PDA

View Full Version : Property rights?


CalCop
04-01-2009, 11:00 PM
Do we have property rights anymore? SWAT to collect back taxes?

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1805292-It-was-like-a-war-zone-in-Wisconsin/

Editor’s note: One year ago today in a rural part of Wisconsin, Richland County Sheriff Darrel Berglin and his Special Response Team were manning the perimeter around a house in which a self-proclaimed survivalist named Robert Bayliss was holed up and heavily armed.

One of the officers at the scene in Richland County, Wisconsin said it was “like a war zone.” The scene was reminiscent of the SLA shootout in Los Angeles, except this gun battle took place around the crest of a hill, on the wooded, junk-littered property of a self-proclaimed survivalist named Robert C. Bayliss.

It all started during the afternoon of March 31, 2008 when several Richland County Deputies approached Bayliss’s enclave to serve civil process on him. They had tried many times since January to serve the process, without success. Bayliss was being evicted from his property for failing to pay taxes since 2000. The deputies maneuvered cautiously through the 18-acre property toward the home, which held a commanding view of the area from its location on the crest of a hill.

Suddenly the silence of the woods was shattered by 15 rounds from a high powered rifle. The deputies took cover and immediately called the in the situation, triggering a three-day stand-off.

Negotiators continually attempted to contact Bayliss with no indication that he was even slightly willing to negotiate.

Sheriff Berglin then requested assistance and received an immediate response from the Dane County Tactical Response Team, The Eau Claire County SWAT Team, the La Crosse County Emergency Response Team, The Sauk County Emergency Response Team. These groups joined Vernon and Richland already on scene.

A chain of command was established and the tactical team leaders formulated a plan. The additional teams allowed for a rotation of the counter-sniper teams. Intelligence gathered on the perimeter suggested that Bayliss’ possessed incendiary devices and home-made explosive devices.

In addition to the teams mentioned above, Richland County had requested and received assistance from Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation, The Dane County Bomb Squad, The Wisconsin Fire Marshall, Kenosha Air One, The Wisconsin State Patrol Fixed Wing Aircraft, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Viola Fire, and Viola Emergency Medical Services.

A plan was devised to end this deadly encounter.

The Battle is Joined
At 4:52 PM three Bear Cats in a formation began an approach the house, enabling team members to concentrate their fire power forward. Bayliss instantly opened fire on the teams, firing from the upper windows of the home, moving from window to window as if they were gun ports. Bayliss concentrated his fire on the Bear Cats, containing the teams. His fire was extremely accurate, but the Bear Cats did what they were designed to do. They protected the teams.

Both counter-sniper teams fired back at the ducking and moving suspect, but Bayliss had fortified his home for this battle. The house had been reinforced in spots with steel plating, which protected the suspect and were found later pock marked by police hits. All of the Bear Cats were hit, but the assault continued forward in the face of this relentless fire. The gunfire was general now as Bayliss began to lob home made explosives out of the upper windows of his home. Some 50 rounds of non-burning chemical munitions were fired back into the Bayliss compound.

As the arrest teams closed in, it is suspected that Bayliss either accidentally or deliberately set his house alight with one of his incendiary bombs. As the fire quickly spread there were a series of explosions inside the fortress. Fire Departments had been on stand by, but they could not approach, because of the extreme danger posed by Bayliss, his burning ammunition and his improvised explosive devices.

Tactical Team Members called for Bayliss to surrender, warning him that he would die inside the house if he did not come out. When it seemed to be over for Bayliss, he appeared exiting an upstairs window and began to climb down a makeshift ladder. His sweatshirt shifted, revealing a pistol in a holster on his right hip.

One officer warned the rest, “He’s got gun on his hip!”

Another officer cautioned the others, “Look out boys he’s going to hit the ground shooting.”

A chorus rang out “Drop the gun!” followed by a solo voice singing clearly, “Less Lethal! Less Lethal! Less Lethal!”

The distinctive pop of less lethal rounds replaced the still echoing gun fire and Bayliss reacted to a double-shot to the thigh. He stopped on the ladder and for the first time in three days he was communicating, and at long last listening. Using his finger tips he removed the pistol from his holster and threw it to the ground. Robert Bayliss was ordered down the ladder and to the ground and after a minor bit of physical resistance was over come he was handcuffed. It was over.

The Aftermath
At his trial, Bayliss conducted his own defense and even though he did not belong to any particular group, he possessed views that questioned governmental “sovereignty.” He felt that after posting his property and giving warning, anyone on his property was “trespassing.”

The jury didn’t buy his defense and after eight hours of deliberation, on February 10, 2009 found Robert Bayliss guilty on 13 of the 17 charges lodged against him, including being found guilty of four counts of Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide. He will be sentenced after a pre-sentence investigation

DDT
04-01-2009, 11:04 PM
SWAT to collect back taxes? NO!

SWAT to respond to officers being fired upon? YES!

CalCop
04-01-2009, 11:09 PM
SWAT to collect back taxes? NO!

SWAT to respond to officers being fired upon? YES!DDT, I'm with you on that. But it seems the back taxes are what precipitated the event.

DDT
04-01-2009, 11:13 PM
No, someone firing on officers serving papers precipitated the event. It doesn't matter if they were serving papers for child molestation or FTA on a red light violation. Shooting at someone legally serving papers will get your *** in a sling RIGHT NOW! Guy is just lucky he's alive.

Had the first officers gone in with SWAT to serve the papers I could sort of understand your point but the write up doesn't look like that is the case, as it was at Waco.

CalCop
04-01-2009, 11:18 PM
No, someone firing on officers serving papers precipitated the event. I see what you're saying, but...if he had not fought...they would have eventually hauled him away for not paying rent to the government for dirt he already owns. He would have been jailed and his property taken from him by a government imposing excessive taxes. It just doesn't seem right. Go to the link I provided. Read the comments at the end of the article. I am not alone in my thinking.

DDT
04-01-2009, 11:21 PM
I see what you're saying, but...if he had not fought...they would have eventually hauled him away for not paying rent to the government for dirt he already owns.

Ah... now this is a very different question. Should the government have the coercive power to confiscate property for taxes? I don't have a problem with it frankly but I understand your point.

CalCop
04-01-2009, 11:28 PM
Ah... now this is a very different question. Should the government have the coercive power to confiscate property for taxes? I don't have a problem with it frankly but I understand your point.I know many who don't have a problem with the government seizing property for back taxes. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what the rebels fought against during the revolutionary war. Excessive taxes and government tyranny.

vrand
04-01-2009, 11:46 PM
I know many who don't have a problem with the government seizing property for back taxes. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what the patriots fought against during the revolutionary war. Excessive taxes and government tyranny.

Fixed that for you :thumbsup:

Texas Boy
04-02-2009, 12:37 AM
Glad no one was hurt - it could have been rather tragic. I'd say the officers were very professional in carrying out their orders.

That said, the bigger question is the ethical/moral legitimacy of taxation and property forfeiture laws. I don't know if this guy was broke or just fed up, but I can certainly understand how someone could get to the mindset of "I'll fight them to the end!"

As you all know, here in Cali Prop 13 was passed because people were being forced out of homes they owned due to the relentlessly increasing property taxes. Now we all know this created a whole mess of problems on its own - but it does point out the serious problems with property taxes.

In today's society there really is no such thing as "ownership". The government can seize major assets (homes, vehicles) for a variety of reasons -
1. Non payment of taxes
2. Suspicion of use in a crime (note: the property is guilty until proven otherwise. About 25 years ago my sister lost her car when she let her scumbag boyfriend borrow it and he sold dope to a cop. Sis was home, had no idea he even did dope, but lost the car just the same. She would have had to go to court and "prove" she had no knowledge of the boyfriends activities or intentions to get the car back)
3. Immanent domain - there was a supreme court case a few years back that greatly expanded the power of immanent domain. From what I recall, a developer had a great plan to line his pockets and expand the city's tax base and the court case paved the way and allowed the city to pay less than market value for the "seized" property.

How long until the next tea party?

N6ATF
04-02-2009, 12:43 AM
I know many who don't have a problem with the government seizing property for back taxes. My personal opinion is that this is exactly what the rebels fought against during the revolutionary war. Excessive taxes and government tyranny.

+1000. What were his property taxes supposed to compensate the .gov for if he did pay them? All the years back before he became a survivalist, bought the property and cut off all need for government services?

Apparently if you breathe, you will be taxed. So much for land of the free, home of the brave. Land of the slave, home of the insane to think they can get away from constant interference in their lives.

gotgunz
04-02-2009, 2:09 AM
"A plan was devised to end this deadly encounter."

So who got killed exactly?

Kid Stanislaus
04-02-2009, 8:43 AM
In every society worth of the name on this planet, law-abiding citizens pay their fair share of the taxes. Those that don't eventually end up in hot water of one sort or another. You can argue over the amount of taxes paid and how they are spent but it is pure foolishness to argue that a society of any complexity can be operated successfully without a tax system. There are ways to protest taxation and there are ways to get your butt thrown in the slammer. This bozo chose the latter.

FortCourageArmory
04-02-2009, 9:04 AM
In every society worth of the name on this planet, law-abiding citizens pay their fair share of the taxes. Those that don't eventually end up in hot water of one sort or another. You can argue over the amount of taxes paid and how they are spent but it is pure foolishness to argue that a society of any complexity can be operated successfully without a tax system. There are ways to protest taxation and there are ways to get your butt thrown in the slammer. This bozo chose the latter.
+1:thumbsup:
The homeowner chose to not pay his taxes for NINE YEARS!! Then when the government shows up to evict him...after NINE YEARS, he again choseto shoot at them. The homeowner is the sole one responsible for the situation here. No Jack-Booted Thugs present that I can see.

deleted by PC police
04-02-2009, 9:16 AM
It all started during the afternoon of March 31, 2008 when several Richland County Deputies approached Bayliss’s enclave to serve civil process on him. They had tried many times since January to serve the process, without success. Bayliss was being evicted from his property for failing to pay taxes since 2000. The deputies maneuvered cautiously through the 18-acre property toward the home, which held a commanding view of the area from its location on the crest of a hill.

I'm not sure about you but I'm pretty sure it only takes one person to deliver a piece of paper. I would say they used excesive force.

Can'thavenuthingood
04-02-2009, 9:26 AM
.
3. Immanent domain - there was a supreme court case a few years back that greatly expanded the power of immanent domain. From what I recall, a developer had a great plan to line his pockets and expand the city's tax base and the court case paved the way and allowed the city to pay less than market value for the "seized" property.

How long until the next tea party?

That was Kelo v New London. We lost.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0394.htm

Vick

DDT
04-02-2009, 9:50 AM
I'm not sure about you but I'm pretty sure it only takes one person to deliver a piece of paper. I would say they used excesive force.

I have friends who are deputies whose primary work is serving civil papers. They NEVER serve alone.

We also don't know the nature of the previous service attempts. Were the premises simply empty or were there guard dogs that prevented their approach? Were there other instances of run ins with law enforcement that indicated he was likely to respond in EXACTLY the way he responded? This is why an investigation will take place. In the case of Waco and Ruby Ridge those investigations found misdeeds by the FBI.

Will an investigation here find the same? I don't know, and neither do you. I don't feel there is prima facie evidence of any excessive force as detailed in the story. But, we all know how easily the media is twisted so keep an open mind. I will do the same.

Adonlude
04-02-2009, 11:12 AM
So it's ok to tresspass to serve papers? He closed off his property and made it very clear that no one was welcome. They should have to find him off his property.

FortCourageArmory
04-02-2009, 11:34 AM
So it's ok to tresspass to serve papers? He closed off his property and made it very clear that no one was welcome. They should have to find him off his property.
So, because the resident put up a sign that says, "No one can come in here, regardless of any crimes I may have committed....because I put up a sign that says so." He gets a pass? I don't think so...

DDT
04-02-2009, 11:55 AM
So it's ok to tresspass to serve papers?

Yep.