interesting article...
 

On Rand Paul's Daily Paul site from someone obviously closer to the family. If this is closer to the truth than what the media is spewing, Sisti blew it in court.

http://dailypaul.com/node/149906

FLL, normally I can ignore your goofy ramblings because it is what's expected from you. In this case, I find your stupid jokes in ridiculously poor taste and wish you'd go to McD's for breakfast and stay away from your computer. Ward Bird is a kind man, father, husband and friend. He shouldn't be in jail, period.

twoplustwo, thank you for that link. It certainly does provide a bit more of the detail we've all been seeking.

At this point I'm quite surprised that this story has not attracted national attention. I suspect it won't be long before it does.

Amen. I expect we'll see it on Drudge Report soon...

Something is definitely not right here... You can carry a holstered gun down main st legally without a carry permit! You have every right to protect your home and property and having a firearm in your hand or holstered when confronting a trespasser on your property is not illegal.

Unless I am completely missing something, this is a travesty of justice that I hope gathers attention and is overturned.

Dan

When in Hell are the court systems going to realize that all testimony is relevant. This not allowing testimony is stupid and juvenile. Time the lawyers stop their stupid remarks and get to the truth, even if it benefits the other person. Money is nice, but honesty and justice is better.

One of the problems in this case, irrespective of the "protect your property" aspect, is this:

By law: If you cause a person to Believe, either by your gesture(s) actions, or words, that they are in Danger..ie threatened, ...That is considered "Assault".

If you actually carry through with the threat ....or merely touch the person, that can be considered "Battery". NB

NoBozo -- Sounds like lawyer talk to me.

I've been following this thread, and the related stories online and in the news. I've also been a big a fan of the 2nd amendment for some time as well.

You are correct that NH permits unconcealed open carry, and is basically a shall-issue concealed carry state.

Where this incident seems to get into a gray area is when Bird went from *carry* to *brandish*. I think that he is being overly prosecuted for this incident, and the punishment does not seem to fit the crime. And of course, none of us were there, so we are all speculating... My personal speculation though is that he might have over-reacted a bit. I am not sure that he truly felt reasonably threatened by this trespassing woman to warrant actually displaying a firearm.

FWIW, I've been in a similar situation to him on my own property a couple of times, including once when a couple of FBI special agents showed up looking for a previous owner of this property shortly after I purchased it. I was armed when I met them on the porch, and knew that these two guys in a big sedan didn't belong on my property, but did not immediately resort to brandishing the .45 (H&K USP-C) that was on my person.

As a gun owner and daily carryer you have (IMO) a responsibility to both brandish and use the weapon responsibly.

Overall, I support Bird and do not think a trespasser such as this woman has any case to file a claim as she did, but I also think that he would be wise in the future to not display any firearm unless he or another person on his property was being clearly threatened.

Straight from Webster's dictionary

Definition of BRANDISH
transitive verb
1: to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

Nobody can honestly say that he "brandished" the weapon. The lady said he was waving it in her face. Members of Wards family and I assume Ward himself, say he merely removed it from the holster, to check the safety, as he stepped into his house.
IMO here lies a large portion of the problem. Where did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he "brandished" the weapon and actually threatened her ?

Just seems like people go and get themselves into all sorts of un-needed trouble by messing around with handguns. They almost always make a tenuous situation into a terrible situation. In civilian hands, as opposed to the local police, the sight of a hand gun will usually un-nerve and inflame a situation. As everybody knows, once you pull that trigger, you cannot stop that bullet .....it's too late to change your mind and undue that bullet shot.

Now, wouldn't old Ward-Boy have been much better off just to take a broom and swing it about maybe just a little bit, and maybe flash a big friendly smile in the plaintiff's direction. That would send a message that would be much less threatening than showing a .45 semi-automatic pistol which is a large handgun. For many people who are not used to seeing a handgun in the hands of a non-police officer, it is frequently a serious scary feeling for them, and very rightly so. Like come on....you see someone who is not wearing a police officers uniform with a big 45 in his hand and you most likely think.....time to get the heck away from here....

You just make mention of a handgun to a police officer and it immediately escalates the situation. Hand guns are a definate hot button issue!

This is somewhat puzzling to me. If it had been in the holster the whole time, why would the state of the safety have been suspect and required him to check it?

You contribute nothing to this discussion. You posted this stupid broomstick thing already. It's not an intelligent or thoughtful comment, and it certainly is not entertaining. If you cannot converse on par with the rest of thread, then you might be best to just sit by the sidelines and observe.

Here's the last two paragraphs from today's Nov 20 Union Leader front page report as read on the internet.

..........

In a nine-page opinion written by Associate Justice Gary Hicks, the high court found that "a rational juror could have found that the defendant's belief that it was necessary to wave his pistol to terminate Harris' trespass was not objectively reasonable."

"Considering the evidence and all inference to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the state, a rational juror readily could have found that the defendant's actions of waving and pointing a gun toward the victim, while yelling 'get the f... off my property,' constituted felony criminal threatening," the Supreme Court ruled.
..........

And, it was a unanimous decision with all five justices in agreement.

in the light most favorable to the state was an error by the appeal justices.

If applied in the light most favorable to the defendant a reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.

Appeal justice also incorrecly applied State v. Gilbert, 473 A.2d 1273, 1275-76 (Me. 1984) (upholding the trial court’s denial of a motion to acquit in a criminal threatening with a dangerous weapon case where evidence demonstrated that the victim was invited and expected at the defendant’s home and, thus, was “neither a trespasser nor reasonably perceived as such by” the defendant). since there is no evidence that the so called victim was invited and in fact the so called victim was warned not to tresspass.

Free ward bird!
 

This is the woman that went on Birds property!
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...ssault&h=ba929

She would have violated her parole!
This all seems so unfair!

Injustice
 

I just HAD to cut and paste the link from Twoplustwo if this is even 50% true it turns my stomach that Bird is serving even one day for this:

Ward Bird from Moultonborough, NH was sentenced to 3-6 years in prison for criminal threatening with a firearm.

The facts of this case, most of which were not allowed into court, should chill anyone who still thinks they have a right to be secure on their private property.

Christine Harris, a notorious animal abuser and hoarder with over 60 convictions in at least 3 states, went driving onto Mr. Bird's private, posted land. She claimed in court that she was looking at a property for sale so she could run an "educational farm."

Stopping at at least one wrong address, Mr. Bird's niece directed her to the property she was supposed to view. The niece gave her clear directions, and warned her that if she passed a white travel trailer, she had missed her turn and should turn back, as that was private property. The niece called Mr. Bird and said that he may see this "lost" person on his property.

Ms. Harris passed the trailer, did not heed the warning from the niece, and continued on toward Mr. Bird's private property after numerous (at least 12) "Private Property" and "No Tresspassing" and "DANGER!" signs.

She got out of her vehicle and began to walk around the home, looking into windows. Mr. Bird had come out onto his porch with a pistol in a holster. He saw this woman skulking around his windows and called out to her. He told her that she had received the correct directions from his niece and that the proerty she wanted was (paraphrased)"down the road and over that way."

Ms. Harris did not heed this, and accused Mr. Bird of being the spouse or boyfriend of the property owner and trying to deceive her about the property for sale, or somesuch. Mr. Bird then told her she was tresspassing, and to get off his property. Ms. Harris decided to stay and argue with him about not wanting to sell to her.

He told her he was going to call the police, and turned to go back into the house. He removed the pistol from its holster to check that the safety was on as he was entering the home.

But Ms. Harris, facing more felony counts in court at the time, whipped out her cell phone and called police first! She claimed Mr. Bird was "waving a gun in my face" and threatened her, blah blah... In my opinon, she knew her goose would be cooked if this man got a hold of the police before her. Mr. Bird was recovering from a serious abdominal surgery at the time, and was moving slow, with dozens of stitches to his abdomen. (I am hearing from people who know him that it was surgery to repair his abdominal aorta? If so, that's pretty heavy surgery and recovery, as my own father had it 7 years ago and could barely shuffle his feet, let alone charge down a porch and wave a gun around!)

Since I'm posting this story here, you all know what happened. The facts of Ms. Harris' apparent mental disorder(s) were not allowed into court.

Mr. Bird is an upstanding member of his community, active in his church, Boy Scouts, charity... he even received a Hero citation about 20 years ago for saving a woman whose Jeep overturned in a swamp; he bent the vehicle frame and held her head above water until rescue could arrive. He has a solid family, wife and four children. He has a farm business, and is really a nice all-around person who whould do anything for anyone- and he has.

There are some real freaks or just ignorant people out there commenting on these articles, saying he came out of his house waving a gun at a lady who was lost, and what a crazy gun-toting teabagger, etc... But the facts of the case, most of which were not allowed into court, are extremely important.

In my opinion, this paranoid, mentally-disturbed Christine Harris was clearly "not right" and Mr. Bird justifiably, while legally bearing a legal firearm, asked her, and then told her to leave his property after being accused of lying about who he was and lying about his property being for sale.

I don't know why I am reading this thread! Unless we know the facts, sitting in court and listening to the full proceeding, how can 90% of us make a valid statement? I agree that the Ward Bird family are great people, but I was not in court so will not comment on proceedings. PERIOD!

How can you listen to ALL the facts when most of them are no longer allowed in courts. They don't really want the WHOLE truth, only what they will allow.

Lawyers being lawyers.

I still can't get past the fact that this lady was trespassing, period. Looking at real estate does not absolve her from trespassing. She had been warned not go on this man's property. She admittedly argued with this man when he told her to get off the property. To me, that rises to the level where I think this guy would be justified revealing a firearm. No shots were fired, according to the court brief, she turned around and got into her car to leave, then apparently called the police. She caused this whole incident, and from what I read here and from the court briefs, I think this man should have been acquitted.

Apparently Mr. Ward admitted to the police that he unholstered his gun. I have to think to what I have been told by lawyers: don't talk to the police, especially if you think you are in trouble. I'm thinking that had this admission not been made, that this case would have gone differently, food for thought when dealing with police. Anyway, this guy should be freed. This woman obviously got away with trespassing and saved her own skin.

I'd like to know where the "public funds" she was going to use to buy this land was coming from?

Re-reading the article submitted by Twoplustwo I can't get this one image out of my head:
If in fact Bird was recovering from surgery and was in pain imagine dealing with a woman who most likely engaging him in some sort of argument that he was being less than truthful about the property. Based on what we have learned about the woman she appears to be less than stable. So again even if we only believe half of what we read I can imagine that he could have felt threatened by her aggressive questioning and at that point he was physically impaired due to the recent surgery. Take a look at the article submitted by wuwu I'll quote it for you:

"The owner of the dogs, Christine Harris, 54, of 75 S. Policy St., Lot 61, was charged with simple assault for allegedly shoving a tow truck operator..."

So is it a stretch to think that Ward may have felt threatened by this woman? I know the shoving incident was long after the encounter with Ward but it certainly shows what kind of "woman" she is. Is it hard for anyone to imagine that she was probably aggressive towards Mr Bird? If that is the case I go back to illustrating my point where if Mr. Bird was in pain and physically limited at the time can you really blame him for letting her know that if she persisted he was capable of defending himself and his property.

Before anyone attacks me I am merely illustrating a reasonable scenario that could have happened. I am not suggesting that I know exactly what happened. But with all of the information coming in does anyone really believe that this was a "damsel in distress" that was attacked by and ogre of a man hell bent on blood shed? It sounds to me that the State of New Hampshire has grossly failed in this case.

And you felt the need to tell us this, Why ? :confused: Read it if you choose and just move on and don't bother posting Anything in the thread. PERIOD! :confused:

Better to wave a broom & smile friendly, than to raise a gun and curse!

Old Chinese proverb: If you want an enemy for a neighbor then you should treat him like one!

I think if someone was peering into my windows, I most certainly would grab a gun!

the point is
 

they took the word of a possible fellon over that of Mr. Bird. It is scary that he goes to jail for 3 years and she continues on her way. This lady is no peach. She new exactly what she was doing. I am confused about my rights as a land owner and when it is okay to show someone a gun. I am not sure why people are thinking they are missing something. Yes we do not have all the details, but the state is trying to get the sheeple under control. This is just another small removal of your rights... test case, trial ballon.. you fill in the blanks.

have you read the news lately
 

have you read the news lately... there are alot of desperate people out there during these hard times. Robberies, mental instability, murders in small towns... you can wave your broom all you want. Never bring a broom to a gun fight or a knife fight for that matter.

Are you as Pompous an A$$ in real life, as you appear at times, on this forum ?

Old chinese proverb: It is better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

An appellate court only reviews for errors of law, not findings of fact. Mr. Bird was convicted by a jury made up of average citizens. The jury found that the facts sustained the State's claims beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge applied the law in fashioning its sentence. When the case reached the Supreme Court Mr. Bird was already convicted. Therefore the presumption of innocence no longer applied. It is no error that the court applied its review in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction. The State was the prevailing party. Likewise, from the recited facts of the instant case the court properly applied [U]State v. Gilbert[U].
That said Mr. Bird does have a legal avenue to pursue. He can petition for a writ of habeas corpus. I would suggest that his supporters look into finding an attorney experienced in post conviction pleadings. Not any old criminal attorney is competent in this area.

FREE WARD BIRD is what the big sign out front of the Congregational Church, next to the post office in Center Harbor, says.

Who knows but with their help maybe he can find some divine intervention from above?

Will most definately be less expensive than finding an attorney knowlegable with habeas corpus pleadings!

That's it. No more. I am headed to userCP and making you my first ignore post forum member. Congratulations. PS Try a spell checker.

My thoughts and prayers for the Bird family.

I understand from family members posting on the Facebook page, that today is Wards Birthday. There is also a group of friends, family and supporters gathering this morning to go to concord in a show of support. That said.
My thoughts and prayers and Bday wish's are also with Ward and his family. Having this man sit in jail is not serving justice. He is Not a threat to society and never was.
The Carrol County attourney at the time, Robin Gordon who pushed until she won this conviction should be ashamed of herself. How this woman sleeps at night I'll never understand. Of the various possible ways this case could have been handled and resolved, she fought and argued for the one way in which to destroy and damage the life of a decent hard working family man.

Let me see here.....Ward could have acted like a normal person and said something like .... "Hello there, how are you today, can I help you? .... or he could have said something a little friendlier like...."Hey there, you sure is look'n good today, what's going on?.....but no....Ward goes and waves a great big 45 hand gun around and shouts "Get the f... off my land!"

This case was first heard by a lower court and most recently by the NH Supreme Court and it had all five justices in agreement that it was indeed a case of felony threatening. It just seems like a lot of you people are not making a rational judgement on this.

Ward had the opportunity to accept a plea bargain, which I do not understand all that well, but....whatever....and he turns it down....correct?

The day that you can comment about other peoples rational thoughts or actions is going to be a very strange one indeed.

http://dailypaul.com/node/149906

Ron Paul, in Texas, has picked up this story!!

There is No proof that he ever "waved" the gun around ! Only the womans say so !
And if it were you in some similar situation, would you except a plea bargain which is still an admission of guilt, for something you Didn't Do, because it comes with a lesser sentence ?
You have finally removed All doubt, not only are you clearly a Pompous A$$ but you are most assuredly a fool and an antagonistic jerk to boot !
I suspect this thread and an innocent man sitting in prison is nothing more to you then a form of cheap entertainment.
Now, Go Away !!

It's time...
 

...to end this discussion. Just my opinion.....

I don't think a discussion and grass-roots suport campaign for an unjustly imprisoned person should be shut down simply because the thread has been invaded by a child.

The better course of action would be to remove the cancer before sacrificing the entire limb.

Protest in Concord today
 

From WMUR web site:
http://www.wmur.com/news/25877303/detail.html
Patten has submitted a House bill that would allow a property owner to display a firearm to a trespasser.

Finally, a bill from Rep Patten that I fully support. Thank you Rep. Patten for starting something that makes sense here!

Now, someone, somehow has to stop this foolishness and free a unjustly-convicted, family man. Rep. Patten, can you help here? What has happened is completely wrong!

I know the area and the no trespassing signs are very clear. No way she should have been on his property, especially after being warned about it. No way anyone should be looking into the windows of a house when they do not know the owner. Plenty of justification for Ward's reaction in my mind. He has a right to protect his family and his property!

I really cannot believe this is happening in our country.

R2B

Reluctant Contributor
 

I am not going to reread 77 posts. If I have misconstrued...PLEASE correct me. I am ON Wards SIDE. HE got screwed. I think I read that Ward had recently had a Abdominal Aneurysm Operation just prior to this altercation and was in pain (many stitches) when the women in question arrived.

I also seem to remember Ward had his pistol in a holtser..and removed the pistol to check the safety at some point. Holster belt around his waist...??

I have had that same operation THREE times in ONE year. The doctors and hospitals (3) were totally incompetant. The Fourth time was the CHARM..MASS GENERAL in Boston. They saved my life. :)

MY POINT relative to Ward. First..I have a very high threshold of pain it seems. I didn't require ANY seditives imediately after my operations or at any time afterward. I had no pain. I'm lucky.

However: When you have this operation...My incission was ~12 inches long from just below the breastbone to just above my pubic area...Zigging around my navel.

There is NO way someone in pain.. post OP would have a pistol belt with the weight of a pistol, around their waist over those stitches.. No Belts Whatsoever...not even to hold up your pants. I have worn suspenders ever since.

There must be somehing in the WARD story ..as told by others..that is not correct.....NB

it was a holster worn on the small of your back!