Try looking at this: Despite warnings that their presence would precipitate acts of potentially lethal violence the town saw fit to place employees/contractors in harm's way over a damned pipe in the ground.
Were the people there to do the excavation warned that there had been a direct threat to their lives if they proceeded?
Were they provided with anything to mitigate the damage to their persons in the event they were attacked (mil-spec body armor?)
Note that the police officer's wounds were not center-of-mass, but outside the protection of any body armor. Just bad shooting? ...good use of cover? ...coincidence?
If someone told me they would shoot me for setting foot on their property I'd take the statement at face value and view it as a clear threat.
While it might be decidedly inconvenient to have your property dug up, what other issues were at play here? I'd wager there is a lot more leading up to the incident than the article is telling us.
--Support murder? No. Where did I say that? --
"He only did what he said he would."
--Were they provided with anything to mitigate the damage to their persons in the event they were attacked (mil-spec body armor?)--
This is a town of less than 400 people. The whole county has ONE zipcode. The median FAMILY income is less than 20k. The median home value is about 20K. As of 2000.