement.--

Did you make that up or read it on one of posts made up by another poster?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nice try t, but it won't work.

The case being discussed in this article involves government workers interacting with a private citizen during a perfectly legal action; accessing an easement after proper notice was served. The guy had no right to shoot them because that easement existed at the time that he bought the property.

You and I have been discussing two private citizens interacting over a piece of private property belonging to one of them.

Now, you constantly bray about your right to carry a gun in self defense, if someone approaches you, on your own property and refuses to stop coming closer after you tell them to stop or you will shoot, what do you do?

Not shoot?

Then what the hell do you want your gun for t?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well then, God said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so what the Hell do you need a gun for then?

[Jezebelle]

I agree. It's not as though he was holding their wives and daughters hostage. The employees were stupid to go ahead and try to start the work with a gun pointed at them. I certainly don't agree with shooting them, but could the workmen and the cop not see that this guy had been pushed over the line? Who gives up or even risks his life to TRENCH A SEWER LINE?? Insane. I guess gun threats by property owners isn't covered under OSHA so they just didn't know any better (roll eyes).