Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11168)

LadyEMT 11-18-2010 08:28 AM

Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough
 
PLEASE help Ward Bird, his family, friends and the Moultonborough community that he lives in. His case needs public attention, and support. You can find all the info you may need by visiting this web adderess. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169135639777900

loopcharged 11-18-2010 08:36 AM

Free ward Bird!
 
The state of NH in conjunction with the Moultonborough police dept. Are grossley out of control. I have also had the displeasure of experiancing the wrath of a system which penilizes citizens for telling the truth by imprisoning them and stealing thier children. Please write the Govenor, your senator/congressman and say a prayer in support of Ward Bird and his family/community in an effort to right this wrong. You can also show your support by joining Free Ward Bird on facebook. Thank you, Dave A. Rossetti

loopcharged 11-18-2010 08:51 AM

Free Ward Bird
 
United we stand!

ITD 11-18-2010 09:51 AM

Wow, tough case, I guess the waving the gun around part is contested, but three years seems like a harsh punishment even if that is the case.

Seems to me a more appropriate punishment would be to take the guns away plus probation for a year or so, especially if this guy has no prior indications of violent behavior. Just seems like a travesty in that this guy obviously wants to be left alone and was minding his own business when some ditz drives past no trespass signs, ignores prior instructions about not to drive past a trailer and intrudes on this guy. Of course on the other hand, he was warned that this lady might mistakenly come on his property by his niece and he knew what she was driving, so the gun probably wasn't needed. Still, from what I see here, the sentence doesn't fit the crime and should be reduced.

wuwu 11-18-2010 09:54 AM

Free ward bird!
 
Thank you ladyEMT for your post! I, too, believe a terrible injustice has been done to Ward Bird! Drunk drivers, drunk boaters and sex offenders receive less of a sentence than this! This man is a HONEST person and a fantastic father! We must undo this injustice! http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...010114bird.pdf
www.courts.state.nh.us
Please read what a convicted felon, who was on parole, said so she didn't violate HER parole.
It is a real shame to let Ward Bird spend one more night in prison!

LadyEMT 11-18-2010 10:45 AM

As well as getting the word out, I have known Ward and his family for the past 10 years.. Long enough to know that this conviction needs to be relooked at. I have written a character letter on his behalf, and will be attaching it to any emails I send out, ie; congressmen, senators, governor... I will do what I can for Ward and his family !!

RI Swamp Yankee 11-18-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyEMT (Post 144068)

Can not see the page
Quote:

You must log in to see this page.

wuwu 11-18-2010 01:35 PM

Free ward bird!
 
more on FREE WARD BIRD
Man's Prison Sentence Sparks Anger In Community
www.wmur.com/news/25839677/detail.html

LadyEMT 11-18-2010 03:31 PM

I am sorry RI Swamp Yankee.. I failed to realize that unless people had a FB account, some people would not be able to see it..

Truely sorry..

nicole 11-18-2010 03:35 PM

Thank you so much for posting this-what an outrage. I just joined his Facebook page and my family and I will be writing letters. I will pass this on to as many people as I can.

magicrobotmonkey 11-18-2010 03:54 PM

Wow, this is a crazy story. I just met ward this summer and was buying a lot of produce from him. The story about him definitely doesn't fit the man I've been working with all summer.

secondcurve 11-18-2010 06:54 PM

Blizzard's punishment wasn't nearly as severe as this and she killed someone. I guess on that basis maybe the sentence should be suspended? However, old Ward should learn to keep his gun at rest unless he is really threatened. It certainly is a crazy world.

Lakesrider 11-18-2010 06:56 PM

With the new early release program, he will be out in 90 days. Wait and see. What a waste of tax payers money to put this guy in jail....

My email will go out tomorrow. I need to calm down before I write it....;)

RI Swamp Yankee 11-18-2010 08:19 PM

hmmm ..... I wonder what part of No Tresspassing she didn't understand. When I see a sign like that I tend to expect the owner would be upset to find me on the property so I keep my distance. Government installations have been known to post signs saying No Tresspassing, if someone there in a uniform points a gun at me can I file charges? .... yup, didn't think so.

secondcurve 11-18-2010 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee (Post 144136)
hmmm ..... I wonder what part of No Tresspassing she didn't understand. When I see a sign like that I tend to expect the owner would be upset to find me on the property so I keep my distance. Government installations have been known to post signs saying No Tresspassing, if someone there in a uniform points a gun at me can I file charges? .... yup, didn't think so.

The supposed trespasser got the go ahead from the niece who gave old Ward a call, so he certainly could,'t have been startled . Further, he knew a house was for sale in the area so it shouldn't have come as a surprise that someone mistakenly might show up in his door. Plus, it was broad daylight and again his niece told him a lady was coming. Finally, my mommy always taught me that it was not proper to use cuss words in the presence of ladies. Maybe 90-days in the big house would do old Ward some good.

wuwu 11-18-2010 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve (Post 144146)
The supposed trespasser got the go ahead from the niece who gave old Ward a call, so he certainly could,'t have been startled . Further, he knew a house was for sale in the area so it shouldn't have come as a surprise that someone mistakenly might show up in his door. Plus, it was broad daylight and again his niece told him a lady was coming. Finally, my mommy always taught me that it was not proper to use cuss words in the presence of ladies. Maybe 90-days in the big house would do old Ward some good.

you forgot to mention..the supposed trespasser was also told if you see a no trespassing signs or a white work trailer YOU went to far!

secondcurve 11-19-2010 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwu (Post 144155)
you forgot to mention..the supposed trespasser was also told if you see a no trespassing signs or a white work trailer YOU went to far!

Good point. My bad. He probably legally had the right to shoot her for making a mistake and getting lost. I have never been lost while driving my car in unfamiliar territory, I am sure you haven't either and old Ward certainty never has made a mistake of such magnitude.

tis 11-19-2010 07:39 AM

In reading this, there HAS to be a missing link. Did he know this person? Had she aggravated him in the past? Did she go there purposely after the niece had told her it wasn't the right place to go? THere must be some kind of history. I don't blame the guy for protecting his property but most people don't run out with a guy shouting at someone because they got lost. As an outsider, it just seems to me there is something we are not hearing here.

tummyman 11-19-2010 08:00 AM

Let's look at a recent legal case for penalty......
 
Somehow there is a wide difference in the sentence that Erica Blizzard received vs. Ward Bird. In one case a person is killed and in the other, no physical injury. Guess he maybe didn't have the "right" legal counsel. There does not seem to be equal treatment under the law in this situation when you look at the Blizzard case. There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. The law isn't intended to destroy a person for relatively minor issues......... WAKE UP !

MarkinNH 11-19-2010 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve (Post 144146)
The supposed trespasser got the go ahead from the niece who gave old Ward a call, so he certainly could,'t have been startled . Further, he knew a house was for sale in the area so it shouldn't have come as a surprise that someone mistakenly might show up in his door. Plus, it was broad daylight and again his niece told him a lady was coming. Finally, my mommy always taught me that it was not proper to use cuss words in the presence of ladies. Maybe 90-days in the big house would do old Ward some good.

There is NO "supposed trespasser" about it. The person, who from what I have read is NO Lady, clearly and blatantly entered onto property that was clearly marked as private.
The "supposed trespasser" also did not get the "go ahead" from the niece to enter Wards property. Apparently the "supposed trespasser" was clearly told by both the niece and the realtor, to Turn Around if she got to the white trailer. so why didn't the dumb Bch do as she was instructed to do and turn around at the white trailer ? Instead she chose to ignore what she had been told to do as well as ignore All the signs because she was lost. Lost my A$$ !!
How lost could she truly have been ? I have been in there several times and this is not a housing development with lots of little side roads. Turn the car around and go back the way you came. It is not a difficult concept for most people.
None of us were there, so it is unfair and wrong for any of us to assume and speculate whether or not Ward acted in an irrational manor and / or that he should have acted or behaved differently. There are only 2 people who know EXACTLY what happened that day. Having known Ward and Ginny for better the 20 years, I have to and happily, choose to side with and support them. Ward may be a man who speaks his mind and stands his ground but a lunatic or psychotic or irrational, as some people have refereed to him as, He is not !. These are hard working decent people, to lock him up for 3-6 years or even for 90 days is ludicrous and is indeed a travesty of justice !!
I blame the woman who started all this by ignoring the signs and trespassing, the police for not using simple human common sense and especially the county attorney who ultimately chose to pursue the original charges and push it until she got her way. Hell hath no fury like a womans wrath !!

Happy Gourmand 11-19-2010 08:13 AM

I'm with Tis
 
There just has to be another side to this bizarre story. Was anybody from the forum in the courtroom to hear the whole story? I have no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious to know "the rest of the story."

chipj29 11-19-2010 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand (Post 144170)
There just has to be another side to this bizarre story. Was anybody from the forum in the courtroom to hear the whole story? I have no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious to know "the rest of the story."

I completely agree. I watched this story on the news last night, and my first thought was...what am I missing?

VitaBene 11-19-2010 09:03 AM

Petition
 
There are several petitions going around town to free Mr Bird. I signed one last night at the athletic awards at the Academy.

From what I understand, there really is no other side to the story other than an overzealous prosecution of a case by liberal former County Attorney, Robin Gordon (recently ousted in the elections earlier this month).

Lakesrider 11-19-2010 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tummyman (Post 144167)
Somehow there is a wide difference in the sentence that Erica Blizzard received vs. Ward Bird. In one case a person is killed and in the other, no physical injury. Guess he maybe didn't have the "right" legal counsel. There does not seem to be equal treatment under the law in this situation when you look at the Blizzard case. There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. The law isn't intended to destroy a person for relatively minor issues......... WAKE UP !

Exactly. Maybe if it was dark rainy/foggy, had been drinking, and running around his property at speed, and simply ran into the woman, he would have been let off......:eek:

wuwu 11-19-2010 10:11 AM

Free ward bird!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29 (Post 144173)
I completely agree. I watched this story on the news last night, and my first thought was...what am I missing?

You are not missing anything! This is why this community has come together to stand with the Bird family.

fatlazyless 11-19-2010 10:51 AM

Have you seen the long article in today's Union Leader starting on page B1 complete with two very attitude-positive color photos of Ward and his wife, Ginny. The article is most definately written with a helpfull editorial slant in support of Ward. It says he had a 45-caliber handgun so does that mean something like a world war-II combat pistol or does it mean a western style six-shooter? .... :rolleye2:


In a case like this, even if one manages to stay out of prison, then how much do you end up paying to a defense attorney who usually gets their money up-front, before a sentence is issued by a court. You can probably just about go broke just by trying to prove your case in court.....from what I have heard? ...:rolleye2:

The Union Leader article brings up some negative background info about the plaintiff and it suggests the info was not allowed to be heard in the trial.

So is it the reporter or the newspaper editor who makes the decision on how the reporter writes up a news report; slant positive - slant negative - slant neutral ??? It's pretty common for the Union Leader as well as other papers to chose photographs that help to support their story slant.

As the saying goes; there's two sides to every story.

RailroadJoe 11-19-2010 11:17 AM

If he had Blizzard's money it may have been a different ending. Equal justice under the law! You have got to be kidding. Maybe Lynch will pardon him, if he can.

RI Swamp Yankee 11-19-2010 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve (Post 144146)
The supposed trespasser got the go ahead from the niece who gave old Ward a call, ......

That fact is not supported in the appeal
Quote:

During her drive to the property, she became lost and stopped at the
home of the defendant’s niece, where she asked for directions. The niece told
her that the most direct route to the property was Emerson Path to Yukon
Trail, and then a road to the left with a small bridge over a stream. The niece
told her that if she passed a white “job trailer,” she was on the wrong property
The niece only gave directions and a warning.


One troubling phrase that was repeated through the appeal was:
Quote:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,..
Since defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty it is the state that has the burden of proof. Trial judge and appeal judge(s) can not place the burden on defendant and view evidence in favor of the state.

Seems like there were a few more errors by appeal justices too.

Slickcraft 11-19-2010 01:59 PM

I can think of a number of situations when a homeowner would want to display a weapon so as to warn away a suspicious stranger. Of course, not being there, it is hard to say if such display was warranted or not here. In any case, the harsh penalty is totally unwarranted.

It sounds like state law dealing with home defense needs some work to make it clear that a homeowner does have the right display a weapon when a stranger refuses an order to leave or otherwise acts in a threatening way. There is a recent addition to RSA 631.4 that hints at this but there are no special provisions for home defense. Right now you have to show that someone else first threatened to do you in prior to your displaying the fact that you are armed. That may be little late in many situations.

Quote:

631:4 Criminal Threatening. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(a) By physical conduct, the person purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact; or
(b) The person places any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(d) The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terrorize any person; or
(e) The person threatens to commit any crime of violence, or threatens the delivery or use of a biological or chemical substance, with a purpose to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of causing such fear, terror or inconvenience; or
(f) The person delivers, threatens to deliver, or causes the delivery of any substance the actor knows could be perceived as a biological or chemical substance, to another person with the purpose of causing fear or terror, or in reckless disregard of causing such fear or terror.
II. (a) Criminal threatening is a class B felony if the person:
(1) Violates the provisions of subparagraph I(e); or
(2) Uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V in the violation of the provisions of subparagraph I(a), I(b), I(c), or I(d).
(b) All other criminal threatening is a misdemeanor.
III. (a) As used in this section, "property'' has the same meaning as in RSA 637:2, I; "property of another'' has the same meaning as in RSA 637:2, IV.
(b) As used in this section, "terrorize'' means to cause alarm, fright, or dread; the state of mind induced by the apprehension of hurt from some hostile or threatening event or manifestation.

[Paragraph IV effective January 1, 2011.]

IV. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act under this section.

Onshore 11-19-2010 02:28 PM

Ok so it's been about 20 years but when I was doing habit surveys as a summer job in college I wandered into the backyard of an individual who did not appreciate the presence of me and my co-worker. That individual did have a rifle and while I don't recall any obscenities being used he did make it clear that we needed to leave his property. I have always, and will always believe that we should have been paying more attention to where we were at the time. In 20 years it never once crossed my mind that that individual had done anything wrong. But now I'm curious, in the eyes of the legal community, what about a situation like this would qualify it as "criminal" threatening?

MarkinNH 11-19-2010 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe (Post 144193)
If he had Blizzard's money it may have been a different ending. Equal justice under the law! You have got to be kidding. Maybe Lynch will pardon him, if he can.

When you have a biased County Attorney who's case history has always seemed to favor the womans side, you don't need money. The unofficial word I hear, is it that she prefers donuts over éclairs. ;) ;)

ishoot308 11-19-2010 04:04 PM

O.K. so from what I understand here someone trespassed on Mr Wards property even if accidental. The owner displayed a gun and yelled obscenities at the trespasser and told her to leave. Mr. ward did not fire a shot at her. Am I understanding this correctly that Mr Ward is in trouble for brandishing a firearm on his own property??

MarkinNH 11-19-2010 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308 (Post 144223)
O.K. so from what I understand here someone trespassed on Mr Wards property even if accidental. The owner displayed a gun and yelled obscenities at the trespasser and told her to leave. Mr. ward did not fire a shot at her. Am I understanding this correctly that Mr Ward is in trouble for brandishing a firearm on his own property??

That is the gist of it. I believe he was indicted and prosecuted for Criminal Threatening.

Quote:

In April 2009, the court sentenced the defendant to prison
for no less than three and no more than six years, citing RSA 651:2, II-g, which
imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of three years “[i]f a person is
convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession . . . of a deadly
weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm.”
You can read it in detail more thoroughly here.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...010114bird.pdf

VitaBene 11-19-2010 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308 (Post 144223)
O.K. so from what I understand here someone trespassed on Mr Wards property even if accidental. The owner displayed a gun and yelled obscenities at the trespasser and told her to leave. Mr. ward did not fire a shot at her. Am I understanding this correctly that Mr Ward is in trouble for brandishing a firearm on his own property??

That is my understanding, Dan.

They said he went wrong when he showed and presented his handgun. He was already carrying it in a small of the back holster when he pulled it out. He did not threaten to shoot her or aim at her.

I wonder how this plays with open carry laws.

fatlazyless 11-19-2010 07:37 PM

Today's LaDaSun has an article that's a lot more detailed than what's in today's Union Leader.

It sounds from the LaDaSun article like the five NH supreme court justices, hearing the case on appeal, were negatively impressed by the defendant waving a 45-caliber handgun around in sight of the plaintiff. That was not a good thing to do.....in the eyes & ears & brains of this court!

He should of just used a broom.....you know....go wave a broom around.....that would probably work......something to remember here......don't wave a 45 around....when a broom will do the job. If he had just used a broom he wouldn't be in this mess right now....ok.....maybe a hockey stick or a tennis racquet would be good too? Hey, maybe find a potential tennis partner all at the same time? It takes two to play tennis! Better to go get along on the tennis court than take your case to the supreme court.....plus you get a whole lot better work-out too! .. :):D:)

Hey, maybe if these two smacked a ball around a tennis court against one another they would start to get along.....it's surprising what a good game of tennis can do to build a little good will between two....so who know's....in tennis, someone wins and someone loses.....until the next game.......'duke it out on the tennis court and stay out of jail.'

Three years of legal back & forth....then off to prison for three years or something....at this point....he's probably happy to go to prison just to be getting it finally settled. Hey, I hear they have internet connections in the state prison.....so....he could show up on this forum here maybe....how about that!

PennyPenny 11-19-2010 08:13 PM

Possible missing link
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tis (Post 144164)
In reading this, there HAS to be a missing link. Did he know this person? Had she aggravated him in the past? Did she go there purposely after the niece had told her it wasn't the right place to go? THere must be some kind of history. I don't blame the guy for protecting his property but most people don't run out with a guy shouting at someone because they got lost. As an outsider, it just seems to me there is something we are not hearing here.

Family argueing over the land for sale. You are right that there is more to the story. Not that Locky was right or wrong or the woman was either. Long history of the family not getting along. I agree the sentence was harsh. I know the family as well as many other people. All good people in their own right but just bad blood along the line.

tis 11-19-2010 08:31 PM

Thank you PennyPenny for enlightening us a bit. I felt there had to be some previous bad blood. If he is such a great guy as everyone is saying, he had to have a reason to be so upset. I just can't imagine a normal person greeting someone who is "lost" with a gun.

songkrai 11-19-2010 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH (Post 144227)
That is the gist of it. I believe he was indicted and prosecuted for Criminal Threatening.



You can read it in detail more thoroughly here.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...010114bird.pdf

Thanks for the link to the actual court findings. I wonder how many have actually read this court decision.

And if one does not like the RSA's in this case then contact or petition your state representative to change the law.

RailroadJoe 11-20-2010 05:40 AM

Maybe, just maybe, our justice system will realize that the Constitution was written by men with foresight, with NO political ambitions. Time to get a litle common sense.

Bad enough the lower courts are (blank) but even the Supreme Court needs work.

wifi 11-20-2010 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis (Post 144237)
Thank you PennyPenny for enlightening us a bit. I felt there had to be some previous bad blood. If he is such a great guy as everyone is saying, he had to have a reason to be so upset. I just can't imagine a normal person greeting someone who is "lost" with a gun.

I don't believe there was bad blood between the parties involved, certainly if there was, one of the attorneys would have brought this out to benefit their side. It was simply that the person was warned NOT to trespass and they did anyway. The property for sale was owned by Wards sister in law and Ward had a FROR on it (ALL publicly available information). I went to visit that land many times, both with and without a REA in tow, with the intent of purchasing it.

None of the times was I chased by someone, BUT I didn't cross over the boundary well marked with no trespassing signs. There was also adequate room to turn around, if you missed the small driveway crossing the stream to the for sale property.

What is the ambiguity in a no trespassing sign? What is in the mind of someone who crosses this sign then won't leave, or, if reminded by the property owner they are trespassing, doesn't issue an immediate apology turn on their heals and run...its not to the benefit of the land owner, for sure. The message is being sent you can do what ever you want on someone else's posted private property until (or if) the police finally arrive and they decide what that person can do.

Another factoid is that there is almost 2000 feet of driveway between that job trailer and Wards house, how could a reasonable person not know they were deep into someone else's posted private property? Thank you Slickcraft for noting the law will change on 1/1/11, obviously the general court saw a problem with the laws as they are now interpreted and currently enforced. Maybe, Lynch, based on the law changing, will take an interest and reverse more of this liberal insanity. Time for a petition to the Guvnah ?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.