Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomcrusader
If they decided to seize his property, and he resisted with force, you can be darned sure they'd shoot him.

If I were suspected of loitering and resisted with force (as per your qualifier) you could be darned sure that they'd shoot me, too.

Eminent Domain is as old as the nation. Whereas the homeowners have a vested public interest in the lake, it is within the public's right to seek out a ruling of eminent domain over the lake.

If you think this is tyranny or communism, then the Founding Fathers were tyrannical commies, too, since they recognized the fact that property may be seized provided there is just compensation.

In any case, it is up to the courts to decide whether the original 1,000 clams is just compensation for the lake, or whether the owner can claim a loss of likely future revenues and seek more.

The owner has no right, either to shoot cops, or to take swings at their noses, just because they wish to serve him a summons for an eminent domain hearing. He has a right to do with his property as he pleases, unless and until his foolish actions as a public nuisance result in a takings under eminent domain.

379 posted on 05/14/2002 8:41:19 AM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]


To: Wm Bach
You misunderstood. My response was to someone objecting to the statement that gov't uses violence. Of course it does. Everything the gov't does is ultimately backed up by violence if the party in question refuses to abide.
481 posted on 05/14/2002 9:40:35 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson