Because the County Prosecutor "at the time" Hates men ( her preferences are no secret) and was looking to make an example out of one.

Shouldn’t that depend on who has the temper and who has the pistol???

I might argue that if you are the victim being threatened by the guy with the temper, then you are fully within your right to pull, threaten to use, and use your gun in your own defense in all situations. Why is it my problem that you might have a temper problem?

Now if it’s you who has the temper and the gun, and I have neither, then I’m looking for any way out of that situation that I can find.

Its all about perspective, but be very careful giving up your right to defend yourself or making statements that someone else can use to illustrate your support of divesting yourself of your rights because I can assure you there will be someone who is watching and will use it against you at some point I the future, just take a look at our situation in MA,,, Under MA laws we are almost better off to give our guns to the criminals than to use them against them,,, Pretty sad state of affairs down here,,,

I thought something similar to this. Maybe when she first confronted him and thought she was not to be fooled by him not being the owner and then realizing he was serious did she realize she pushed him too far and he was going to call the cops.

I am of the belief that my home is my castle. I think the cops used poor judgement in bringing charges.

Personally, I like the Joe Horn approach using the 'castle defense': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

They have things the right way in Texas:laugh: Joe Horn is the kind of neighbor I could only dream of having.

Simple. The businesses in OOB generate miniscule tax revenue compared to the number of fire and police services required to serve the people they attract. The town explodes in population but tax revenues don't go up with it. The state coffers may benefit but local tax payers do not. I have to dig up the study as it was stored on my old desktop so not sure if I have it any more.

Unfortunately not all business is 'good' business for tax payers.

This factoid must be really important to your evaluation of this case as you have posted it twice. I think that even in New Hampshire, most people have gotten past evaluating a person's job performance based on their sexual orientation.

it A question was asked and I replied with an answer that "in my opinion" I feel is correct.
Personally I don't care what her preferences or sexual orientation may be. To each their own. But IMO this woman did not prosecute this case from an unbiased stand point.
I believe she pegged Ward as guilty the moment the case file landed on her desk. Truth and Justice played no role in her perseverance of this case. She couldn't have cared less if Ward was innocent of the womans accusations.
She couldn't have cared less if locking him up took him away from his family for 3 years, for something he didn't do.
She couldn't have cared less that this conviction serves no real justice.
She didn't have to bring the charges that she did. There was no proof, witness's or evidence to support the womans accusations
She could have easily used common sense and reasoning, weighed both sides of the story and concluded that this was just a he said / she said dispute that was over, with no harm done and it didn't warrant spending tax payers money to prosecute.
She used her power and position to railroad an honest and innocent man into prison because she was hell bent to set an example. She was out of line and now she is out of a job. Good riddance to her !!

I am not disagreeing or agreeing except that you qualified all of her decisions based on sexual orientation, which is a non-issue typically used when a more compelling argument is absent.

So what other compelling reasons could she have had to pursue this case the way she did ?
She certainly didn't fight for a guilty verdict because the evidence in the case clearly supported one.

I'm amazed that you can take a title like "This Officers' Daughter Is Going To Speak Up Here..." and construe it as being condescending.

I titled my post because I am proud of my father having served a local municipality. It may sound trite but when he passed on, the town (Sanford, ME) dedicated their annual report to him in his memory. I also took a lot of crap from kids and adults growing up because my dad was on the force.

You missed the whole point: these officers you're rating about are PEOPLE. Get it? They have kids in school, families in our towns and the Lakes Region and people like me don't appreciate comments like yours. They're just doing their job - like they're supposed to do. That's what they're paid to do. [And I never said anything about their salaries not being public info - per RSA 91 they certainly are - I don't know why you had to say I was wrong about something I never mentioned... again "Huh?" comes to mind.]

And yes, I do know a lot about town government; I serve on a school board and town budget committee. I don't know everything - and I'm the first to admit it - but I do take exception when people go after personnel of a town - including those who serve and protect, such as fire department officers and police department officers. If you don't like how something is run, than take your comments to the people in charge.

If you *know* so stinkin' much about government, then take your issues up with the people who run the town - the town selectmen. That's where your frustration should be vented. You should know that - you were on a town's budget committee, according to one of your posts here.

And I'm sure you were raised with better manners than to call me 'honey' (please tell me you're not really that sexist in this day and age?!) or to discuss me in your post like I'm not 'in the room' (using "she" and "her" - I'm not a ghost) - you're being very rude.

Let's get back on track.
 

Looks like Matt Drudge has picked up the cause. He's added the following message in a mouseover to his page.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l3...02-12-05PM.png

I could be wrong but I believe there's a Federal law that protects enlistees.

If someone is willing to be a reservist and get called into service by the President at anytime, then I have no problem with them getting paid by Uncle Sam and their employer for 2 weeks of the year either.

That's a paid ad. I've written Drudge, as I'm sure others have, because this would be right up his ally. He hasn't linked the story yet to his site. When the story was in the Boston Globe I thought maybe Drudge would pick it up. Keep hoping...

Animal cruelty trial looms for woman linked to Ward Bird
 

On Citizen web site today:

Excuse me? HER condescending attitude???? Really?

Hmmmm.
;)

No excuse for you either. Go look at her original post. Someone posted the PD image and I simply stated that they should post the salaries with no personal slant towards any single person. Your post called me "over the line" and went on a personal diatribe about how officers need to earn a living, blah, blah, blah. It's action-reaction. You post a snide comment for giving an opinion, you'll get it right back at you. If someone can't deal with it, then think before you type.

I'm not going to explain myself further and I'm sure there are others that see it the way I do.

BOLD RED FONT = Huh? I'm sorry but what are you trying to say here? I'm not being the spelling police but your sentence isn't making sense...

You say I posted a snide response - I wasn't snide. I was honest - it was from a family member's perspective of someone who was on the force. You'd rather respond to someone saying "I think you crossed the line" with sarcasm and venom - something you do all the time on this forum. I say I was trying to get you to be more considerate.... oh, never mind. :rolleye1:

On topic replies
 

Is there somewhere on the "User CP" I can filter this?

I've never filtered out anyone, nor do I want to, but I'd really rather read things applying to the topic. When I get insulted, I just don't reply, no need to defend myself if I'm right, IMHO :)

Sorry wifi. My apologies.

In your User CP, under the Settings / Options, click on "Edit Ignore List"

Back on topic. I was dissapointed that the Gov. didn't pardon Ward for Christmas. Is there any progress with this?

Pineedles I don't think the governor of NH can issue a pardon without a vote of the 5 member EXC, but I could be wrong ? Anyone know for sure ?

There is a mandated process which includes obtaining the advice of the Governor's Council.

[QUOTE=XCR-700;146653]

I would argue that its not flawed at all, just used in the wrong places!

QUOTE]

So I guess some want this both ways. Mandatory sentencing but let the judge have discretion in sentencing.

An oxymoron interpretation of the laws.

[QUOTE=songkrai;146821]Maybe mandatory sentencing with any deviation being approved by a panel of judges or arbitrators.

"Maybe mandatory sentencing with any deviation being approved by a panel of judges or arbitrators."

A valid suggestion.

But another layer of government. Most today are seeking less government.

And if this was an option then all would appeal to this panel slowing down the legal process. And making it more costly in a day when all governments (except this town) are running a large deficit.

I go back to my original statment. Mandatory sentencing is flawed. This case is proof.

If the judge had discretion then this person probably would not be where he is. The judge had to go by the statutes as written by the General Court.

I don't know the reason mandatory sentencing was implemented but I am sure it wasn't a whim, so there must be significant reason. The arbitration would only be necessary IF the original judge chose to reduce the sentence below the mandatory. I don't think that would happen a lot. Maybe each judge could have a lifetime limit : /

. . . p.s., there isn't anything on earth that isn't "flawed" ; )

I find it hard to believe that anyone who owns a firearm would do what the article in todays LDS said they did...and it was Ward Bird in 2002.
Thank God that no one was killed when this happened!

Here is part of the article and you can read the rest of it Here:

It was on June 15, 2002 — a Bike Week Saturday around 6 p.m. — when Moultonborough Cpl. James Fogarty got a report of shots being fired into a home. Daniel King of Maspeth, N.Y. andtwo of his friends from Pennsylvania were watching television in a rented cottage at 84 Langdorf Street in the Suisseville section of Moultonborough. All three told Fogarty they heard seven gunshots, then silence, then five more. King told Fogarty that at least one bullet had entered the cottage. While Fogarty took pictures of the bullet hole in the back window, searched for and finally found the .30 caliber slug in the closet, other officers fanned out and began searching for the source of the bullet. About 600 yards and two streets away, police found a “large gathering” at 51 Sandorf St. As the three officers began asking questions and searching the area for spent shell casings, Fogarty noticed one party goer was a little more interested than were the others. “Please, let me know what you find out. I’m interested to see what happened,” Fogarty recalled Ward Bird saying before he left the scene in his white flatbed pickup. Moultonborough Sgt. Shawn Varney also responded to the area and was the incident supervisor. His statement said he learned from the other officers there was a “large party” on nearby Sandorf Street but everyone had denied any involvement, telling police they thought “someone was lighting off fireworks.” One of the officers also told Varney that all the guns held by the party goers had been checked, including a .25 caliber pistol owned by Bird, and none appeared to have been recently fired. In his report, Varney said the party host’s “body language and tone of voice indicated to me that he knew more than he was saying.” Varney report also said police didn’t find any shell casings. He suggested Fogarty “attempt to track [Bird] down” but said Fogarty checked Bird’s home and he wasn’t there. The next day Varney got a call from the N.H. State Police dispatcher requesting he go to Bird’s house to discuss the shooting with him. While one of his patrol officers was already interviewing Bird, Varney said Bird “was visibly upset” and had wanted to speak to a supervisor. “He advised me that he was the one who shot the firearm in Suissevale last night,” Varney wrote. “He advised me he felt really bad about the incident and apologized many times.” Varney said Bird told him he was “intoxicated” and he had been shooting into a tree stump across the street from the house with the party. He told Varney he had no knowledge there were houses beyond the stump and later came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered an AMT Automag III .30 carbine with eight rounds and two clips. Bird was charged with unauthorized use of a firearm, showed police the stump with nine bullets lodged in it and said he was the only one who did any shooting. He was charged with the unauthorized use of a firearm, which was negotiated down to a violation. The owner of the house with the bullet hole in the window was content to have the window replaced and “to leave it at that.” Bird paid a fine and the incident was largely forgotten.

Very interesting. Maybe the punishment does fit the crime after all? It is hard to say without all the facts, but the more I hear about Ward Bird the more it is apparent he isn't the angel some suggest he is.

Fwiw...
 

OMC—which became TDE—which became AMT—which became IAI (among other names) went out of business around 2003, but is still manufactured today under license.

The "carbine" mentioned above isn't the famous "long-gun" of WW2, but a pistol chambered for the 30-Carbine cartridge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...UTOMAG_III.JPG

Trespasser
 

I have not gone back and reread the newspaper article, but I think I read that Harris was going around the house looking in windows. If that was the case, then would not Ward think that perhaps she was casing out the place to rob it, and then pulled his gun?

Another part, was there ammo in the gun? He wanted her off his property so he took an empty gun and waved it in the air. See what I got, now get off my property.

By the way I hope you all have a Happy, Safe, and Healthy New Year, now look for Ice OUT

Very interesting.It seemed there had to be more to this than just a man innocently defending his property.:confused:

I've seen enough. Excuse me, I just passed judgement.

...If Ward hadn't come forward to confess back in 2002, - eight years ago - he probably would have gotten off, as when the officer at the scene checked the guns, it didn't appear that any had been recently fired. It sounds to me like Ward fully cooperated with the police in that incident, including admitting he was intoxicated.

Did he do the right thing? No. Firing the gun in an area like that was highly irresponsible - no doubt about it. However, he owned up to the crime, paid the price. It sounds like he could have played it cool and let it slide. After all, what police dept is going to chase down a complaint like that on Bike Week? (They'd have bigger fish to fry, I'd think...)

When Ward had the encounter he had with Harris he wasn't intoxicated (by any records I've read so far), he didn't fire the gun, and we don't know if it was loaded, even. It sounds to me like he cooperated with police.

I'd wager that in the next couple of days you're gonna see some letters to the editor flyin' in the LaDaSun in rebuttal to the article.

Target shooting while drinking in a location that was not familiar? It does make one question his judgement. How many other times was his judgement questionable but there were no consequences, out of sheer luck? I guess we'll never know.

Fwiw...2...
 

Not exactly. :rolleye2:

He kept "mum" about the 30-caliber shooting and showed the police his 25-caliber pistol—allowing the police to report that his 25-caliber pistol "wasn't fired recently".

If her past is irrelevant to this case, what makes his past an integral part of this case? What's so different? :confused:

Nothing is different. His past is irrelevant too.

Listen clearly. I think he should be home right now. I think from day one all the authorities mishandled this case.

But I have read the papers today. 12/30/2010. Two papers two articles.

These newspaper articles present information that will make it extremely difficult for the pardon.

Morally he should receive the pardon. Politically, it will be very difficult for any polictician to grant that pardon - after reading those newspaper articles.

Links please?

There are no links.

Print version. At store.