Two officers dead after 14-hour stand-off

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sportcat

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
893
Location
Anderson, SC
Thoughts and prayers to the family of the two officers...

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1555225&nav=0RaMJXgH

(Abbeville) Dec. 9, 2003 - Authorities say two officers were killed in a 13 hour standoff on Monday that was started by a family who had a problem with the state and federal government. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Robert Stewart says the standoff ended in "a horrendous gunfight."

Stewart says the incident apparently was a planned assault involving at least three family members.

The incident began around 9:00am when an Abbeville County magistrate's officer, who authorities identified as 63-year-old Donnie M. Ouzts, came to the home of Arthur Bixby. It's unclear what brought Constable Ouzts to the Bixby property, but neighbors speculate it may have been related to the state seizing property for highway construction.

Abbeville Sheriff Charles Goodwin says Ouzts went to the small white house along state Highway 72, just west of downtown Abbeville, but didn't return to his office. Two deputies then went to the house and almost immediately put out an officer-down call. The Associated Press reports Ouzts was shot with a high powered rifle outside the Bixby home.

One of the deputies, Danny Wilson, was reportedly then shot. The other deputy escaped without injury.

The Highway Patrol retrieved the fatally wounded Ouzts some time later. Ouzts' son, Chris Ouzts, says his father was a family man and always visited his wife each morning at her work. They were married for 40 years.

Officers from the Abbeville Police Department, the Abbeville County Sheriff’s Office, the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office, the State Law Enforcement Division and the South Carolina Highway Patrol had by now converged on the house for a standoff.

Officers stormed the home around 9:00pm and about half a dozen shots were heard with several bursts of gunfire. Tear gas sent several dozen officers scrambling back hundreds of yards. Police at one point had thought Wilson was being held hostage, but found his body during the raid.

Arthur Bixby managed to remain barricaded in the home. His son, 36-year-old Steven Bixby, was taken into custody. No reports on whether the younger Bixby suffered any injuries.

Stewart says the standoff ended about 11:00pm with the elder Bixby shot at least once. An ambulance was seen taking someone from the home after the final raid.

As officers tried to storm the home, Stewart says they were fired on with the most powerful weapons he had ever seen in his more than 30 years in law enforcement. No word if any officers were injured during the assaults.

During the standoff, Arthur Bixby's wife went to an Abbeville apartment with another son and threatened to open fire on bystanders if either man was harmed. No bystanders were injured and there is no information on any arrests in that incident.

Stewart says officers found anti-American literature, suicide notes and other items inside the house and the apartment.

Neighbor Gene Land says Steven Bixby was angry because the state planned to take some of his land to widen the highway. Land lives about a half-mile away and says Bixby had been living in the house with his mother and father for at least 10 years. Land says some days Bixby was a good guy, some days he was moody.

One unnamed neighbor says he doesn't understand the anger, "I hate to see something like that happen, especially over what is supposed to be just land. Just a little bit of land the state was going to take for the road move."
 
As someone who has been on the receiving end of an eminent domain type action, the one lesson I hope officials take away from this type of incident is: "Be more respectful of people's property rights!" Some of the officials wielding this power are most abusive.

Unfortunately, owing to the mindset of government these days, once the analysis is done, the most likely lesson will be: "Police need more firepower, armored equipment, and abridgement of rights; to effectively deal with this type of threat!"

It's difficult to evaluate this situation from the information given. I'm sure the usual members will post the "get ole sparky ready" type reaction...

Yet, when a middle aged person with no prior history, decides to make a stand in this manner, one must at least ask the question, "What brings an otherwise peaceful person to this point?"

Stewart says officers found anti-American literature...
The demonization process begins...I wonder if a copy of the US constitution was also found in the rubble (not worthy of mention, though)?
 
First, let me say the officers, and families of the officers, have my deepest sympathy.

But I have some concerns here and think that there's a lot we still don't know....or at least wasn't reported in this article. There's obviously some history here we don't know about. Don't get me wrong, I'm an ex-State Trooper and there's no love loss between me and the bad guys....but I have some questions.

Stewart says they were fired on with the most powerful weapons he had ever seen in his more than 30 years in law enforcement

I wonder what these were? Hunting rifles? A WW2 Garand bring back? Mortars? WW1 BAR? Another excuse for AWB renewal? :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

"One unnamed neighbor says he doesn't understand the anger, I hate to see something like that happen, especially over what is supposed to be just land. Just a little bit of land the state was going to take for the road move."

"Just land?" Maybe. But there are lots of folks in this country rightfully angry over the government's claims on, and redistribution of, "private" property.

Stewart says officers found anti-American literature

I wonder what this was too. Mao's Little Red Book? A copy of the Fourth Ammendment?

Just thinkin....maybe I should just go have a coffee.....
 
This is horrible. Please keep us updated.

What prompted the raid? How much land was involved?

What are these "high-powered weapons" that were being used on them? That could be anything - a .300 Win Mag hunting rifle? A 30-06?

What's this "anti-American literature" that they found?
 
In that part of the state (heck any part of SC) it was probably a mildly overpowered deer rifle, like a 7mm Mag. The officer was probably shot through his armor, ad relatively un-gun-savvy officers were stunned by that.

owen
 
Bad judgement on both sides if you ask me.

On the property owner's side...c'mon, it's just a 10 foot right of way!

On the government's side...c'mon, it's just a 10 foot right of way!

Not worth killing anyone if you ask me.

The demonization process begins...

It was started long before the standoff ended on the local news stations. "Disturbed, moody, violent, and reportedly a militia member." Since it's obvious that they had gas masks, my mind wanders back to the bullet proof vest control thread.
 
Sounds to me like some citizens finally got fed up enough with Big Brother that they decided to fight back.

I feel sorry for the citizens - I feel sorry for Big Brother's agents who were just doing their duty (misguided as that may have been) but I don't feel sorry for Big Brother at all.

One day in the next 50 years or so I predict Big Brother will get his...
 
Transportation Department workers reported Thursday someone threatened them as they laid out survey stakes, agency spokesman Pete Poore said.

Monday's incident began around 9 a.m when an Abbeville County officer came to the Bixby home.

That officer was never heard from again, prompting two other officers to go to the house, where they found the first officer dead. One of the other two officers also was shot and killed, while the second lawman escaped uninjured, authorities said.

Inside both locations, agents found suicide notes, anti-American material and other items Stewart said may have been militia-related.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/2692471/detail.html
 
"One unnamed neighbor says he doesn't understand the anger, I hate to see something like that happen, especially over what is supposed to be just land. Just a little bit of land the state was going to take for the road move."

Many wars have been fought, and much blood spilled in the history of the world for "just a little bit of land".
 
What's this "anti-American literature" that they found?

Oh probably just a copy of the Constitution.

that was started by a family who had a problem with the state and federal government

It's unclear what brought Constable Ouzts to the Bixby property, but neighbors speculate it may have been related to the state seizing property for highway construction

Sounds to me like the constable started it. He went to their home.

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the two citizen men who died in a professional capacity as deputy's, but at some point officers have a responsibility to think outside the box and question if they were given reasonable lawful orders to beseige citizens. Them deputy's weren't there to say pretty please. This sounds like lawful resistance to me.
 
From a poster on GlockTalk.com

The suspects were a father and son, Arthur and Steve Bixby. The father was not highly thought of around here. Most people that knew him, didn't like him. His wife was also arrested, she was at a local apartment complex threatening to kill bystanders if her husband and son were injured. The father is in critical condition, he was shot during the final confrontation. His death would be a blessing to society at this point. A couple of people around here have come forward and said that Arthur Bixby had been saying that he wasn't going to give up the land and that he would die before he did. Some folks are also saying that the family was in some sort of militia.
 
On the one hand, they moved there knowing there was a road and that it might be widened someday. I have little sympathy for someone who shoots down two innocent agents.

That said, I think when the decision has to be made to take someone's property, AMPLE compensation should be made, and that that decision should NEVER be taken lightly. I used to have a good friend who had to give up part of his property for the construction of an airport, and he was certainly not happy about it, but he didn't start shooting random government employees either.

What a mess.
 
Well, I guess it goes without saying that since this involved a confrontation with the dreaded "state", the perps must be in the right. In fact, they are practically saints. Let us burn incense in their names and declare a national holiday.

Nevermind that eminent domain is perfectly Constitutional, that this case falls well within the intent and purpose of eminent domain, that the dreaded "state" was following correct procedures, that the constable that was murdered was most likely serving a simple notice, that the wife announced plans to murder addtitional innocent bystanders, etc., etc. What matters is that the "state" was involved, so no questions need be asked, no issues debated.
 
Did this subject try relief thru the court system?

Instead, lets kill a couple of peace officers who were lawfully doing thier duty.

Hopefully, S.C. has the death penalty for these two sorry son a bitchs.

RIP for the slain officers.

We are diminished.

12-34hom.
 
Nevermind that eminent domain is perfectly Constitutional, that this case falls well within the intent and purpose of eminent domain, that the dreaded "state" was following correct procedures, that the constable that was murdered was most likely serving a simple notice, that the wife announced plans to murder addtitional innocent bystanders, etc., etc. What matters is that the "state" was involved, so no questions need be asked, no issues debated.

Could you possibly back up your first statement with anything?

So are we saying that as long as 'correct procedures' are followed that the state has the right to roll over anyone? Nazi Gestapo was following correct procedure too you know.

I cannot back up the wife in any way. Hurting innocent citizens when your beef is with the state, is bad form.

Did this subject try relief thru the court system?

You sir, have a heck of a sense of humor!!:D
 
A number of threads, here and elsewhere, have predicted an increase in this sort of incident. As the various "state" agencies squeeze the populace ever tighter, individual citizens will decide, rightly or wrongly, that they no longer have anything to lose by resisting with lethal force.

The natural result of these incidents will be a further strengthening of the enforcement of those laws which caused the citizen to rebel. In time, the Ford Crown Victoria, which most police departments use as their patrol vehicle, will be replaced with hardened Humvees. When that happens, the resistance will resort to roadside bombs as in Iraq.

We certainly live in interesting times.
 
Well, I guess it goes without saying that since this involved a confrontation with the dreaded "state", the perps must be in the right. In fact, they are practically saints. Let us burn incense in their names and declare a national holiday.
And then there's the other side ...
Well, I guess it goes without saying that since this involved a confrontation with the blessed "state", Big Brother must be in the right. In fact, his minions are practically saints. Let us burn incense in their names and declare a national holiday.
Don't know enough about this specific event to make a determination which is which, but I won't automatically assume either way. Not all police/judges/politicians are even decent people. Neither are all of us Regular Joe's and Jane's. I'd wager that the ratio is about equivalent, but a real son-of-a-bridge given government enforced authority can be much more of a problem than a regular ace hole.
What matters is that the "state" was involved, so no questions need be asked, no issues debated.
Very good analysis of the attitude on both extremes.

I have to wonder how "just" compensation is calculated. I know there is land in my extended family that would not be sold for any price. How can there be "just compensation" for something that is priceless to the owner?

Regardless of the constitutionality of the concept, I consider Eminent Domain to be morally repugnant. Though not necessarily yet to the point of grabbing a rifle when I see a deputy with a notice.
Could you possibly back up your first statement with anything?
Rock Jock is correct. Read the fifth amendment. " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The implication is that private property can be taken at the whim of the government, they just have to give "just compensation", whatever that means.

Reeks of communism, don't it?
So are we saying that as long as 'correct procedures' are followed that the state has the right to roll over anyone?
That is exactly how the system currently works.
 
Its too bad that the police have to serve the papers to confiscate the land, that job should fall squarely on the politicians that decided that they needed the land. Fair compensation or ability to fight the confiscation in court? Not likely. The emminent domain when put to practice usually ends up affecting marginalized and poor people rather than the wealthy or businesses. There is a major road expansion in my area that is going to bulldoze hundreds of homes in a poor neighborhood and give the people a pittance for their property, its also going to have to remove a run down building that is used by a large corporation- the corp is getting hundreds of millions in compensation for a building that might be worth a few million and that needs as much in repairs.
The people who end up losing their land are the people that the average person can't relate to, therefore has little sympathy for.

There is an interesting development going on in my state right now which entails building a high tension eletrical line across our state to bring electricity from Minnesota to eastern wisconsin. The line will be owned by a power company, but will press for the state to use emminent domain to acquire the land at a rock bottom price. There is alot of controversy as to whether this line is needed, and there are alot of angry people that own land which is going to be taken for this line.
 
I have to wonder how "just" compensation is calculated. I know there is land in my extended family that would not be sold for any price. How can there be "just compensation" for something that is priceless to the owner?

Just compensation usually means you are given an offer, if you refuse, they condemn the land- making it almost worthless and give you pennies on the dollar for its value.
 
Two sticking points on eminent domain:

1. "Public use". While roads are generally considered a legitimate public use, there are numerous stories where private property is condemned, only to be sold to another private owner; usually a business that the officials would bring in higher tax revenues. Not in line with the original intent, IMO.

2. "Just compensation". Establishing the value of property has become nothing more than a game, played by officials, hoping to complete their "objective" at minimum cost. Justice does not enter the equation.

Here's a story: My friend had land condemned for a highway interchange. The government took one vacant lot from my friends unfinished subdivision. He was selling building lots for $30k each. He received a check for $5k. Just compensation? Rather than fight it out, he merely had his lawyer send a letter to the authorities, stating in no uncertain terms his need to get $30k for the land, and a willingness to start lawsuits immediately. He was savvy, stubborn and had the bucks to back up his legal threat. He got a check for $30k inside of two weeks.

However, most people don't have the knowledge or resources to fight. They (mistakenly) believe the letter they're given, stating that the $5k compensation is the governments final offer (a lie), and/or that they have no other options. They cash the $5k check, which contains a provision that they can not sue. Afterwards, officials will gleefully use the $5k selling price as a comp to set the local market value, if other holdouts decide to pursue legal remedies. Anyone who equates this process with "justice", doesn't really understand the process.

The government will never compensate private parties for the intrinsic (sentimental) value of a property. The only exception seems to be when buying parkland from enviro groups, who in turn contribute part of their windfall, back to the politicians.:fire:
 
Rock Jock is correct. Read the fifth amendment. " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So it does, so it does. I understand. I guess the reasonable assumption at this point is that the family did not feel they were offered 'Just Compensation'.

If we supposedly have so many rights as we the people, then why must the citizen always stand down to the state.? When does the state ever stand down?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top