Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-18-2010, 08:28 AM   #1
LadyEMT
Junior Member
 
LadyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Exclamation 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
LadyEMT is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to LadyEMT For This Useful Post:
loopcharged (11-18-2010)
Old 11-18-2010, 08:36 AM   #2
loopcharged
Member
 
loopcharged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26
Thanks: 17
Thanked 14 Times in 6 Posts
Default 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 is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 08:51 AM   #3
loopcharged
Member
 
loopcharged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26
Thanks: 17
Thanked 14 Times in 6 Posts
Default Free Ward Bird

United we stand!
loopcharged is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to loopcharged For This Useful Post:
LadyEMT (11-18-2010)
Old 11-18-2010, 09:51 AM   #4
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

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.
ITD is online now  
The Following User Says Thank You to ITD For This Useful Post:
RailroadJoe (11-18-2010)
Old 11-18-2010, 09:54 AM   #5
wuwu
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 35
Thanks: 27
Thanked 26 Times in 10 Posts
Default 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!
wuwu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 11-18-2010, 10:45 AM   #6
LadyEMT
Junior Member
 
LadyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

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 !!
LadyEMT is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:30 PM   #7
RI Swamp Yankee
Senior Member
 
RI Swamp Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Kingstown RI
Posts: 688
Thanks: 143
Thanked 83 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyEMT View Post
Can not see the page
Quote:
You must log in to see this page.
__________________
Gene ~ aka "another RI Swamp Yankee"
RI Swamp Yankee is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:35 PM   #8
wuwu
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 35
Thanks: 27
Thanked 26 Times in 10 Posts
Default Free ward bird!

more on FREE WARD BIRD
Man's Prison Sentence Sparks Anger In Community
www.wmur.com/news/25839677/detail.html
wuwu is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to wuwu For This Useful Post:
RI Swamp Yankee (11-18-2010)
Old 11-18-2010, 03:31 PM   #9
LadyEMT
Junior Member
 
LadyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

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..
LadyEMT is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 03:35 PM   #10
nicole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 139
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 178
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
Default

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.
nicole is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to nicole For This Useful Post:
wuwu (11-18-2010)
Old 11-18-2010, 03:54 PM   #11
magicrobotmonkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 157
Thanks: 39
Thanked 43 Times in 30 Posts
Default

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.
magicrobotmonkey is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 06:54 PM   #12
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

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.
secondcurve is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 06:56 PM   #13
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

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....
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 08:19 PM   #14
RI Swamp Yankee
Senior Member
 
RI Swamp Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Kingstown RI
Posts: 688
Thanks: 143
Thanked 83 Times in 55 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Gene ~ aka "another RI Swamp Yankee"
RI Swamp Yankee is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 09:24 PM   #15
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee View Post
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.
secondcurve is offline  
Old 11-18-2010, 10:36 PM   #16
wuwu
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 35
Thanks: 27
Thanked 26 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve View Post
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!
wuwu is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to wuwu For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (11-19-2010)
Old 11-19-2010, 06:48 AM   #17
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuwu View Post
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.
secondcurve is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 07:39 AM   #18
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

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.
tis is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:13 PM   #19
PennyPenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 140
Thanks: 4
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Default Possible missing link

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
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.
PennyPenny is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:31 PM   #20
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

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.
tis is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 05:40 AM   #21
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

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.
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:19 AM   #22
wifi
Senior Member
 
wifi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 1,321
Thanks: 282
Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
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 ?

Last edited by wifi; 11-20-2010 at 08:18 AM. Reason: grammar
wifi is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 09:39 AM   #23
twoplustwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 456
Thanks: 51
Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts
Default 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 is offline  
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to twoplustwo For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (11-20-2010), GsChinadoll (11-21-2010), ishoot308 (11-20-2010), MarkinNH (11-20-2010), Meredith lady (11-22-2010), nicole (11-21-2010), olde nh (11-21-2010), Pepper (11-20-2010), RailroadJoe (11-20-2010), Rattlesnake Guy (11-20-2010), Resident 2B (11-20-2010), RI Swamp Yankee (11-20-2010)
Old 11-20-2010, 11:22 AM   #24
Pepper
Senior Member
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Laconia, NH
Posts: 1,284
Thanks: 409
Thanked 155 Times in 40 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Never waste time lamenting what was. Simply celebrate what is!
Pepper is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 01:11 PM   #25
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
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...
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:08 AM   #26
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve View Post
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 !!
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 12:41 PM   #27
RI Swamp Yankee
Senior Member
 
RI Swamp Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Kingstown RI
Posts: 688
Thanks: 143
Thanked 83 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve View Post
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.
__________________
Gene ~ aka "another RI Swamp Yankee"
RI Swamp Yankee is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 01:59 PM   #28
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 3,211
Thanks: 1,166
Thanked 1,999 Times in 913 Posts
Default

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.

Last edited by Slickcraft; 11-19-2010 at 06:43 PM.
Slickcraft is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Slickcraft For This Useful Post:
Onshore (11-19-2010)
Old 11-19-2010, 02:28 PM   #29
Onshore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Thanks: 12
Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts
Default

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?
Onshore is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 04:04 PM   #30
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
Default

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??
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 05:26 PM   #31
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
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
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:49 PM   #32
songkrai
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 723
Thanks: 35
Thanked 145 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
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.
songkrai is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:16 PM   #33
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,527
Thanks: 1,561
Thanked 1,599 Times in 820 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
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.
VitaBene is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 07:37 PM   #34
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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! ..

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!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 11-20-2010 at 11:32 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 01:40 PM   #35
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
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.
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
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 02:14 PM   #36
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

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.
RailroadJoe is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to RailroadJoe For This Useful Post:
tis (11-20-2010)
Old 11-20-2010, 02:18 PM   #37
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

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 is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 03:32 PM   #38
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

NoBozo -- Sounds like lawyer talk to me.
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 05:16 PM   #39
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
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
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
DRH (11-20-2010), JDeere (12-01-2010), Pineedles (11-20-2010), Yosemite Sam (11-20-2010)
Old 11-20-2010, 06:21 PM   #40
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
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 ?
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 06:36 PM   #41
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 11-20-2010 at 08:36 PM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 06:48 PM   #42
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
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.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!
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (11-20-2010), Meredith lady (11-22-2010), olde nh (11-21-2010), Pineedles (11-20-2010), Rattlesnake Guy (11-20-2010)
Old 11-20-2010, 08:56 PM   #43
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:05 PM   #44
RI Swamp Yankee
Senior Member
 
RI Swamp Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Kingstown RI
Posts: 688
Thanks: 143
Thanked 83 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
.... "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.....
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.
__________________
Gene ~ aka "another RI Swamp Yankee"
RI Swamp Yankee is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 06:45 PM   #45
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
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.
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?
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 12-09-2010, 05:39 AM   #46
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Ward Bird sure does have a lot of support from local businesses.
These photos are in today's edition of THE MEREDITH NEWS :
Attached Images
   
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:01 AM   #47
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

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 is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:13 AM   #48
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

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.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:30 AM   #49
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
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.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:49 AM   #50
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 07:57 AM   #51
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
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.

These roads commonly do not get snow-plowed by the local town, are not paved, have no street lights, no water-sewer, no sidewalks, and no town designated signs. 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 to the Lake Winnipesaukee waterfront.

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 their new garage for many years, etc.

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.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:03 AM   #52
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 774
Thanks: 231
Thanked 628 Times in 226 Posts
Default 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.
tummyman is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:13 AM   #53
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:21 AM   #54
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

The Supreme Court only needs a majority. Not all have to agree. Why not other trial using the majority?
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:09 AM   #55
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
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.
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.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:20 AM   #56
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default 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?????
sa meredith is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
Yosemite Sam (11-30-2010)
Old 11-30-2010, 09:35 AM   #57
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
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?
hazelnut is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:18 AM   #58
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
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?

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.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Yosemite Sam For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (11-30-2010)
Old 11-30-2010, 11:24 AM   #59
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

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.
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
ishoot308 (11-30-2010)
Old 11-30-2010, 11:53 AM   #60
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
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"? .... I bet this thread would not exist.
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!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 11:53 AM   #61
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRegrets View Post
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.
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.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 11:45 AM   #62
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Moultonborough
Posts: 146
Thanks: 46
Thanked 43 Times in 18 Posts
Default

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!
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:36 AM   #63
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
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?????
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.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 02:29 PM   #64
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
But, as I read this story in the UL on Sunday, all I could think is, "what is this guy hiding?"
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.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (11-30-2010)
Old 02-02-2011, 05:31 PM   #65
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
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....

I was right! Well maybe not 90 days, but I was right on the early release as opposed to getting a full pardon. I knew the Gov wouldn't do it.
Can he go back and appeal the conviction now?
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 06:03 PM   #66
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

I just came inside from doing some snow removal in my yard to find all the post about Wards pardon being granted.
This is the most Awesome news I can think of hearing.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 06:14 PM   #67
Dogg
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
I just came inside from doing some snow removal in my yard to find all the post about Wards pardon being granted.
This is the most Awesome news I can think of hearing.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but he was NOT pardoned. His sentence was commuted, he still has a felony record.
Dogg is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 06:26 PM   #68
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogg View Post
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but he was NOT pardoned. His sentence was commuted, he still has a felony record.
I am well aware of that thank you
Whether someone calls it a "pardon" or a "commuted sentence" is not important right now.
What is important is that Ward is FREE to return home to his family where he belongs.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 07:12 PM   #69
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
I am well aware of that thank you
Whether someone calls it a "pardon" or a "commuted sentence" is not important right now.
What is important is that Ward is FREE to return home to his family where he belongs.
He is going home! That is what many of us who did not know Ward, but felt he was unfairly jailed wanted. Each of us may have felt compelled to his cause because of our stance on unfair gun laws in this country, but the bottom line was that we wanted Ward Bird OUT of JAIL! This has been accomplished. He's going home to his family. Thank you all!
Pineedles is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (02-02-2011)
Old 02-02-2011, 08:06 PM   #70
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Hopefully, Ward Bird has learned a lesson. Yes, Ms Harris obviously has her issues but Mr. Bird could have avoided all this if he simply went into his house and called the police when she showed up. Mr. Bird's problematic past is evident by the fact that he has had the police at his house numerous times to mediate family disputes and on another occasion after a nearby party Mr. Bird was blasting away at a tree stump after numerous libations. I am glad my tax dollars are no longer paying for Mr. Bird's housing but he needs to man up and learn a little personal responsibility.
secondcurve is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to secondcurve For This Useful Post:
Heaven (02-02-2011), Natt (02-03-2011), Winnigirl (02-03-2011)
Old 02-02-2011, 09:47 PM   #71
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,125
Thanks: 198
Thanked 417 Times in 237 Posts
Default Lesson?

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve View Post
Hopefully, Ward Bird has learned a lesson. Yes, Ms Harris obviously has her issues but Mr. Bird could have avoided all this if he simply went into his house and called the police when she showed up.
What lesson might that be?

Let's, just for a moment, assume things went down just as Ward said they did. Ms. Harris shows up on his property illegally. He goes out to tell her she is on the wrong property and should leave. When a person does something annoying or possibly illegal do you call the police first or try to talk to the person. Most of us would try to talk first rather than escalate to police involvement.

Now a rational person, after being told they were on a property illegally and asked to leave, would leave. Instead Ms. Harris is argumentative and aggressive. After trying to argue for 15 minutes Ward goes in to the house to call the police, just as you suggest.

Now totally separate from all this is the fact that he was carrying a gun. He was totally within his rights to do so. Many people walk around armed. When he went to reenter the house he checked the status of his weapon, a safety procedure.

What is the lesson? Escalate all simple disagreements to police cases immediately? Post guards and razor wire to keep crazy people off your property?

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned Ward acted reasonably. *IF* he waved a gun in Ms. Harris' face he didn't but she is the only one to say he did and she is the instigator of the problem and prolonged it beyond reasonableness. She also has a history of lying in legal situations.
jeffk is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
Grandpa Redneck (07-03-2011), MarkinNH (02-02-2011), Resident 2B (02-03-2011)
Old 02-02-2011, 10:44 PM   #72
jeffatsquam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: moultonborough/sandwich
Posts: 186
Thanks: 173
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Just returned from the impromptu welcoming. about 75 people gathered at the intersection of 109 & 171 to welcome Ward home as it was still snowing

The Bird family got out of their truck and walked the last 1/2 mile with well wishers on both sides of the road
jeffatsquam is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jeffatsquam For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (02-03-2011), VitaBene (02-02-2011)
Old 02-03-2011, 10:07 AM   #73
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default Ok

Folks...my sincere hope is to not get sucked into any back and forth thing here. Ward is home, that's the only thing that really matters. While I never thought he belonged in jail, I also never thought he was blameless in this whole mess.
I find many of these posts indeed comical...the ones ragging on the Gov, and not satisfied because he was not granted full pardon. ARE YOU FREAKIN' FOR REAL??!!!
Everyone has been saying, Free Bird, Free Bird, Free Bird, Free Bird...and he is free...but noooooooo, now that's not enough. Christ, he's home. Enough all ready. Good for him.
So he can't pack heat anymore...ohh, the horror of it all.
He can't work with Boy Scouts...maybe unfair, but not as unfair as being behind bars.
Look, I read thru a lot of this stuff...and don't know Ward, and know Harris is off her rocker.
One thing stood out for me ...one, just one, so don't hate on me MARKNH. This is a guy (Ward) who at one time, while drinking, was part of a group firing a gun at a tree stump (so they say, anyway). And witnessed a bullet enter a near by home. And what was Ward's intial reaction (before the next day)???? To run home and do nothing. Hide, as it were. Someone could have been lying on the floor, bleeding to death. I don't care if he fired the shot or not...he saw it. This is all accurate info, according to police reports.
So let's back it down a bit. This man should probably not have been in prison...but he should probably not have guns either.
He is not blameless in this whole mess...no way, no how.
So, let's hold off on naming him Saint Ward.
sa meredith is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
christo1 (02-03-2011), Heaven (02-03-2011), Mink Islander (02-03-2011), Natt (02-03-2011), old coot (02-03-2011), secondcurve (02-04-2011)
Old 02-03-2011, 11:24 AM   #74
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Can his wife have guns?
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 01:56 PM   #75
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,125
Thanks: 198
Thanked 417 Times in 237 Posts
Default Guilty by Karma

OK sa meredith let me try a story.

You walk into a bar for a drink and are sitting there minding your own business when a strange woman walks up and starts screaming at you. This goes on for a while and someone calls the police. Shortly you are at the police station and find yourself arrested for raping this woman that you have never meet before. The evidence is flimsy but the woman is emotional and certain in her accusation and a sympathetic jury finds you guilty. You are sentenced to 5 years. Because you are a model prisoner you end up with early release but you are now a convicted sex offender. It all seems so unfair.

But a former girl friend from college has told the media that the two of you got drunk one night and you had sex with her against her wishes. She didn't really say no but she was pretty out of it. So you have a history of taking advantage of women. You probably deserve the rape conviction.

And all you did was go into a bar for a drink.
jeffk is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 04:37 PM   #76
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default wait

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
OK sa meredith let me try a story.

But a former girl friend from college has told the media that the two of you got drunk one night and you had sex with her against her wishes. She didn't really say no but she was pretty out of it. So you have a history of taking advantage of women. You probably deserve the rape conviction.

.
Wait a minute...were you with me at North Adams State college???
sa meredith is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 05:35 PM   #77
christo1
Member
 
christo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 45
Thanks: 142
Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
OK sa meredith let me try a story.

You walk into a bar for a drink and are sitting there minding your own business when a strange woman walks up and starts screaming at you. This goes on for a while and someone calls the police. Shortly you are at the police station and find yourself arrested for raping this woman that you have never meet before. The evidence is flimsy but the woman is emotional and certain in her accusation and a sympathetic jury finds you guilty. You are sentenced to 5 years. Because you are a model prisoner you end up with early release but you are now a convicted sex offender. It all seems so unfair.

But a former girl friend from college has told the media that the two of you got drunk one night and you had sex with her against her wishes. She didn't really say no but she was pretty out of it. So you have a history of taking advantage of women. You probably deserve the rape conviction.

And all you did was go into a bar for a drink.
sounds like a certain super bowl quarterback!
christo1 is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 06:27 PM   #78
Seeker
Senior Member
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Effingham
Posts: 408
Thanks: 37
Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailroadJoe View Post
Can his wife have guns?
I would say no. At least not on or in his premises. He would not be allowed access to the area in which they were stored. If he did it would not be actual but constructive possession which now is also normally judged illegal and subject to the same penalties (up to 10 yrs).
Seeker is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 06:10 PM   #79
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailroadJoe View Post
Can his wife have guns?
Of course she can. She lives with Ward so she needs a weapon to protect herself!
secondcurve is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 06:12 PM   #80
TOAD
Senior Member
 
TOAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Soon to be Moultonboro
Posts: 258
Thanks: 1
Thanked 81 Times in 34 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve View Post
Of course she can. She lives with Ward so she needs a weapon to protect herself!
Way it should be.
__________________
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.....Unknown....but attributed to George Washington
TOAD is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 07:08 PM   #81
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

I agree, but remember if the gun is in her name, but in the residence of Ward, does this violate his terms of no weapon?

I'd like to know as my son falls under the same problem. He can not have a gun to hunt with and we always hunted together.
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 07:17 PM   #82
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

I suspect Ward can't be within 300 yards...OR whatever".. of a Gun. If he gets within 300 yards...."OR Whatever"..of a Police station he will have to detour around it. Just the way it is Today. NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 10:41 AM   #83
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default joke

Secondcurve...I think your joke may have been lost on people. A bit harsh...but funny enough to lighten things up. It was was getting out of hand.
To folks who PM'd me...apprieciate the words, but truly was never looking to make a stand.
I was truly a neutral observer, took an interest in this mess, read all I could...and just can't believe the way that most Bird suporters won't concede an inch. I find it truly confusing.
The thread should die, but as it is still open...what the heck...
I think the strangest thing in this whole case, is the Bird supports who want to say how relevant Harris' history is...and yet don't want to get involved with Bird's history. How does that work?
I also find it strange that not one Bird supporter...not one will concede on the fact that, if Bird had not went to get his gun that day, before going outside...none of this happens. None of it. The supports want to talk about their "right to carry" and "I just don't understand his way of life...he always carries". I get all that. I concede to you all...guns are great, I'm buying my first one this afternoon. Now, concede that...simply, had he not made the decision to bring his gun outside to meet Harris, none of this happens.
I also find it strange that all Bird supports went sideways crazy on me, when I suggested he plead this out. You all explained to me, "he is a man of character...why would he make a plea. He did nothing wrong, so why accept responsibilty for it". Ok, I'll buy it. You win. So I ask...applying that same logic, why in 2002, did he pay for repairs to the house that was shot during target practice. You just told me he would not take responsiblity for something he did not do. Certainly, fine members of this forum, you are not employing a double standard, are you? The logic would have to be applied to both cases.
In the end, Ward is home...WHERE HE BELONGS! Harris, the nut job, cost him a Christmas with his family that he can never get back...shame on her.
But enough of this pardon stuff..and ragging on the very Gov that set him free.
His gun carrying days are over. Is that something really worth getting all cranked up over? Simply put...he was not completely blameless here.
These are the thoughts (mine) of a neutral observer, who never met Ward, and knows Harris to be a bad person.
sa meredith is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
secondcurve (02-05-2011), Winnigirl (02-05-2011)
Old 02-05-2011, 11:21 AM   #84
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
.....I was truly a neutral observer, took an interest in this mess, read all I could...and just can't believe the way that most Bird suporters won't concede an inch. I find it truly confusing.
The thread should die, but as it is still open...what the heck...
I think the strangest thing in this whole case, is the Bird supports who want to say how relevant Harris' history is...and yet don't want to get involved with Bird's history. How does that work?
I also find it strange that not one Bird supporter...not one will concede on the fact that, if Bird had not went to get his gun that day, before going outside...none of this happens. None of it. The supports want to talk about their "right to carry" and "I just don't understand his way of life...he always carries". I get all that. I concede to you all...guns are great, I'm buying my first one this afternoon. Now, concede that...simply, had he not made the decision to bring his gun outside to meet Harris, none of this happens.
I also find it strange that all Bird supports went sideways crazy on me, when I suggested he plead this out. You all explained to me, "he is a man of character...why would he make a plea. He did nothing wrong, so why accept responsibilty for it". Ok, I'll buy it. You win. So I ask...applying that same logic, why in 2002, did he pay for repairs to the house that was shot during target practice. You just told me he would not take responsiblity for something he did not do. Certainly, fine members of this forum, you are not employing a double standard, are you? The logic would have to be applied to both cases....
My thinking has changed alot since 2002. I do not think life is static and we all can change postions and become either hardened or compasionite based on situations, moods, or events beyond our control. The forum should allow all to verbally spar and exercise their minds. I think the jabs become entertaining (providing they do not get personal).

You are applying exact logic to your argument without acounting for change.
People that "go strange" on you are probably just frustrated that they can not effectively articulate their feelings, ideas, or just need to compensate for some unknown reason.

I am pleased he is home and can watch this weekends super bowl. GO STEELERS!
NoRegrets is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 12:53 PM   #85
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
Secondcurve...I think your joke may have been lost on people. A bit harsh...but funny enough to lighten things up. It was was getting out of hand.
To folks who PM'd me...apprieciate the words, but truly was never looking to make a stand.
I was truly a neutral observer, took an interest in this mess, read all I could...and just can't believe the way that most Bird suporters won't concede an inch. I find it truly confusing.
The thread should die, but as it is still open...what the heck...
I think the strangest thing in this whole case, is the Bird supports who want to say how relevant Harris' history is...and yet don't want to get involved with Bird's history. How does that work?
I also find it strange that not one Bird supporter...not one will concede on the fact that, if Bird had not went to get his gun that day, before going outside...none of this happens. None of it. The supports want to talk about their "right to carry" and "I just don't understand his way of life...he always carries". I get all that. I concede to you all...guns are great, I'm buying my first one this afternoon. Now, concede that...simply, had he not made the decision to bring his gun outside to meet Harris, none of this happens. I also find it strange that all Bird supports went sideways crazy on me, when I suggested he plead this out. You all explained to me, "he is a man of character...why would he make a plea. He did nothing wrong, so why accept responsibilty for it". Ok, I'll buy it. You win. So I ask...applying that same logic, why in 2002, did he pay for repairs to the house that was shot during target practice. You just told me he would not take responsiblity for something he did not do. Certainly, fine members of this forum, you are not employing a double standard, are you? The logic would have to be applied to both cases.
In the end, Ward is home...WHERE HE BELONGS! Harris, the nut job, cost him a Christmas with his family that he can never get back...shame on her.
But enough of this pardon stuff..and ragging on the very Gov that set him free.
His gun carrying days are over. Is that something really worth getting all cranked up over? Simply put...he was not completely blameless here.
These are the thoughts (mine) of a neutral observer, who never met Ward, and knows Harris to be a bad person.
Why did he go out onto the porch in the first place ? To deal with a person who was knowingly, willingly and purposely,trespassing.

You feel that a larger portion of the blames lies on Wards shoulders because when he walked out on to his porch, he chose to take his firearm with him which is something he just always does.

I and many others feel that. Had Christine Harris followed the instructions given her and not entered onto property that she was distinctly told not to enter, then Ward would have Never had to walk out onto his porch at All, gun or no gun !

So, if we want to point a finger at which person started the ball of legal woes rolling in the first place, that blame falls 100% squarely on the shoulders of Christine Harris.

Per your logic. If I get in my truck to go to the post office, which is just something I always do, and I crash into the side of a car whose driver knowingly, willingly and purposely pulls out in front of me, the accident would have to be mostly My fault. Sure the other driver has to share some of the blame for driving like a bonehead but the majority of the blame is on me. Why ?
Because if I had not made the decision to drive my truck to the post office and had walked instead, then the accident would never have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
In the end, Ward is home...WHERE HE BELONGS! Harris, the nut job, cost him a Christmas with his family that he can never get back...shame on her..
That was very nicely said. Thank you

PS. I thought I did very good in ignoring secondcurve's sarcastic comment.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 01:09 PM   #86
Heaven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 516
Thanks: 126
Thanked 94 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Without some new information, it is clear to me that the woman was lost and her arrival at Bird's house was in innocence.
Heaven is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 01:13 PM   #87
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,125
Thanks: 198
Thanked 417 Times in 237 Posts
Default Not so neutral

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
Secondcurve...I think your joke may have been lost on people. A bit harsh...but funny enough to lighten things up. It was was getting out of hand.
To folks who PM'd me...apprieciate the words, but truly was never looking to make a stand.
I was truly a neutral observer, took an interest in this mess, read all I could...and just can't believe the way that most Bird suporters won't concede an inch. I find it truly confusing.
The thread should die, but as it is still open...what the heck...
I think the strangest thing in this whole case, is the Bird supports who want to say how relevant Harris' history is...and yet don't want to get involved with Bird's history. How does that work?
I also find it strange that not one Bird supporter...not one will concede on the fact that, if Bird had not went to get his gun that day, before going outside...none of this happens. None of it. The supports want to talk about their "right to carry" and "I just don't understand his way of life...he always carries". I get all that. I concede to you all...guns are great, I'm buying my first one this afternoon. Now, concede that...simply, had he not made the decision to bring his gun outside to meet Harris, none of this happens.
I also find it strange that all Bird supports went sideways crazy on me, when I suggested he plead this out. You all explained to me, "he is a man of character...why would he make a plea. He did nothing wrong, so why accept responsibilty for it". Ok, I'll buy it. You win. So I ask...applying that same logic, why in 2002, did he pay for repairs to the house that was shot during target practice. You just told me he would not take responsiblity for something he did not do. Certainly, fine members of this forum, you are not employing a double standard, are you? The logic would have to be applied to both cases.
In the end, Ward is home...WHERE HE BELONGS! Harris, the nut job, cost him a Christmas with his family that he can never get back...shame on her.
But enough of this pardon stuff..and ragging on the very Gov that set him free.
His gun carrying days are over. Is that something really worth getting all cranked up over? Simply put...he was not completely blameless here.
These are the thoughts (mine) of a neutral observer, who never met Ward, and knows Harris to be a bad person.
First, considering the circumstances, I think secondcurve's "joke" was in very poor taste.

Next, I think you are far from a neutral observer. You have a mocking and prejudicial tone about people who carry guns. I have never owned a gun (OK a BB gun) and only used a friend's 22 once in my teens. I don't think I would qualify as a gun nut. However I respect the people who choose to carry guns responsibly. Yes, Ward was drunk and stupid and fired at a tree stump in a populated area. He turned himself in, was convicted of a violation and paid a fine (a standard punishment), and he replaced the window he broke. The matter was closed and hopefully he learned something.

Ever driven faster than the speed limit sa meredith? Maybe run a stoplight? Driven when you were probably drunk? Did you turn yourself in or pay any penalty? If you are driving with your cruise control locked on 58 and an officer mistakenly tickets you for doing 70 in a 55 zone should all your past traffic sins be used to judge you this time? If so, most of us wouldn't have licenses to drive anymore.

And I guess your reputation doesn't mean much to you. You wouldn't mind being a wrongly convicted felon. Gun use doesn't matter to you but suppose they took away your car license. If you were a gun user a lot of your friends have guns so you can no longer go to their houses or go hunting or target shooting with them. Some states don't allow felons to vote. Would that matter to you? You have to declare your conviction on employment applications. Do you think that might affect your employability? How many social organizations want nothing to do with you if you are a felon? Aw, what the heck, it's just a felony conviction.

Finally, you claim that Ward is not blameless. If he didn't threaten her with his gun he is. He could have walked anywhere around town that he wanted to with his gun, many people do, and NONE of them are doing anything wrong, legally or otherwise. And you claim that if he had not brought his gun with him nothing would have happened. But we are told Ms. Harris accused her landlord falsely of physically harassing her when he was never anywhere around her. She could have accused Ward of the same thing, or pushing her, or other type of assault. There was no evidence of it but there was no evidence that Ward did anything with his gun either. Ms. Harris has a great ability to manufacture trouble and I think you are naive to think that the presence of Ward's gun was the source of the problem. It is only your prejudice that makes you think so.
jeffk is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 03:34 PM   #88
secondcurve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
First, considering the circumstances, I think secondcurve's "joke" was in very poor taste.

Next, I think you are far from a neutral observer. You have a mocking and prejudicial tone about people who carry guns. I have never owned a gun (OK a BB gun) and only used a friend's 22 once in my teens. I don't think I would qualify as a gun nut. However I respect the people who choose to carry guns responsibly. Yes, Ward was drunk and stupid and fired at a tree stump in a populated area. He turned himself in, was convicted of a violation and paid a fine (a standard punishment), and he replaced the window he broke. The matter was closed and hopefully he learned something.

Ever driven faster than the speed limit sa meredith? Maybe run a stoplight? Driven when you were probably drunk? Did you turn yourself in or pay any penalty? If you are driving with your cruise control locked on 58 and an officer mistakenly tickets you for doing 70 in a 55 zone should all your past traffic sins be used to judge you this time? If so, most of us wouldn't have licenses to drive anymore.

And I guess your reputation doesn't mean much to you. You wouldn't mind being a wrongly convicted felon. Gun use doesn't matter to you but suppose they took away your car license. If you were a gun user a lot of your friends have guns so you can no longer go to their houses or go hunting or target shooting with them. Some states don't allow felons to vote. Would that matter to you? You have to declare your conviction on employment applications. Do you think that might affect your employability? How many social organizations want nothing to do with you if you are a felon? Aw, what the heck, it's just a felony conviction.

Finally, you claim that Ward is not blameless. If he didn't threaten her with his gun he is. He could have walked anywhere around town that he wanted to with his gun, many people do, and NONE of them are doing anything wrong, legally or otherwise. And you claim that if he had not brought his gun with him nothing would have happened. But we are told Ms. Harris accused her landlord falsely of physically harassing her when he was never anywhere around her. She could have accused Ward of the same thing, or pushing her, or other type of assault. There was no evidence of it but there was no evidence that Ward did anything with his gun either. Ms. Harris has a great ability to manufacture trouble and I think you are naive to think that the presence of Ward's gun was the source of the problem. It is only your prejudice that makes you think so.
Jeff:

What about the fact that the police have been to Ward's house on numerous occasions to deal with family disputes? Also, he carries a side arm to protect himself from his brother in law? The family has endless disputes about property, etc. He gets drunk and starts shooting up tree stumps. Some lady drives onto his property and he arms himself to see what she is up to? Do you see a fact pattern?

The bottom line is that Ward brings a lot of his problems on himself. Now that he is out of the big house he should embrace the concept of personal responsibility and stay out of trouble.
secondcurve is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 02:17 PM   #89
jeffatsquam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: moultonborough/sandwich
Posts: 186
Thanks: 173
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
Folks...my sincere hope is to not get sucked into any back and forth thing here. Ward is home, that's the only thing that really matters. While I never thought he belonged in jail, I also never thought he was blameless in this whole mess.
I find many of these posts indeed comical...the ones ragging on the Gov, and not satisfied because he was not granted full pardon. ARE YOU FREAKIN' FOR REAL??!!!
Everyone has been saying, Free Bird, Free Bird, Free Bird, Free Bird...and he is free...but noooooooo, now that's not enough. Christ, he's home. Enough all ready. Good for him.
So he can't pack heat anymore...ohh, the horror of it all.
He can't work with Boy Scouts...maybe unfair, but not as unfair as being behind bars.
Look, I read thru a lot of this stuff...and don't know Ward, and know Harris is off her rocker.
One thing stood out for me ...one, just one, so don't hate on me MARKNH. This is a guy (Ward) who at one time, while drinking, was part of a group firing a gun at a tree stump (so they say, anyway). And witnessed a bullet enter a near by home. And what was Ward's intial reaction (before the next day)???? To run home and do nothing. Hide, as it were. Someone could have been lying on the floor, bleeding to death. I don't care if he fired the shot or not...he saw it. This is all accurate info, according to police reports.
So let's back it down a bit. This man should probably not have been in prison...but he should probably not have guns either.
He is not blameless in this whole mess...no way, no how.
So, let's hold off on naming him Saint Ward.
Your facts are inaccurate you need to spend the rest of the day with FLL
jeffatsquam is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jeffatsquam For This Useful Post:
nvtngtxpyr (02-04-2011), RailroadJoe (02-03-2011)
Old 02-03-2011, 03:50 PM   #90
Heaven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 516
Thanks: 126
Thanked 94 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffatsquam View Post
Your facts are inaccurate you need to spend the rest of the day with FLL
Ok, so tell us what happened that evening that a stray shot went into the neighbors house, would you please? And how or how not Bird was involved with that?
Heaven is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 04:06 PM   #91
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default Ok

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffatsquam View Post
Your facts are inaccurate you need to spend the rest of the day with FLL
Don't just post and run...it is unbecoming, and makes you look quite foolish.
Show me where my facts are wrong...if they are...then WMUR, The UL, and Citizen all got it wrong.
Let me state again...he never belonged in jail. Never.
Did he want her to see the gun, as he went back in....ABSOLUTELY!
To the untrained eye, can the action of disabling a gun's ability to fire, indeed look like it is being prepared to fire...of course.
Christ...I can't believe people are putting me in a position to get behind a woman who is of questionable mental capacity...I am not in her corner.
I just can't believe people wanted Ward out, he is out, and now, that's not enough.
Sorry...he indeed played a part in this. I understand it is his right/way of life/everyday pattern to carry. I get it...I support it...I understand it. However, if he had not gone to his gun safe, to get his gun (which he stated is what he did), before going out that day..none of this would have happened. None of it. None of it at all. But, she said she saw a gun, and he admitted he had one on his person...the combination of those two things, set the wheels in motion.
Subtract one (like maybe maybe if she said she saw a gun...be he stated all the way thru, that he never had one with him) of those two things...and her story would have come apart instantly.
How can any rational thinking person not see it this way?
I have no doubt he is a good guy, and don't think he wanted to shot her...but he absolutely wanted her to see it.
I'm out....
sa meredith is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 04:58 PM   #92
jeffatsquam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: moultonborough/sandwich
Posts: 186
Thanks: 173
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Sorry to look foolish to you but I had to go back to WORK!

My understanding of the facts of 2002 is that the round was not located in the camp until sometime after Mr.Bird left the party. I am not sure weather it was before or after Mr.Bird called the MPD and stated that he was one of the people target shooting at the stump.

Your paragraph takes these facts and twist them around to help your argument.S O P

I would think that any rational person that thought about this case that Mr.bird was at home under Dr. orders to take it easy and not get to worked up was totally in his RIGHT and Ms. Harris was totally in the WRONG.
jeffatsquam is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 06:35 PM   #93
sa meredith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 32
Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts
Default so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffatsquam View Post
Sorry to look foolish to you but I had to go back to WORK!

My understanding of the facts of 2002 is that the round was not located in the camp until sometime after Mr.Bird left the party. I am not sure weather it was before or after Mr.Bird called the MPD and stated that he was one of the people target shooting at the stump.

Your paragraph takes these facts and twist them around to help your argument.S O P

I would think that any rational person that thought about this case that Mr.bird was at home under Dr. orders to take it easy and not get to worked up was totally in his RIGHT and Ms. Harris was totally in the WRONG.
I twisted no facts...I told no lies. Why the FFL comment is beyond me.
Maybe you're just an internet tough guy.
Bottom line...if he had confronted her without the gun, none...of ..this...happens. Period. Fact.
"He was home under Dr. orders to take it easy and not get worked up "...you say. So grabbing your heater is staying cool and calm? Christ almighty...do the math!
sa meredith is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 08:06 PM   #94
jeffatsquam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: moultonborough/sandwich
Posts: 186
Thanks: 173
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Default

"You said he witnessed a bullet enter a home" that is Wrong. Than you went on to state that someone could have been seriously injured and he ran in order to prove your point that he is reckless.

Ward Bird's supporters number in the 1,000's Christine Harris's supporters number in the, well I guess 0 isn't really a number in this instance.

Webmaster, I am sorry to engage an individual and I will not post in this thread again.
jeffatsquam is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 08:18 PM   #95
Heaven
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 516
Thanks: 126
Thanked 94 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffatsquam View Post
"
Webmaster, I am sorry to engage an individual and I will not post in this thread again.
That's too bad because

"My understanding of the facts of 2002 is that the round was not located in the camp until sometime after Mr.Bird left the party. I am not sure weather it was before or after Mr.Bird called the MPD and stated that he was one of the people target shooting at the stump."

is really vague on several points and I was hopeing you would qualify that.
Heaven is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 08:41 PM   #96
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

He's home with his family. Let it rest.
Pineedles is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (02-03-2011), Two dobys (02-03-2011)
Old 02-03-2011, 09:32 PM   #97
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,527
Thanks: 1,561
Thanked 1,599 Times in 820 Posts
Default

I saw Mr Bird at Ridgewood picking kids up from Nordic practice, I gave him a thumbs up which was promptly returned. I am very happy that he has rejoined his family.

At least his next step in the legal process will be done from the outside.
VitaBene is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (02-03-2011)
Old 02-03-2011, 09:37 PM   #98
Dogg
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

What is incredibly pathetic is that people will not let this thread or issue die... Ward is home with his family which is what I thought was the point of the whole thread and bandwagon.

Now we have certain people posting (here and other places) that the governor is weak (using a term that is acceptable) because he didn't provide Ward with a full pardon... I will bet that you don't know what the term of "Criminal Threatening" is... The governor did more than he should have IMO in this case; as he brought up 3 levels of court found or upheld the original conviction, why should he overturn it?

Neither person in this case has a clear background; the only reason why his lawyer would state that he would put Ward on the stand now is because he didn't earlier and lost!

It is incredible to read the BS provided on here and other sites about what was testified to against Ward; "He did run to the end of the porch with the gun." (pg. 149. ln 8) this can happen folks from a person with stitches/staples/surgery etc.. no jumping etc as originally reported. The jury was NOT told to believe that he 'ran' or 'chased' her... That quote is the statement made to the jury to take home... It was 2 years.... You tell me who won the superbowl on spot 2 years ago..

For all the supports; Ward is home, end you battle, you "hero" is home... For all those against, I suggest you move on as there is really nothing more that can or will be done.

Everyone needs to learn that they can disagree and move on...

My suggestion is to close the thread and move on...
Dogg is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 05:57 PM   #99
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa meredith View Post
Christ...I can't believe people are putting me in a position to get behind a woman who is of questionable mental capacity...I am not in her corner...
Nobody is putting you in any position !
Don't blame other people for the choice's, decision's and opinion's that you yourself choose to make, take and stand behind.

If it makes you feel any better, I for one don't see your opinion in this situation as being in Christine Harris's corner or that your defending her actions in anyway.
I may not agree with your opinion but you are entitled to have whatever opinion you like.
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:00 AM   #100
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 774
Thanks: 231
Thanked 628 Times in 226 Posts
Default 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 !
tummyman is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to tummyman For This Useful Post:
RailroadJoe (11-19-2010)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.76059 seconds