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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, what?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Got it, you were responding to my previous post.

Thanks.

[An Old Man]

"An easement is a piece of land. You don't have an easement for a sewer line, you have an easement for a piece of land that will contain a sewer line. A 10 foot easement can contain several pipes, power lines, etc. Existing easements are routinely used to place new lines, which is simply common sense."

Having been the principle right of way agent charged with acquiring several thousand of these sewer easements, I am in awe of what you perceive what an easement to be.

By definition, an easement is: The right to use the land of another for a specific purpose.

With that in mind, I could grant to you an easement to come on my property and pick apples during the month of November. If I do that, just what rights do you have to my property?

Contrary to what has been written in this thread, no dimensions need be given. You would actually acquire the right to pick apples anywhere on my property. You could even pick apples in my house if you could find a tree bearing apples growing there. This particular easement once granted is what is know as an Easement Engross as differentiated from an Easement Appurtenant. In other words, your easement is a personal one and it would encumber my entire holdings. You and only you can come on my property for the express purpose of picking apples. You may not invite others to assist you and you cannot bring any equipment or supplies with you. If you intend to exercise the rights confered upon you by my granting this easement, you had better come during the month of November for I will not permit you to enter on the property for any purpose except during that month. One other aspect of this type of easement, is that you do not have to be a landowner to enjoy it and you can carry it with you wherever you go for the rest of your life. When you die the easement will be extinguished. That is to say you cannot pass it on and you cannot sell it to someone else.

I have been reading all the posts on this thread with great interest. I can honestly say that a tremendous amount of misinformation was posted in respect to what easements are, how they are created and how they may be used.

I am not going to express an opinion about the easement in the title article because I simply do not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion

Semper Fi
An Old Man

[Trailerpark Badass]

Having been the principle right of way agent charged with acquiring several thousand of these sewer easements, I am in awe of what you perceive what an easement to be.

LOL, I know what an easement is. I drew them on sealed property plats for 2 years for a major natural gas utility.

I was differentiating the land (more specifically, the use of and access to the land, as you correctly elucidate) from the actual sewer line itself. Jezebelle's post seemed to indicate that she (he?) is saying that the easement is specifically for the pipe, and that any additional lines would require an additional easement.

I did not mean to imply that an easement is a transfer of title. Sorry for not making that more clear.

[UpAllNight]

--Contrary to what has been written in this thread, no dimensions need be given. You would actually acquire the right to pick apples anywhere on my property. You could even pick apples in my house if you could find a tree bearing apples growing there. This particular easement once granted is what is know as an Easement Engross as differentiated from an Easement Appurtenant.--

I see nothing in the above that differentiates between an Easement Engross and Easement Appurtenant.

[BykrBayb]

I'm going to cheap out, and roll several replies into one. In no particular order...

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

Well, what kinds of problems could he have noticed, that would have been caused by a clogged sewer pipe? Let's see. Disconnected calls? Bad reception? Slow web access? Clunking sound between gears? I know of only one thing that would tip anyone off that there was a problem with a sewer pipe that turned out to be a clog, and it isn't any of those things. What do you think would bring your attention to the problem? Take a wild guess. And keep in mind, that isn't drinking water running through those pipes. And it hasn't been treated yet. It is raw sewage.

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.

Right, except that it doesn't say whether or not they compensated him after the fact.

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?

Right, according to the post this thread is based on, and a more complete version of it that I posted a link to earlier. However, UpAllNight was kind enough to dig through the posts, and linked me to one that I missed, which contained the AP's entirely different version of events. From one of the articles linked to in that post:

Highway Patrol Sgt. Skip DeSalme and Bunker Mayor David Burnett said Watson and the city had been feuding for years over an easement on his roughly one-acre lot. Watson lives in a double-wide mobile home on land next to a city-operated sewage lagoon.

City workers frequently need to cross over the property through the city-owned easement to perform work at the lagoon, Burnett said. Watson was told Wednesday night that workers would need to cross over the property Thursday.

''When they showed up, he came out of the house and started shooting at the workers,'' DeSalme said.

If true, that means they notified him in advance that they intended to use their easement the next day, to cross his property. I doubt that would be a requirement, but if he was as unstable and unreasonable as the AP portrays him, they probably gave him notice in the hopes that it would appease him, and preclude him from flying off the handle.

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

Thanks for trying. If you should come across it again, try to remember and ping me to it. I'm a bit curious.

Anybody know if easements are transferrable when the property is sold? Watson disputed the validity of the easement, which apparently existed prior to his purchase, under some agreement with previous owners (or result of a lawsuit, or however it was obtained.) I know laws regarding easements can get pretty complicated, and have strange loopholes.

[UpAllNight]

Poster's explanation on easement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774791/posts?page=260#260

[UpAllNight]

Yes. Certain types of easements go with the property, others don't.

[Lurker]

In your opinion, is the NRA a Second Amendment organization, or is it a lobbyist for gun manufacturers?

In my opinion the NRA is the largest gun control organization in the US.

My money goes to JPFO and Second Amendment Foundation.

L

[BykrBayb]

Thanks. It's my understanding that an easement that allows others to cross your property in order to get to their property is passed from one owner to the next. I wonder whether that is by default according to law, or is generally written into the contract.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks.

Now they want to steal property rights away.

My guess is that they'll manage to get both property rights and Second Amendment rights violated, and that MAYBE that's their actual goal.

[Lurker]

I know tpaine disagrees with me but my feeling is "my home, my castle". If I say you can't come armed onto my property than that's all there is to it.

The 2nd Amendment is, or is supposed to be, a restriction on Government, not on private persons.

Bar owners have been able to put up "Check Your Guns" signs since the late 1800's. Why an employer is any different is beyond me.

I certainly wouldn't engage in such a stupid and shortsighted policy but property owners are free to be stupid and shortsighted.

I hope that clears my position on the issue up for you.

I bid you a pleasant day.

L

[tpaine]

--The question of whether or not a contract employee has to abide by his owner/employer's claims of "protected rights" has already been settled.--

We are not talking slavery here. We are discussing whether the owner may or may not restrict who is coming onto his property.

We are discussing whether the owner may or may not restrict arms from the vehicles of employees coming onto his property to park & work.

Such unreasoning 'restrictions' on liberty are akin to those put on ex-slave sharecroppers by their 'masters' after the civil war. -- Read why the 14th was ratified.

[UpAllNight]

You have called me a gun grabber for my support of positions consistent with the GA bill which you support. Please explain how supporting a bill that you support makes me a gun grabber, unless you consider yourself to be a gun grabber?

[tpaine]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

Actually, it's you and the NRA asking for the government's assistance in violating property owner's rights.

Actually, millions of us, -- and the NRA, - are demanding that governments do their duty and stop business parking lot owner's from violating an individuals right to carry arms in vehicles.

You are trying to do it in businesses as well as in private homes.

Get a grip Luis. That's foolish hyperbole.

You are trying to take the ability to control who enters my gun-owners who park on business] property from me, and you will go down in flames in Florida.

Could be. The Brady bunch have a massive bankroll [donated by people like you] that they devote to gungrabbing schemes like this. -- Feel proud..

[tpaine]

You're such a Marxist.

You're such a crybaby luis. Get some new lines.

[Constantine XIII]

Oh, LOL.

Just...LOL.

[Constantine XIII]

That's why they're called "Internet Tough Guys"

[tpaine]

In my opinion the NRA is the largest gun control organization in the US.

I've had much the same opinion since they helped pass the GCA of 1968. However I agree with their position on parking lot gungrabbing.

I know tpaine disagrees with me but my feeling is "my home, my castle". If I say you can't come armed onto my property than that's all there is to it.

I see a clear distinction between a home property & a business parking lot. -- I even see a right to carry by a 'sharecropper employee' for instance..

The 2nd Amendment is, or is supposed to be, a restriction on Government, not on private persons.

Our 2nd is part of the "Law of the Land", -- that both of us swore to support & defend. -- I think that law applies to everyone that lives in the USA.

Bar owners have been able to put up "Check Your Guns" signs since the late 1800's.

Where do we 'check' our guns before work or going in the bar? -- You got it, locked in the car out in the parking lot..

Why an employer is any different is beyond me.

Some employers are 'different'. They want your gun left at home, at best.

I certainly wouldn't engage in such a stupid and shortsighted policy but property owners are free to be stupid and shortsighted.

They aren't free to ignore our Constitutional right to carry arms in our vehicles..

I hope that clears my position on the issue up for you.
I bid you a pleasant day.
L

Thanks Lurker, for the opportunity to clear up my position.

[atlaw]

Unless the town used condemnation to procure the easement, it was on the land when he bought it, and he shouldn't have bought it if he objected.

Strange how this seems to be lost in the discussion. Basically, this guy murdered two people because he was unhappy with the contract he entered into when he bought the property.