Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 12/8/2003 8:18:55 PM EDT
Saw this posted at another site
www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=1555816&nav=2KPpJYBn

ABBEVILLE, S.C. - Just after 9AM an Abbeville County Sheriff’s Deputy was shot and killed as attempted to serve a warrant. The shooting took place at a home located at the intersection of State Hwy 72 and Union Church Road just a few miles west of downtown Abbeville. The State Law Enforcement Division’s (SLED’s) SWAT Team was called in to work what is called “an active situation” at the location on Union Church Road.

FOX Carolina’s Michael Cable reported that SLED agents were currently trying to contact Steve Bixby, the suspect believed to have shot and killed 63-year-old Constable Donnie Ouzts this morning as he was serving a warrant on Bixby. Officials say that the warrant was for Bixby to give over the right of way of his property to the state so Hwy 72 could be widened from 2-lanes to 4-lanes. Neighbors and friends of Steve Bixby said that Bixby did not want to forfeit 10-feet of his front yard so the road could be widened.

Officials are urging residents to stay away from this area until the situation has been resolved. Schools near the scene were kept on lockdown for most of the day, businesses near the area were closed, and even the press was kept out of “line of sight” of the house.

“The whole beef is his property; with the widening of the road. He was not willing to relinquish his property or sell it. The whole time he’s been causing problems with the state who have been trying to get things done. I’ve talked to him twice and he is very avid about having his property; he’s to the extreme. He said ‘If anybody tries to take my property, they’ll have to take it out of my cold dead hands,’” said Trey Snipes, a neighbor of the suspect.

More than 6 hours into this standoff, SLED agents have not been able to contact Steve Bixby via phone or bullhorn. He has not met any request to come out or contact them. Right now the standoff is still active and is a very dangerous situation.

Police are confirming that 63-year-old magistrate Donnie Ouzts, who served many years on for the Abbeville Sheriff’s Department, was shot and killed earlier this morning. What officials are not confirming is that another deputy that was with Deputy Ouzts this morning to serve the warrant, has not been accounted for. FOX Carolina has learned his name, but since his whereabouts is not confirmed, we are not releasing it at this time.

Officials have told FOX Carolina that they do not want anyone else hurt in this standoff, so they had a 3-hour “cooling off” period where they did not attempt to make contact with the suspect. After that, an Urban Assault Vehicle made a few passes around the house where the suspect is holed up as a ‘show of force.’ We’re told that SLED agents were asked to get their night vision goggles, which leads us to believe that they are here for the long haul.

Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:20:19 PM EDT
Further proof that private property is a myth. The state wants, the state takes.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:26:49 PM EDT
this is going to start happening more and more. As local governments declare ED for shopping malls and wallmarts and such. I feel sorry for the leo's and their families that get injured during such things but i can see the "Landowners" side of this as well. And i really can't say i blame them. This LAND GRAB by the government is going to push a lot of folks with nothing left to lose over the edge. Like was stated above no one OWNS land in this country anymore. mike
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:31:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle: Further proof that private property is a myth. The state wants, the state takes.
View Quote
It has been that way since before we were a free nation. What "proof" do you need? [devil]
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:36:07 PM EDT
Shit... Two officers down... Rest in peace.[USA] [url]http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=1556315&nav=2KPpJYBn[/url] I agree with you Beer... Bad tidings...
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:40:09 PM EDT
Yup, I really do feel sorry for that Constable and his family but this shit is finally starting to move people to the breaking point. I know some will say "but it's only 10 feet". Well, THIS time it's 10 feet, next time it would probably be the whole damn thing. When push comes to shove we're all just pawns of .gov. One way or another if they want something, we're expendable. I can very easily imagine myself in the same situation and consider the same action.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:40:19 PM EDT
IBLT!
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:44:14 PM EDT
Theft is theft.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:53:21 PM EDT
They just had to have [b]those specific 10 feet[/b]?? They couldn't add the lanes on the [b]other[/b] side????
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:53:56 PM EDT
Guys... It's not a wal mart It's not a mall It's a PUBLIC HIGHWAY.... You know, one of those things that benefits everyone - the textbook case for PROPER use of eminent domain! This sort of thing is WHY the govt has ED power in the first place, this kook just happened to take NIMBYisim to a whole new level... Where I live, we have a major city with only 2 freeways - 1 north-south, and one east-west. They're 3-lane roads, and they are ALLWAYS clogged for the aforementioned reasons. The state & surrounding community wants to widen the roads (the city doesn't, the mayor has allways had a 'thing' for his own life-sized train set), and there are about 300 homes/businesses that would have to go (a/o millions of people who need better roads)... When it goes through, there will be plenty of people who will just take the money and run, but you can count on a few kooks who either (a) hate cars, or (b) just don't want it built by THEM... Should they have the right to dig in with weapons and kill people, in an attempt to hold off a project that the whole south-east corner of the state desperately needs???
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:56:20 PM EDT
Killing those two deputies was not right even if the state is taking his property. Ever hear of eminent domain? CRC
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 8:57:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2003 8:59:15 PM EDT by Paul]
Nobody needs a highway. [rolleyes] The cop was shot and killed so the guy could save the front 10 feet of his property - which probably wasn't his anyway but was city property. Now the homeowner will lose his freedom, 10 feet of his property, and most likely his whole house fighting the death penalty. You people never ever fail to amaze me. The fact of life is that you have only one hill that you can die on so you damn well better choose that hill carefully. Die for your country, your religion, your morals ... but for ten feet of property you're willing to kill for? I guess ... [rolleyes] [edited to add the required rolleyes [:)]]
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:01:22 PM EDT
Like said, theft is theft.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:01:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:10:51 PM EDT
The deputy chose a side, and now he pays for it. Its a risk you accept when u pin on a badge. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:12:47 PM EDT
A good point about choosing your battles well but I can still see myself responding in the same way. There is damned little freedom left in this country. Everywhere you turn it’s more and more like living in a insect hive. Everywhere there are rules, regulations, laws and multitudes of people telling you how you MUST live your life. I understand the need for some accommodation when living in a community or any social order for that matter but things are just pushing to the breaking point for many people. You truly are not in control of your own life by many standards anymore. The government enforces its will by force of arms, threat of imprisonment or debilitating fines for things that become more trivial everyday. To fight them has become a near impossibility as they have access to nearly unlimited funds, lawyers and the abilty to “interpret” the law to their benefit in many cases. The nation is ruled for the most part by politicians that will outright lie to your face to push their agendas, that will use the force of government to relive you of your money and freedom should it benefit them. I agree that 10 feet of land isn’t worth dying over but goddamn it, where does it end? Maybe the question should be “Where does the end of this shit begin?” This man apparently answered that question for himself tonight.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:19:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: The deputy chose a side, and now he pays for it. Its a risk you accept when u pin on a badge. Fenster.
View Quote
No, we paid in the loss of a 63 year old veteran LEO. He is getting his heavenly reward for a life of service. Based on your logic, soldiers die, firemen die, no biggie, it is their job... As far as the other Deputy, how must his family have felt for the 12 hours that they did not know if he was alive or dead inside that house... Info up on [url]ODMP.org[/url]. BTW, Fenster, F U .
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:20:39 PM EDT
I respect anyone for making a stand and willing to pay the ultimate price. Including the cop.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:23:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RipMeyer: I respect anyone for making a stand and willing to pay the ultimate price. Including the cop.
View Quote
There it is. Two sides of the fence and all. No winner there, though.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:29:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FiveO: Based on your logic, soldiers die, firemen die, no biggie, it is their job... BTW, Fenster, F U .
View Quote
It is there job and they do expect it (or the y should) However it is NOT a NoBiggie. Its always a biggie but they know and accept the risk, so should you.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:29:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FiveO:
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: The deputy chose a side, and now he pays for it. Its a risk you accept when u pin on a badge. Fenster.
View Quote
No, we paid in the loss of a 63 year old veteran LEO. He is getting his heavenly reward for a life of service. Based on your logic, soldiers die, firemen die, no biggie, it is their job... As far as the other Deputy, how must his family have felt for the 12 hours that they did not know if he was alive or dead inside that house... Info up on [url]ODMP.org[/url]. BTW, Fenster, F U .
View Quote
It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:33:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: Nobody needs a highway. [rolleyes] The cop was shot and killed so the guy could save the front 10 feet of his property - which probably wasn't his anyway but was city property. Now the homeowner will lose his freedom, 10 feet of his property, and most likely his whole house fighting the death penalty. You people never ever fail to amaze me. The fact of life is that you have only one hill that you can die on so you damn well better choose that hill carefully. Die for your country, your religion, your morals ... but for ten feet of property you're willing to kill for? I guess ... [rolleyes] [edited to add the required rolleyes [:)]]
View Quote
Hey Paul, this is Mr.Jones of the DOT, we want to build a major road way right where your typing on your computer, now get the hell out or we'll arrest you. Have a nice day ~Signed Big Brother
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:33:22 PM EDT
As far as I'm concerned the homeowner shot and killed a theif trying to steal his property. Cop or no cop the shooting was justified IMHO.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:34:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster:
Originally Posted By FiveO:
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: The deputy chose a side, and now he pays for it. Its a risk you accept when u pin on a badge. Fenster.
View Quote
No, we paid in the loss of a 63 year old veteran LEO. He is getting his heavenly reward for a life of service. Based on your logic, soldiers die, firemen die, no biggie, it is their job... As far as the other Deputy, how must his family have felt for the 12 hours that they did not know if he was alive or dead inside that house... Info up on [url]ODMP.org[/url]. BTW, Fenster, F U .
View Quote
It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
View Quote
Thats a tad harsh and uncalled for.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:35:53 PM EDT
Sad to see a "constable" killed over a highway project. I can certainly sympothize with the landowner though. Perhaps the state transportation department should have to enforce their own damn warrants. It wouldnt sit right with me to have some bureucrat tell me to arrest a landowner so Caltrans can widen a Hwy.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:38:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: The government has taken property and paid people for it
View Quote
The problem is when they dont want to pay for it, or want to pay less than market value. That 10-feet was the only thing stanfding in the way of a new Hwy, making it worth millions. The state was probably offering him $200.00 for it.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:53:39 PM EDT
BTW, Fenster, F U .
View Quote
It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
View Quote
Thats a tad harsh and uncalled for.
View Quote
Maybe so, but he threw shit at me first. F--- Him anyways. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 9:58:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: It wouldn't sit right with me to have some bureaucrat tell me to arrest a landowner so Caltrans can widen a Hwy.
View Quote
It wasn't that kind of warrant. It was a legal document giving notice to Mr. Bixby that the county was seizing custody of the property in question.
Originally Posted By AR15fan: That 10-feet was the only thing standing in the way of a new Hwy, making it worth millions. The state was probably offering him $200.00 for it.
View Quote
That is neither a fair nor a realistic way to determine fair market value for a piece of property. Using that logic, every 10-foot strip is worth millions, which would mean that no road improvements could ever be accomplished and everyone (including Mr. Bixby) would be bitching about how bad traffic had gotten. The fair market value should be determined by a percentage of the assessed value of the property equivalent to the percentage of the property being seized, unless it can be shown that the loss of that particular part of the property significantly lowers the value of the rest of the parcel. I would be more inclined to agree with your reasoning if the property were being seized for the building of a commercial property, such as a shopping mall or an industrial park (I am philosophically opposed to the seizure of property under eminent domain for this purpose, though.)
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:02:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Nimrod1193: That is neither a fair nor a realistic way to determine fair market value for a piece of property.
View Quote
Sure it is. Say walmart wants to build a store on a plot that has 40 homes. The first home walmarts buys out isnt worth nearly as much as that last home standing where they want to build the store.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:13:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Nimrod1193: It wasn't that kind of warrant. It was a legal document giving notice to Mr. Bixby that the county was seizing custody of the property in question.
View Quote
Seizing it because he wouldn't sell it (which destroys the "it was probably city property anyway" argument somebody posted). That doesn't sit right with me AT ALL. Hypothetical Example: Guy: That's a nice car. Spade: Thanks Guy: Give you $500 for it. Spade (thinking:I'd sell if for 4 grand): No thanks. She's not for sale. Guy: Okay, then I'll just seize it. That's theft. Taking something that isn't yours is theft. You can cover shit up with court documents and laws, but it is still shit. What are the three basic things government must respect according to Locke? Life. Liberty [i]Property[/i] "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." -John Locke, A Treatise Concerning Civil Government It's not legal for us to steal, so it can't be legal for the government to steal. As an aside, Locke also says what to do when government fucks it up.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:14:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By Nimrod1193: That is neither a fair nor a realistic way to determine fair market value for a piece of property.
View Quote
Sure it is. Say walmart wants to build a store on a plot that has 40 homes. The first home walmarts buys out isnt worth nearly as much as that last home standing where they want to build the store.
View Quote
Your analogy doesn't hold water. If Wal-Mart bought up 39 out of 40 plots, but the owner of plot number 40 was holding out for millions, Wal-Mart would simply redesign their store to fit in the available land and see how much Owner #40 enjoys living next to a Wal-Mart. Besides, in the unlikely event that Wal-Mart would wish to go about acquiring land for a store in that fashion, they would place language in the purchase contracts for the other 39 properties making the sale contingent on acquiring all 40. If they get a holdout that makes the plan unfeasible, they pull out.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:24:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
View Quote
IATJP!!! [white][size=1]In After The Jackass Posts![/white][/size=1]
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:26:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2003 10:27:21 PM EDT by Nimrod1193]
Originally Posted By Spade: Seizing it because he wouldn't sell it (which destroys the "it was probably city property anyway" argument somebody posted). That doesn't sit right with me AT ALL.
View Quote
I'm not fond of the idea myself, and I believe that eminent domain is far too often abused in this country. That being said, there are legitimate uses of eminent domain. But when it is used, great care should be taken to ensure that there is no other reasonable alternative, and the landowner should be compensated not only for the fair market value of the land, but also for the involuntary taking of it. [red]Edited for grammar.[/red]
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:27:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
View Quote
IATJP!!! [white][size=1]In After The Jackass Posts![/white][/size=1]
View Quote
What does IATJP mean ??? Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:29:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster: It would of been better if it where you instead. Go take someone elses property, Ill give you simpathy if you get capped, boy. Fenster.
View Quote
IATJP!!! [white][size=1]In After The Jackass Posts![/white][/size=1]
View Quote
What does IATJP mean ??? Fenster.
View Quote
It means that I think you're out of line and that your statement is something a jackass would say. Oh yeah...highlight.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:31:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2003 10:38:27 PM EDT by Synister1]
It's sad that 2 officers are dead over this. But this crap has got to stop. It is legalized theft. This man knows it and is doing what he can to make a stand against it. The ED laws are total BS. Here they are going to build a viaduct to go over a train yard. They offered the homeowners that were in the way 3/4 the value of their homes. They refused. The city condemed the most valuable newest house in the area (120k 5yo home) to make a point to the others. They sold for 1/2 the value so they wouldn't lose out completely. One old man Stood upto them, They commited it in the local mental facility and leveled his home. In another town a man is fighting to keep his land from the town. They just ED a huge chunk of land twards him over the last few years. Now they want his so that can build a park there in the future. His family has owned the land for 120+ years. They are only offered him $20k for his 100+ acres. He refused. They pulled the ED card he got a injunction now it's in the lawyers hands. It will probably cost him his land to pay the legal fees.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:39:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Cheat: As far as I'm concerned the homeowner shot and killed a theif trying to steal his property. Cop or no cop the shooting was justified IMHO.
View Quote
The homeowner killed the messenger. The constable was there to serve him with official paperwork. He was not going to arrest the guy or take his property by force. HE WAS DROPPING OF PAPERWORK, FER CHRIST'S SAKE! Sure hope your mail carrier never delivers a "Dear The_Cheat" letter. Dave
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:41:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: IBLT!
View Quote
What? Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [red]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/red] That's from a little document a lot of you like to talk about. Apparently it sets the whole idea of emminent domain. The Constitution is a large document, with a lot of articles, amendments, and theories. You just can't pick the ones you like.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:44:16 PM EDT
It means that I think you're out of line and that your statement is something a jackass would say. Oh yeah...highlight.
View Quote
You can also GFYS. It means [white]GO FUCK YOUR SELF.[/white] Oh yeah...highlight as well. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:46:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2003 2:24:01 PM EDT by PaDanby]
Let ED Fensters house. I'll deliver [red] edited out[/red] err notice, he seems to think that's fair. Sure are a real bunch of [red] edited out [/red] on here that slept through their Civics classes. If you can't figure out what I mean, well we know which classes you slept through. (look under Due Process, petition for redress of grievances, look under another argument why folks thing the the 2nd Amendment needs to be canceled) [blue] Mea Culpa Mea Culpa Mea Culpa [/blue]
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:47:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Fenster:
It means that I think you're out of line and that your statement is something a jackass would say. Oh yeah...highlight.
View Quote
You can also GFYS. It means [white]GO FUCK YOUR SELF.[/white] Oh yeah...highlight as well. Fenster.
View Quote
Okaaaay Sparky. You're the man.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:53:43 PM EDT
I'm all for the Russian way of doing things. Leave the property, but bury a bunch of toxic waste in various locations. CW
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:54:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Airwolf: I know some will say "but it's only 10 feet". Well, THIS time it's 10 feet, next time it would probably be the whole damn thing.
View Quote
I think you're on to something, Airwolf... Similar arugument: "It's only one kind of gun - these scary, mean-looking black guns that clearly '[i]have no sporting purpose[/i]'. Just let us get these guns off the streets to protect the poor little children, and we won't ever bother you again. If this makes a difference in just one child's life...."
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:57:48 PM EDT
Okaaaay Sparky. You're the man.
View Quote
Thats the rumor I keep hearing. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 10:59:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Paul: IBLT!
View Quote
What? Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [red]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/red] That's from a little document a lot of you like to talk about. Apparently it sets the whole idea of emminent domain. The Constitution is a large document, with a lot of articles, amendments, and theories. You just can't pick the ones you like.
View Quote
Nowhere in there does it say the person has to accept the just compensation offer, Nor does it say they can take the private property if the owner refuses. That messenger was serving a warrant to seize "steal" the property, Which made him the state representative there to finalize the theft. Messenger or not he made his stance loud and clear. You know the bodies envolved all now know they sent those Deputies to their death.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:05:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/8/2003 11:53:27 PM EDT by Mr_Fenster]
Originally Posted By PaDanby: Let ED Fensters house. I'll deliver the bullet err notice, he seems to think that's fair. Sure are a real bunch of assholes on here that slept through their Civics classes. If you can't figure out what I mean, well we know which classes you slept through. (look under Due Process, petition for redress of grievances, look under another argument why folks thing the the 2nd Amendment needs to be canceled)
View Quote
Any day motherfucker, any day. Look me up here in AZ, if you ever grow a pair. Fenster.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:18:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Synister1: Nowhere in there does it say the person has to accept the just compensation offer, Nor does it say they can take the private property if the owner refuses. That messenger was serving a warrant to seize "steal" the property, Which made him the state representative there to finalize the theft. Messenger or not he made his stance loud and clear. You know the bodies envolved all now know they sent those Deputies to their death.
View Quote
It says "[red]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/red]". When something is "taken" it doesn't have a voluntary sound to it does it? The Constitution not only enumerates the Rights of individuals, but sets up the federal government, and lists powers of the federal government. In the Bill of Rights, which enumurates the Rights of individuals, the Constitution lists the Right of compenstation when the government comes and takes and individual's property for the common good. Seems the Founding Fathers not only beleived in the indivual's Rights, but beleirved the government should also have certain authority, for the common good.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:22:27 PM EDT
I just saw this on the news. they had the sheriff on the TV saying the guy used a AR15 and then used a 7mm. I don't know much about the story but if they took the first ten feet of my property they would also get 4-100 year old trees that would really affect the value of my property. Also I have seen houses where there was no front yard left because of ED and needing a 4 lane road. Hard to say what a fair value would be. I know I would never buy one of those propertys. Sad that the officer lose his life. madman
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:29:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC: Killing those two deputies was not right even if the state is taking his property. Ever hear of eminent domain? CRC
View Quote
Yup, heard of eminent domain. Don't like it too much (ED - not 'erectile dysfunction,' but can have the same effect.) They didn't help you make the payments on your land every month for 30 years, but they can sure take in in two shakes of a lamb's tail. This situation isn't really the best test case for what's wrong with iminent domain. I wish I could find the citation, but I think it's in my favorites on my old computer. Had to do with a "real" land grab (more than 10 feet) by the Tennessee (River) Valley Authority. Poor bastard (farmer, I think) got run off his land b/c the TVA said his land was going to be in the flood plain. Wouldn't you know, the calculations were off. That was then prime lakefront property. Did the TVA's mistake mean that the poor bastard could have his land back? Hell no. It was now [i]worth something[/i]. So the TVA auctioned it off some real estate developers and other fat cats. Not "Sorry, sir - our calculations were off. Here's your land back." Oh no, this was more like: "So, how'd you like me to let you suck my d**k after I'm done f**king you in the ass?" Until I can get my paws on that, lemme tide you folks over with these: Castle Coalition (Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse): [url]http://www.castlecoalition.org[/url] Cato Institute (short snippet of an) article: [url]http://www.cato.org/events/020514pf.html[/url] Random eminent domain abuse: [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0509/p01s03-ussc.html[/url] You gotta love this. I don't think this is just about building schools and roads... any more than gun control is really about protecting our children.
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:43:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: Sad to see a "constable" killed over a highway project. I can certainly sympothize with the landowner though. [red]Perhaps the state transportation department should have to enforce their own damn warrants.[/red]
View Quote
Didn't something like this happen in Waco? [ROFL2] Seriously, something like this happened in Lubbock and - guess what - an officer wound up dead. [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins47.html[/url] Domestic dispute if it was anything and SWAT shows up? They were arresting this dude for murder (after he was nearly killed himself in the "shootout" [another of those shootouts where only one side has guns!]) - turns out he never fired a shot! Another officer actually shot and killed Sgt. Cox in the confusion. The reason they came after this guy so much harder than "your average perp"? Apparently Mr. Robinson (an unemployed mechanic) had an arsenal in his home. Two problems: first of all, that's still legal in the US for the next week or so; second, he didn't even have one. Wanna know why he was "unemployed" (it's only an issue because they used the word over and over the day of the "standoff" to make him seem like a raving lunatic)? Because the city/state had used eminent domain to take his business (in this case for a "legitimate" highway project).
Link Posted: 12/8/2003 11:52:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: It says "[red]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/red]". When something is "taken" it doesn't have a voluntary sound to it does it?
View Quote
That's right it doesn't have a voluntary sound. But in the event the property owner refuses the compensation offer for whatever reason that would not give them the right to take it if they follow it. They only follow it when it's on their side. When someone refuses the compensation offer they bypass the owners rights and steal the property. Then by the time the owner's grievance would be heard the property is already demolished by the state. They win anyway. Someone was eventually going to stand up and be heard on this issue. This is why they do not want people to own guns. Without a gun this guy wouldn't have been able to defend his right of ownership against the goverments tactical protected by laws it passed to allow it to steal with imunity. It's obvious there is little support for your side on this subject. with you defending the states theft you must be a govt body member. He shot two people sent onto his property to enforce a theft by force order of said property & they were delt with in the same fashion any other theives would be delt with. I applaud him for standing up to defend his property. If I lived in his state and called to jury duty I would do everything to deadlock it in support.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top