Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine
He owned it - not the state.
If there was an easement on the property when he bought it, it *is* "the state's." It's called doing due dilligence when you buy the property.
If the easement was procured after he bought it, a few things would have happened that he would have been well aware of before they just "showed up one morning."
-- 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?--
He had gone back into his house and later came back out UNARMED. He then pulled his rifle out of his truck and fired from a protected position behind it. They probably didn't know what was happing till they felt the bullets.
--If there was an easement on the property when he bought it, it *is* "the state's." It's called doing due dilligence when you buy the property.--
The easement was on the deed when he bought it.
He had been arguing for years that they couldn't use the easement.
Hopefully you'll brush up on your reading skills as you advance your membership here. Welcome.
Vin writes about government 'tyranny'. Add that word to your vocabulary. With that, and as your reading skills improve, you will come to understand that the government isn't God.
No. As I said, the govm's fundamental justification is to protect rights. Where right is contested, they are the arbitors.
"U.S. v. Cruikshank", Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, Thornton v. Caldor
None of these apply. What does apply is the right of vehicle title. The employer must limit parking lot decisions to the presence of the vehicle, nothing else.
"The question of whether or not an employer has to abide by the employee's Constitutionally protected rights has already been settled."
No. Find a health and safety law, that the concept of negligence doesn't apply, or that an employer can discriminate in hiring based on race, creed, or nationality. Those are sufficient to show that Constitutional rights are not to be violated. The cases you listed arecorrect, except for Cruishank, which is repugnant to the Constitution and which Congress has repeatedly violated.
Do you realize how utterly stupid that comment is? Maureen Dowd is also a "nationally syndicated columnist", and that doesn't make her opinion any more intelligent.
Suprynowicz, like Dowd, plays fast and loose with the truth and pushes an ideological agenda. Just because you agree with Suprynowicz's anarchist agenda, doesn't mean that he is any less guilty of being a piece of garbage than Dowd is.
--Hopefully you'll brush up on your reading skills as you advance your membership here. Welcome.--
I hope you will also.
--Vin writes about government 'tyranny'. Add that word to your vocabulary. With that, and as your reading skills improve, you will come to understand that the government isn't God.--
Vin also blathers about the tyranny of the Christian Church.
Agree 100%.
Not only all that you said, but the workers were stupid to go onto the property of somebody pointing a gun at them. Who risks their life to trench a sewer?
The city knew there would be trouble, or they wouldn't have sent the cop. That tells me they knew they were doing this guy wrong and just wanted to throw their weight around. The cowardly cop was as inept as the city he works for.
--Not only all that you said, but the workers were stupid to go onto the property of somebody pointing a gun at them. --
You apparently are ignoring my post and making this up.
-- That tells me they knew they were doing this guy wrong --
How were they doing this guy wrong?
Are you going to answer my #369 to you that points out that the law you cited clearly doesn't address the issue or support your claim?
It does address the issue. But you are apparently satisfied to not post facts but continue to make up things and post them as facts. I have called you on several but you have provided no source for your information.
Your link is to an empty dialogue reply box.
I read it in another article linked to on this thread.
Try to keep up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774791/posts?page=260#260
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1774791/posts?page=222#222
--I read it in another article linked to on this thread. --
Neato. Care to provide the link?
LOL!
There was a reason the city sent a cop with the workers, right? So Watson tells them he'll kill them if they come on his property, right? Then he disappears into his house as they come onto his property, right? Did the cop or the workers think he was going to just stay in, pour a cup of coffee and read the paper or watch a ball game on TV?
The article doesn't say he hid or was in a protected position behind the truck; merely that he steadied the rifle on the truck after taking it out of the truck. Quit making stuff up.
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.