In today's Citizen:

Like others have stated I have no dog in this fight either I'm just blown away by the clear one-sided opinions "for" Mr. Bird. He WAY over reacted plain and simple. This is 2010 folks not the Cartwrights trying to protect their cherished Ponderosa...

Isn't there a number of utility and local town people who have a legal right to be on your land; cable, electricity, telephone, water & sewer, town assessor, DPW, and local police come to mind.

The whole concept of ownership of land needs to be re-considered because who really owns the land? If you do not pay your property taxes then the town can auction it off at a fire sale price so it's more like the town has a lien on it and you are required to pay a monthly tax payment, similar to a rent payment, to the town. So, who really owns the land, and does the land itself have any personal feelings? Does the land say, well just look at all this snow piled up on top of me, will somebody please remove all the snow so I can feel that sunshine....don't ya know.....no, the land does not usually say things like that.....at least it does not say them to me?

Does your land talk to you? ... :rolleye2:

fll ---Or if the town or state decided to take it by eminent domain, good luck fighting them. Maybe all of us need to protect our land that way.

In the case of Mr Bird though I do think they way over reacted. Going to jail for that? I think there is a lot to the story, she must have really agitated him in the past.

No, Land does not make assanine comments. That job is reserved special, Just for you because you are so proficient at it !

No, my land doesn't speak to me and I wish you wouldn't either !!

Or maybe HE has a way to short of a fuse...Just sayin. :confused:

If you walked out on to your porch to find somebody on your privately posted land, peeking in windows, and then that person wouldn't leave when told to, how would you react ? Just asking.

Mr. Bird has been wearing suspenders at least for the 25 years I have know him.

His and Ginnie's land could definitely be considered for a episode of bonanza.

He has been asking trespassers to leave his land for decades.

His very well posted land is at the very end of a road called Yukon trail.

His family lives off the grid in a beautiful home he built with the help of his wife.

This land he is protecting is the major water shed for Shannon brook.

From what I've seen and read this issue isn't from Bird having a short fuse. It seems that he took MANY reasonable precautions to keep trespassers off of and away from his property. I would like to think that in the US, and especially NH, we are entitled to our freedom and personal space.

The only REAL mistake Ward Bird made in this case appears to be offering a statement before consulting with qualified legal counsel.

Well I can tell you that if that happened at my house, I wouldn't have to worry about the peeping tom calling the cops or trying to sue me later...;)

Dan

I wouldn't pull a gun. Besides, who knows she wouldn't leave? Not you or me. Just answering.

The big question and concern at this point of the situation is.
Does this man truly deserve to spend the next 3 to 6 years behind bars for protecting his property ? NO ! However extreme his actions may seem to some the answer is still NO !
This man is not and never has been a danger to society. The standard sentence that comes with this conviction is absurd !
Erica Blizzard is out walking the street, working and living a somewhat normal life after her actions, poorly chosen or otherwise, took a human life.

Ward Bird, is destined to spend a minimum of 3 years in prison after his actions, poorly chosen or otherwise, for kicking a trespasser of his property.

Now, irrelevant of whether anybody here thinks Mr Bird acted irrationally or not. Does this sentencing sound like proper justice. NO !
To take this man away from his family, to take up prison space and tax dollars better spent on locking up a Real criminal. Is just plain, flat out, absurd.
Anyone of us, who has the kahonies to do what they feel is necessary at the time, to protect their home or property, could easily be the next person to suffer the same ludicrous sentence.
Many of you will say and think. It can't and won't happen here, not to me !
You keep thinking that !!!
I only hope that you have the kind of genuine friends and loving family that Ward Bird has. Who will be willing to fight for you and support you, the way Wards friends and family are doing for him..

This was a jury trial, right? Twelve people listened to this case being argued and unanimously decided this gentlleman was guilty of criminal threatening. The thing I can't figure out is where the heck did they find 12 peple who thought this was criminal threatening? We can all scream at the top of our lungs about the law, and the judge, and the attorneys, but if this was a jury trial then 12 other NH citizens made the decision to to return a guilty verdict. How on earth did not one of them say "hmm... I think something iis wrong here?"

Was this somehow not a jury trial?

The judge reads the law to the jurors and states to jurors that the law must be followed. Not individual opinions of jurors - but the laws.

The law apparently in this case seems to have gone too far - and no one noticed until this case.

Apparently, the law is going to be changed if legislature agrees.

Just because it is the law, does not make it right. Remember Germany in the 1930's

Unintended Consequences
 

It appears that Mr. Bird is being punished by a law that won't be found on the books. In criminal law, the "law of unintended consequences" often results in sentences that are disproportionate to the crime. I'll explain. Legislatures often respond to "hot button" issues by crafting statutes that permit or even mandate enhanced sentences when the criminal act includes certain "aggravating" factors. Often these statutes prevent judges from exercising discretion when fashioning sentences. It appears that Mr. Bird is caught in just such a situation. In his case a gun was part of the fact pattern. The New Hampshire Legislature previously enacted a law making this an aggravating factor. This resulted in a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. This is an issue that has been hotly debated for many years among academics, the judiciary and the criminal bar. What starts out as a "tough on crime" law ends up snaring average citizens in a legal nightmare.
In my view, in Mr. Birds case the prosecutor should have exercised her discretion by charging him in a way that would not yield such a draconian result.

Yes......this is a CLASSIC case of not giving the police the rope to hang you with your own words. Say nothing to the police until you secure legal counsel. It's your right not to talk to an officer unless you want to.

This is probably not relevant to this case but it came to mind after reading many of these posts. MANY of you will not remember this because it was 50 years ago.

I was in the NAVY (Onboard Ship) at the time and we had a movie every night on the mess decks.

The name of the movie was "Billy Budd". It was about a young Seaman Apprentice in the Royal Navy (Around 1812) that evidently "Touched" the "Master At Arms,"... breaching naval etiquette. The Master At Arms on a Naval Ship is the person, or persons charged with maintaining law and order onboard ship. When I was in, they actually wore a badge like a police officer.

Billy Budd (beloved by his shipmtes) was tried, convicted, and hanged at the yard..........you have to see the movie...

I remember the reaction of MY crew members to the movie.. They were mortified that such an event could happen. There was a deeper reason (Absolute Discipline) why the verdict was justified...

BUT that would not be relevant in the Bird case. NB

More Attorneys Wanted ?????
 

Seems like a perfect time for an ARMY of attorneys to offer pro-bono legal help to get this situation resolved NOW. How about Jim Moir, who earned many $$$'s defending Erica Blzzard so she only got a month in jail for killing someone? Where are all these defenders now that a terrible wrong has happened? Time for Mr. Moir and an large number of legal experts to step forward and work pro-bono to get this man home for Christmas. This is a stupid waste and NH, including the governor, needs to step up/buck up. Wonder how many legal volunteers will step forward..... We also need to get a group going on getting this into the national media...FOX News, CNN, etc... why haven't they already been on board????

http://freewardbird.org/

There are also two Facebook pages pertaining to this situation. You do need to be a facebook member to access them There is plenty of reading here for anybody interested.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...69135639777900

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...67812149908211

I thought Siski was supposed to be a great attorney. Didn't I read that was who he used?

Free ward bird!
 

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...f-12890a8854f0
This says so much!

It is Sisti (not Siski) and if he couldn't get Bird off from this then no one could. I have been a juror on two trials with Sisti as the defense lawyer and he is real good. His personality isn't very good and that pony tail that he has makes him look weird but he is "real good".

Makes me wonder why the Moultonborough PD and county attorney even bothered to pursue this case......a respected local and cub scout leader accused by a person with a 12 year record of assault and operating a filthy and illegal dog breeding operation.I've always appreciated and backed our local PD........but now I'm wondering if they are just looking for a body count........somebody accuses you and off to jail.Pretty chilling.

Good information and discussion
 

First, I have been looking for more information about this and this site came through with pointers to the details in various articles. So big kudos to Winnipesaukee.com.

I cannot understand how Ward was convicted. If all he did was walk out with a gun in it's holster and pull it out to check the safety that is not threatening. This dingbat of course says she was threatened but she is far from a reliable witness. Given the he said/she said circumstances and the lack of additional witnesses doesn't the defendant get the benefit of the doubt? How could a jury in good conscience vote for conviction? Were they aware that a conviction required a minimum sentence?

I understand how the judge's hands were tried by minimum sentencing rules. How did it get to that point?

Sad State of Affairs
 

Independent observation with no dog in the fight,

1. Unnecessary to take a gun out when you “know” and are informed that someone is potentially lost in the area looking at a lot for sale

2. Dumb to call the police to report someone potentially overreacting when she is clearly in the wrong by getting lost and not observing the no trespassing signs in the first place

3. Completely Ludicrous penalty for what breaks down to some type of domestic dispute/argument

Possibly some past bad-blood regarding the personalities or the land in general BUT Two people overreacting and one judicial system out of control.

In the end, it pains me to think someone is in jail over the whole thing. Sad and just not right I think.

Good - man

bad - law

ugly - sentence

Here is another Independent observation with no dog in the fight:

Below is what THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE stated as to why they upheld the conviction of Ward Bird:

“Christine Harris arranged to meet a real estate agent on March 27, 2006, at his office to view a property for sale in Moultonborough owned by Patricia Viano that Harris was interested in purchasing.

That day, she called the real estate agent to inform him she was running late and could not make the appointment. Because he could not meet her later that day, she decided to look at the property herself.

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.

After Harris left the home of the defendant’s niece, the niece telephoned the defendant to warn him that Harris was going to look at the Viano property and that she might show up on his property. She also told the defendant that Harris was driving a Ford Ranger.

Harris followed the niece’s directions and drove past signs that stated “Private road, keep out” on Emerson Path and “no trespassing” on Yukon Trail. She missed the left hand turn off of Yukon Trail, drove past the white trailer, and ended up in front of the defendant’s house. She parked her car and got out. The defendant emerged from his home “screaming, get the F off my property.” He came down from his porch, continuing to yell profanities while waving a gun at her.

At trial, she testified that he pointed the gun “[t]owards” her. Harris asked the defendant whether he was the boyfriend of the woman selling the property. He repeated his command for her to leave his property.

Harris eventually climbed back into her car, mouthing “[w]hat an ass.” The defendant then walked off the porch toward her waving his gun as she backed out of the driveway.”


My thoughts:

Mark Sisti (Bird’s Lawyer), or Mark Bird did not dispute the fact that Bird waved and pointed a gun at Harris (at least the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they did).

Bird’s niece telephoned the defendant to warn him that Harris was going to look at the Viano property and that she might show up on his property.

The above being said, how could the NH Supreme Court not uphold the conviction of Mark Bird of criminal threatening per RSA 631:4 (2007).

I agree with 4 for boating.
 

I was told on Wednesday of this story.
Being a gun owner living out in the woods, why did the gun even come out if it was originally in a holster?
Unless the other person had a weapon he was 100% wrong when he removed the gun from a holster.
Guns are not a toy. All he had to do to make a point was have the gun holstered and visible.
If this same person had been someone with a shady background with past problems with the law many would look at it differently.
The bottom line is the law weather it is right or wrong applies to all of us not just the bad element of society.
Maybe everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a class on hand gun safety both inside and outside the home. The laws vary in both instances.
My wife is taking the classes now.

Remember though, her past as well as his past make no difference in this case. You can't bring old cases into a new case. So the issues she had with dogs could not be brought up here. The jury should not have know she had a past.

Who the Hell is Mark Bird ? :confused:

Whoops, I should have said Ward Bird.

Belmont Resident,
I like your logic!



You are correct tis.

IMHO the jury probably knew a little bit about Harris and probably thought it really didn’t matter. The law (as written today) is the law so they had to convict Bird.

Black and White?
 

This isn't as Black and White as some may think.

I'm having a hard time with this one. I keep thinking to myself Don't we all have a right to protect ourselves and our property? If this was a woman waiving a gun at a big man with a criminal background would there even have been an investigation? Ward is a big man and this was a woman on his property so now he has no right to protect himself from a woman that won't leave and is arguing with him?

So where is the line? If a man comes on my property and he is larger than me and could potentially harm or even kill me with his bare hands can I pull a gun? What if the man is the same size? What if my wife is home with the kids and a man is peering in my windows can my wife pull a gun if the man won't leave and she fears for her life? Would she go to jail for protecting herself and my children?

Ward was injured and by some accounts feeble at the time, I am going on hearsay but if it is the truth does this not even the playing field? Did he feel threatened as he was physically limited at the time? Again is it a stretch to imagine this woman was a raving lunatic? (Check prior link where the "woman" pushed a tow truck driver)

Was he right or wrong? I don't know but the punishment sure feels wrong.

Clarification: I am not nor have ever been a gun owner.

Apparently the gun did leave the holster, what is contested is whether the gun was "waved" in the face of the "victim", which supposedly rises to the level of felony threatening. Again, reading this story, I'll have to say that Ward shouldn't have spoken to the police without counsel,other than to say this lady was trespassing and he wanted her removed. This even in light of the fact that I'm sure he was protecting his property.

This lady was antagonistic, even by her own testimony, where she said she thought she was dealing with the brother of the landowner who was selling and didn't want the property to be sold. She stood and argued, plus apparently she was walking around looking in windows before Ward came out.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I end up on a wrong property and the owner comes out screaming to leave, I apologize and leave, no gun necessary. (Yes this has happened to me before and it was my fault for screwing up directions). This lady sounds like a whack job, and this case should not have been prosecuted, never mind having this guy end up with a 3 year sentence.

So, Bird is waving a gun and yelling and Harris sees fit to run her mouth at him? Can you say, "poor judgement"?

I thought Bird's intent was well placed; he wanted her to go away. He didn't want to shoot - or he would have cocked the hammer or taken aim. He sent a clear message. His intent wasn't a criminal one but he's being treated like a criminal.

As we all know, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth. Only two people really and truly know what happened that day between Ward and Christine, clearly there is a difference in opinion amongst them.

Aside from that, regardless of what went down between them - she was told "if you get to this point, you have gone too far and you should turn around". (fair warning). Why did she keep going all the way up to his house? Why was she out of her car and snooping around looking in the windows? She was on HIS private property, looking in HIS windows - I think they call people like that "peeping tom's" - don't they? Isn't that in-and-of-itself a crime? From what I can tell there are a number of signs posted that say no trespassing, and not one that says "house for sale". What was the actual exchange between the two of them that day? If she was told she was in the wrong place and asked to leave, and did not, what reason did she give as to why she wouldn't? If your car has broken down, or if you are lost and come and ring my bell FIRST asking for help, you've got my assistance. As a husband and father, if all of a sudden I see you peering in my windows, (and I don't recognize you), I'm prob. not coming out with guns-a-blazing, but you can bet I'm coming out to see what's up (and more than likely prepared for whatever might face me). If you are on my property and it gets to the point that I ask you to leave, and you don't... we have a problem. If I continue to ask you to leave, and you don't - we have an escalating problem.

You are taught that you don't USE a gun (for self-defense) unless you feel / are in imminent danger, and it's not like the movies where you pull it to scare someone, you pull it to use it. All that said, I think that where Ward was on HIS property, and she was trespassing, she was in the wrong - period. What actually happened with the gun, only two people really know - and in my eyes, pulled, shown or "brandished", if he asked her to leave and she didn't...

So, what was said at THAT point? Did she come off as angry, hostile, did she make any threats, what did SHE say or do to make him feel "I think I'm going to call the police now"? It's all on him right now, or so it seems, what about her!? There seems to be a lot of he said / she said to this, but at the end of the day - I find it atrocious that he is where he is in all of this, and she is just out and about with what seems to be no accountability!?

Shame on the local PD for handling it like they did and shame on the judge / court for escalating it to where it is! Live Free Or Die is the state motto and yet every time we turn around, there are issues like this that refute that stance. This incident has such far-reaching repercussions, I fear what's next as this set's a terrible precedent on so many levels.

The most shameful group here is the DA's office for bringing this into court. They knew what they were dealing with and still moved forward.

Resume building at the expense of a family man defending his family and property.

Shameful!!

R2B

Agreed!!! (although not listed, I was including the whole chain of command in the fray...)