Correct about council.
 

The in house gun protection class my wife took had an attorney there who specializes in fire arm laws.
He said when the police arrive do not under any circumstances give any details but instead refer them to your attorney. You are perfectly within your rights.
Any and all information you say no matter whom is at fault may be used against you.
I feel for the family but the law is the law and we all make mistakes and it appears he unknowingly made a mistake.
To have pulled the gun out it seems like someone might have a temper.
Guns and tempers do not go hand & hand. And this is why my wife will carry a gun and not me.

So let me get this straight.... If I hear someone rustling outside of my house at night and I grab my handgun and run out to investigate I'm guilty of criminal threatening because it's not in a holster?? NOT!!

Holster or un-holstered has nothing to do with criminal threatening. He would of had to point it at her and or threaten to shoot her. Simply having the gun in his hand and un-holstered is not a crime or criminal threatening.

What if he had a rifle and not a handgun and he came on to his porch to confront the trespasser is that criminal threatening??... no place or way to holster a rifle...

He was well within his legal right to have a firearm in his hand while on his property.

I think one would have had to be on the jury, or at least in the courtroom, before making a judgement.

Exactly how the gun was visually presented seems to be debated, and certainly far from clearly discernable based on what we have to go by here.

Given that this went to court, and was heard by a jury, I'm thinking there is more to it than he "unholstered it to check the safety".

If you are a responsible gun owner and pay attention to past cases and so forth, one of the first things you tend to figure out is that the person on the business end of the gun is going to perceive the situation very differently than yourself. The weapon should not be unholstered unless you actually intend to use it, and even in this case there is much room for interpretation.

IMO, the "warning" call his niece made to him probably worked against his defense. It would be one thing if this woman just showed up on his property completely randomly and out of context. However, with him having been warned that she was coming, and was looking for real estate (and not intending to harm or threaten him) it makes his rationale for making his weapon visible to her in ANY manner much more delicate.

This is certainly an area of the law that needs further clarification. IMO, a NH property owner should be free to carry and present a firearm on their own property under reasonable circumstances. Although, even with a legal right to do so, I'm not in favor of brandishing a firearm as a way of making a threat. I think it both exposes you to legal issues, and from a practical defense standpoint gives a legitimate adversary too much opportunity to react and/or present their own weapon.

A more all around practical approach to dealing with trespassers on your property is to keep the firearm in a small-of-the-back holster, with your hand on the weapon if necessary. This stance would indicate to most logical people that you have some kind of weapon at the ready, without actually revealing said weapon. I'd also recommend that if you intend to carry a weapon on your own property, or in a concealed manner in public, that you practice at a gun range with the weapon in the stored position. Being able to fluidly draw, aim, un-safety, and fire the weapon should be a smooth, continuous second-nature maneuver.

Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.....guns just escalate the situation...and besides, after all is said and you go back inside....you already are all worked up....so's you might as well go sweep the floor!

No way, can you sweep the floor with a Colt .45!

Message here: carry a broom and you get to clean up! But, carry a gun and you get three to six years in a very small, steel and masonry, slammer door, prison cell!

And what does the defense attorney get....maybe a second new Mercedes just for the weekends!

Been watching and reading this for a while and have a silly question. Was this woman charged with trespassing? I have not read or heard anything about it and it would seem to me she clearly was trespassing.

Oh, and my opinion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

Why do you keep making this asinine comment? Had the trespasser been an actual threat with intent to harm, a broom would have been to no benefit to anyone other than Harry Potter. Your "advice" is foolhardy, repetitive, tasteless and long past its expiration date.

Every time I read this comment all I can think about is one of those old fashioned tombstones with the following Phrase:

"Here lies fatlazyless he came to a gunfight with a broom" :laugh:

All kidding aside less you assume that every trespasser comes on your land unarmed? A trespasser is sometimes knowingly breaking the law and occasionally may be armed. So if you run out on your porch waving a broom around you may actually escalate a situation with a criminal in which they pull a gun. Then what?

I'm not saying that was the case in this situation but you are painting some mighty broad brushstrokes with that broom of yours. ;)

Yeah right, and I am sure the Mont Vernon mother who who was recently murdered and her young daughter who barely survived the attack wishes she had a broom to defend herself and daughter against the machete wielding punks who invaded their home!!

Get real man!!

No ! This woman was not charged with anything.
I would love to here an answer from both the Moultonborough police and the Carroll County Attourney Robin Gordon as to why this was.
As I said earlier in the thread. Robin Gordon hates men and always takes the womans side. I wonder why ? ;) ;)

Criminal trespass is the act of entering a property not owned by you without the permission of the owner. It can be as simple as walking into a house unannounced, or as serious as entering a home or business to commit a robbery, vandalism or other crimes. Penalties depend on the jurisdiction where the crime was committed (federal, state, local) but in general, criminal trespassing is prosecuted in most jurisdictions as a misdemeanor or a low-grade felony.

Below are the different degrees of trespassing and there penalties.

I think that Harris falls into the "Simple Trespass" category.

First-Degree
1. Generally speaking, a person commits first-degree criminal trespass when he knowingly enters and/or remains on a property or in a building knowing he is not licensed or given permission to be there by the owner or a representative. A person also commits first-degree trespass if he enters a residence or building in violation of a restraining or protective order issued by a court. The penalty for a first-time offender in many local jurisdictions is up to one year in prison and a fine, but can vary depending on where the crime occurred.

Second Degree
2. A person can be charged with a second-degree criminal trespass when he/she enters or remains in a a home or building or property knowing he/she is not licensed or allowed to be there. If convicted the penalty can be in many jurisdictions up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine, or both.

Third Degree
3. A person who enters a property knowing he/she is not licensed or allowed to be there or enters an area that is posted or fenced in to keep out intruders can be convicted of third-degree criminal trespassing. The penalty in many jurisdictions is up to three months in prison, a $500 fine, or both.

Simple Trespass
4. A person who knowingly enters a private property but does not show any intent to harm the property or individuals can be charged with simple trespassing. The penalty in most jurisdictions is usually a summons, which does not appear on your criminal record.

Filing Charges
5. Most local police departments and law enforcement agencies consider trespassing a nuisance offense and rarely prosecute. Only when an individual violates the law more than once will police generally take action. That is not the case when an individual trespasses on property during the commission of a crime, where offender is nearly often charged with trespassing in addition to other, usually more serious charges.

Yosemite Sam,
Why do you think Harris falls under the category of "Simple Trespass" rather then say, "Third Degree Trespass" ? The property she was on illegally was clearly posted to keep intruders out. Per your own explanation of the different levels, that seems to fall clearly under the "3rd Degree" category.

Because Harris appeared to be lost and had no criminal intent when she entered Bird’s property, I think that it would be difficult to charge her with “Third Degree”.
She did trespass on posted land and I guess she could be charged with ‘Third Degree” trespassing but IMHO it would be a waste of time to do it.

I guess Ward Bird is the one who needs to make that decision.

If any of you have ever tried to find a property location in the small, narrow, windy, wooded, unpaved roads of Moultonborough, then you know it is very easy to get lost. A 'Class 6' road is this type road's classification, and they are way down at the bottom of the list of road classes, which makes it VERY LOW CLASS. Living on a low class, Class 6 road, is not necessarily a bad thing, and probably a number of residents like it that way for its back woods privacy and livability and remote location.

These roads commonly do not get snow-plowed by the local town, are not paved, have no street lights, no water-sewer, no sidewalks, no town designated signs, and not enough room for a school bus to make a three point turn around. For signs, you typically see home-made, hand painted sign boards that get attached to a tree along the way or down by the last intersection or somewhere. Moultonborough has quite a large number of class 6 roads, and many will take you all the way down to the Lake Winnipesaukee waterfront where you can find a three million dollar mcmansion on a one acre lot that's just next door to a fifty-five year old, two bed cottage.

Best to go during daylight hours if you are unfamiliar and searching for a home address. My personal experience has been second hand shopping used sailboat, catarmaran, wood stove, or rowboat where someone bought a cottage or something and inherited an oldie-moldie boat that been up the hill beyond the garage for many years, etc, and they just want it gonzo.

Today's Nov 30 www.laconiadailysun.com has a lengthy front page article on this Ward Bird conviction and imprisonment.

You can read the LDS paper with the PDF format here....I think it is easier to read. :)

fatlazyless
 

Please check your facts before just posting stuff. Moultonborough has very few Class 6 roads. Most are "Private"...not owned by the town and abandoned for maintenance, etc. which is what puts them in Class 6 status. Second, these roads are plowed in winter. I don't see your comments adding a lot............ Why don't you muse on the Erica Blizzard situation. She killed a person and I believe got one month in jail. Please use your skills to argue why her sentence was fair vs. the Ward Bird punishment.

Talking about Erica Blizzard, it's probably a good time to just forget about her, and leave her alone. Justice isn't perfect, but she was tried by a jury of 12 in Belknap County court in Laconia, which is her home town, and the vote was 7-5, and 8-4 on the two real serious charges. Not guilty is not guilty, and that's the way the justice system worked.

To get a conviction, it requires a jury of twelve to vote 12-0, which must be very difficult to do. Just think about what it would take to get twelve different posters on this forum to all agree similarly.

..................

Hey, that link in post #135 is terrific and is definately the best way to read the LaDaSun so thanks for that!

And, the LaDaSun article was written by someone named Michael Cousineau from the NH Sunday Times which is the Sunday edition of the Union Leader, and the Union Leader has been editorialy supporting Ward Bird.

The Supreme Court only needs a majority. Not all have to agree. Why not other trial using the majority?

Capt. Obvious
 

You don't watch zombie movies, do you?

I wonder if Bird met the following requirements for posting signs?


Under state law (RSA 635:4), the legal manner of posting calls for posting durable signs with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing," in letters at least 2 inches high, and with the owner's name and address. The signs may be no further than 100 yards apart on all sides of the property and shall also be posted at gates, bars and all commonly used entrances.

These are the signs that Bird has on his property:

She SAY's she was lost, which I don't believe for a second. She was given precise and clear directions to the property she wanted to see. She knowingly and purpesly entered private property, ignoring pricise instructions and ignoring the clearly posted signs.
I know this area. It is ONE way in and ONE way out. There is NO getting lost. for the average person with half a brain it is impossible.

very late
 

I'm very late to this thread...and have not read the whole thing thru...so if my question has already been addressed, I'm sorry.
But, as I read this story in the UL on Sunday, all I could think is, "what is this guy hiding?" I mean, you want to take a walk on my property? No big deal. I may ask if I can help you with something, but I'm not going to point a gun at you, and ask you to get out. I may invite you in for a beer, though. Now, granted, I don't have all the facts. There is probably more to it...something like, people are always passing thru there, and he is sick of it...or something like that. But if not, what is the big deal? Why does he feel threatened?
We all like to come across like nice, friendly, NH folk...but this sort of flies in the face....no?????

I'm not sure if this particular question has been raised in this thread sa. I guess it's a valid question. I mean me personally I would not have done what Mr. Bird did. There are many on this thread that agree with the statement that you have made. If it were my wife that Ward Bird waived the gun at you can bet I'd be pretty pissed off. Especially if she was only lost looking for help.

Here's the deal though. This woman was most likely NOT lost. This woman was also most likely hostile. Ward was injured and probably physically in pain and limited. Maybe he felt her aggressions warranted a threat. I don't know if we will ever know.

Let's take all of the personal information out of the equation now. Let's go back to the root of this thing. We can never know for sure what Ward was actually thinking or feeling and we will never know 100% how the woman was behaving at the time. Anything I have said has been pure speculation and all my points have been raised in order to show a particular case in which pulling out a firearm might be justifiable. Here are my critical questions that I would like to have answered:

At what point is it legal for one to pull out a firearm in order to protect themselves on their own property? Is there ANY time where this is legal? What if Ward was a woman and the trespasser was a Man? If my wife was home with my kids and a large man was peering in the windows and he wouldn't leave could she pull a gun out? Would a case like that even be prosecuted? I have raised these question in a prior post but nobody has offered an opinion.

Finally sa and this is the absolute most important question, I pose this to you FLL and anyone else that has an opinion in this case: Does the punishment fit the crime? The Judge didn't think so. Do you?

There is No proof or any corroborating witness's, that he ever pointed a gun at anybody. Only the woman "saying" that he waved it in her face.

Yes, the punishment fits the crime if the crime is “criminal threatening under RSA 631:4 (2007)”.

IMHO I think the “Judge” should have left his personal feelings out of this.

If you would have asked me if I think Bird should have been charged with criminal threatening, my answer would be NO.
Unfortunately Bird and Harris collided and this whole thing got out of control. Bad lawyers, a bad Judge and lack of knowledge of the law/laws.

What if the case involved a baseball bat instead of a gun. Would there be the same outcome of a trial or are we "Gun Phobic"?

If the same complaint was made, assuming it is one's word against the others. Change the weapon from a gun to a bat, knife, sword, rock, bow and arrow, spear, or anything that can be construed a threat. How would the case be handled?

I bet this thread would not exist.

My question - one of many I suppose in all of this - is, did she come up and ring the bell FIRST, as most people would do when approaching a strange house? Or did, she just get out of her car and start walking around the property, looking in the windows, etc? If you come up and ring my bell, I'm certainly not coming to the door armed for bear, heck - don't want to scare the Girl Scout selling me cookies :). However, if you are walking around my house and peering in my windows, I'm going to be curious and slightly on the defensive. Do I approach you with a firearm first, highly unlikely, and prob. not what Ward did either. Am I mentally - and possibly otherwise - prepared for a confrontation in the event it goes that way, likely. But it will start out with a "can I help you?" and it's up to the trespasser to answer "correctly" and progress the conversation civilly from there. Remember, you are on MY property, it is up to YOU to make nice and explain your reasons for being there in the first place. I live there, I own the place, it's my domain. You have come on to my property - with out my permission, passed a number of no trespassing signs and are poking around!? You had better be ready to talk and I had better like what you are about to say, or else (I think) we have a problem.

So, what was said between them and the timing of the events is key to all of this. However - I still maintain that he got the short end of the stick and was wronged on many levels, period!

You are correct...I agree with you...and for that reason the "waving a broom" which is less threatening than a bat is even a more appropriate self defense tool. Had Ward Bird had the learned NH legal sense to hold a bat or a broom down by his side in as non-threatening a manner as possible, then it's probably most likely that the Carrol County attorney would definately not have prosecuted him for felony threatening.

Most likely the tresspassing woman would not have filed a complaint in the first place....and it would be basically a non-incident......just a small faux pas!

I don't think we are getting "Gun Phobic". The law is very clear when it comes to firearms. However, it is left up to interpretation when it comes to bats, knifes, swords, rocks, bow and arrows, and spears though.

Here is what the law says about your question (and it is a good queston):

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 625
PRELIMINARY


Section 625:11
625:11 General Definitions. – The following definitions apply to this code.
I. "Conduct'' means an action or omission, and its accompanying state of mind, or, a series of acts or omissions.
II. "Person'', "he'', and "actor'' include any natural person and, a corporation or an unincorporated association.
III. "Element of an offense'' means such conduct, or such attendant circumstances, or such a result of conduct as:
(a) Is included in the definition of the offense; or
(b) Establishes the required kind of culpability; or
(c) Negatives an excuse or justification for such conduct; or
(d) Negatives a defense under the statute of limitations; or
(e) Establishes jurisdiction or venue.
IV. "Material element of an offense'' means an element that does not relate exclusively to the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue or to any other matter similarly unrelated to (1) the harm sought to be prevented by the definition of the offense, or (2) any justification or excuse for the prescribed conduct.
V. "Deadly weapon'' means any firearm, knife or other substance or thing which, in the manner it is used, intended to be used, or threatened to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
VI. "Serious bodily injury'' means any harm to the body which causes severe, permanent or protracted loss of or impairment to the health or of the function of any part of the body.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.

Broom defense sweeps New Hampshire safe!
 

Yes, a gun unlike a knife has pretty much just one purpose, while a broom has both a broom handle on one end and a straw broom end at the other so it is perceived to be much less threatening. One can say something like; "While sweeping the floor, I heard a tap-tap-tap on the window so I stepped outside to see who was there?" if a county attorney decides it is reasonable to throw the book at you for defending yourself with a broom.

Reasonable doubt?
 

Hazlenut said: "We can never know for sure what Ward was actually thinking or feeling and we will never know 100% how the woman was behaving at the time."

He's right, of course. But neither could the jury know, for sure. Wouldn't that uncertainty have constituted "reasonable doubt," preventing a conviction?

Should Ward be released? - yes, we think so.

Was he an "unintended consequence" of a perhaps poorly crafted law? - yes, we think so.

Did the case get out of hand, driven by personalities? - yes, we think so.

Can we really resolve the case on this forum, knowing less than what presumably the jury knew? - probably not.

I have lived in NH for 40+ years and I have Never heard that holding a bat or a broom was considered "the learned NH legal sense" as a defense tool. I am not sure of just what that term is supposed to mean. Does the term actually exist, or is it something you just conjured up in your own little mind ?
Maybe we should issue all our soldiers and law enforcement personnel brooms and take away their firearms. I am sure they will feel much safer ! I am also sure that the mere presence of someone brandishing a broom will surely stop all the bad guys and girls in their tracks !! :rolleye2:
I can guarantee you that if you show up uninvited and unwelcome on my privately posted property and start wandering around unannounced, it won't be a useless bat or a broom I will be holding when I come out to find out who you are and what the hell you want !!
The reasons for which I say that and mean it are simple. I don't know you ! I don't know what your intentions are ! and you could easily be armed !
Am I going to take a chance and just assume your there to pick flowers and come prancing out with a useless broom as you suggest ? I Don't Think So !!!
You will hopefully never give me a reason to let you know it's there but it will be there.

And if I may be so stupid as to ask, what one purpose is that?

my questions/ opinions..
 

Maybe my real question is this...does anyone in this forum know this person, and his land? I guess I was curious if at some point he has been invloved with a land dipute with neighbors, and is therefore trying to prevent any sale of abutting property. Therefore protecting his privacy or property value. That might make more sense. If he is trying to somehow block a sale, I can understand his hostility toward a potential buyer.
Or even if he is just known to locals as a "grumpy old man"...things like this might make the situation a bit more understandable.
Someone here must know...
As to other issues brought up here...specifically, when would I think it OK to pull a gun. I would say, I guess if someone is trying to force their way into the house, unannounced, without knocking...I'm shooting, never mind "pulling the gun". Fire away.
But, for someone passing thru my property, unannounced or otherwise. As long as there are no unusual circumstances (like they are holding a weapon, or appear to be mentally/emotionally deficient) I don't think I'd consider self defense. Unless I asked them to stay put, and they continued toward me. Or somehow began acting erractic. But if they asked directions, or said they were just passing thru...no problem.
If I had asked this guy directions, or some simple question about some land I thought he might be familiar with, and he kibeyed out, and pulled weapon, I'd call him an ***** as well. If I thought he had pointed the weapon at me, I'd call the police as well.
Anyway...someone must know...is this just grumpy old man syndrom?

sa meredith,
I have known ward for close to 20 years. A grumpy old man he is not. As far as there being some kind of land dispute, I am not aware of one.
The side of the mountain where Ward and his family live, has been in his wifes family for as long as I have lived in the lakes region. I used to help my father check the electrical connections on the lift towers every winter when Wards father in law operated the ski slope.
There good decent hard working people.

Oh my god!!!!
 

So, as stated earlier, I knew very little about the case, but posted a couple of times anyway..but have now done some research...
HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE OPENED FIRE!
I know who this woman is...I live in the same town where she was constantly bothered by neighbors about her house/trailor. Anyone who has an even mild affection for animals would want this woman gone. When she was in the news a few years back, I took a drive by her place, just to see what all the fuss was....HOLY CHRIST... how could anyone live like the that. The smell alone, FROM OUTSIDE, was simply unbearable. And, yes, she is very abrasive. A very confrontational person...at least this is what is common knowledge in town. I have never had any dealing with her directly. I believe they removered 50 some odd animals from her home. Obviosly neglected. Heart breaking...just heart breaking. Many could not be saved. Many people donated to save some of them thru surgury etc... most were adopted.
Anyway...this is a stange person, to be sure....
I retract any negative comments I may have made about Bird...in a million years, I would not want this woman around me...no where near.
I have no doubt there are two sides to this story...
In case you are interested:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1...d-with-assault

I doubt he's hiding anything, I think he just wants to be left alone and does not appreciate unwelcome people wandering around on his property. Maybe a bit of an anti-social attitude, but one I think he is entitled to if it's what suits him.

I read the article that you posted and found an interesting statment that came from a couple by the name of Jeffrey and Kay Bird. They live/lived near Harris when she was having a problem with the animals and police.
Does anyone know if they are related to Ward Bird?

This is what the article said:

Jeffrey and Kay Bird, who have been living a few doors down from Harris for nearly 14 years, said yesterday that they have never had a problem with Harris, but feel sympathy for the animals locked away in her home.
"A lot of people have had problems with her, but we've never had a bad word with her," Jeffrey Bird said, sitting on his shaded front porch. Kay Bird said, "I feel sorry for her, but she hasn't abided by the rules."

YS,

So what!

I know of a basketball player that played in Boston years ago who liked animals. His first name is Larry. I wonder if there is a connection there? :laugh:

I see no importance at all in whatever you are trying to connect.

R2B

You're right....Silly me :D