Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

secondcurve · 11-18-2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

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

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

wuwu · 11-18-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

secondcurve · 11-19-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwu

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

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

tis · 11-19-2010, 08:39 AM

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

PennyPenny · 11-19-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

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

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

tis · 11-19-2010, 09:31 PM

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

RailroadJoe · 11-20-2010, 06:40 AM

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

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

wifi · 11-20-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

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 ?

twoplustwo · 11-20-2010, 10:39 AM

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.

Pepper · 11-20-2010, 12:22 PM

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.

Argie's Wife · 11-20-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper

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...

MarkinNH · 11-19-2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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 !!

RI Swamp Yankee · 11-19-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

The supposed trespasser got the go ahead from the niece who gave old Ward a call, ......

That fact is not supported in the appeal

Quote:

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

The niece only gave directions and a warning.

One troubling phrase that was repeated through the appeal was:

Quote:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,..

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

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

Slickcraft · 11-19-2010, 02:59 PM

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

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

Quote:

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

[Paragraph IV effective January 1, 2011.]

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

Onshore · 11-19-2010, 03:28 PM

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

ishoot308 · 11-19-2010, 05:04 PM

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

MarkinNH · 11-19-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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

songkrai · 11-19-2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

VitaBene · 11-19-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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

That is my understanding, Dan.

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

I wonder how this plays with open carry laws.

fatlazyless · 11-19-2010, 08:37 PM

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

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

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

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!

ishoot308 · 11-20-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

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

RailroadJoe · 11-20-2010, 03:14 PM

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.

NoBozo · 11-20-2010, 03:18 PM

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

RailroadJoe · 11-20-2010, 04:32 PM

NoBozo -- Sounds like lawyer talk to me.

brk-lnt · 11-20-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishoot308

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.

MarkinNH · 11-20-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

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 ?

fatlazyless · 11-20-2010, 07:36 PM

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!

brk-lnt · 11-20-2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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.

fatlazyless · 11-20-2010, 09:56 PM

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.

RI Swamp Yankee · 11-20-2010, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.... "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.

wuwu · 11-21-2010, 12:58 AM

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

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

hazelnut · 11-21-2010, 10:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITD · 11-21-2010, 11:07 AM

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

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

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

hazelnut · 11-21-2010, 11:32 AM

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

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

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

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

JDeere · 12-01-2010, 09:36 AM

I guess I like many of you I only know the story about what happened from other people who claim to know what happened. The version I heard was the Bird was recovering from hernia surgery and not something more serious. I am told he is a large man and hernia surgery or not I very, very much doubt that this woman posed any type of threat to Bird. Finally, I have no idea what type of gun he had but many guns do not have a safety, regardless I do not find it credible that he removed the gun to check the safety.
I am not a believer in mandatory sentencing however Bird flat out was wrong to remove his gun with the implied threat of deadly force when there was no reason whatsoever for him to believe his life was in and danger.
So, before you all bash me I am not saying he should have received 3 years in prison but on the other hand does anyone want people “waving” a gun just because someone ignoramus trespassed on your property?

no-engine · 11-21-2010, 10:40 AM

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

RailroadJoe · 11-21-2010, 11:06 AM

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

Lawyers being lawyers.

MarkinNH · 11-21-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no-engine

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

And you felt the need to tell us this, Why ?

Read it if you choose and just move on and don't bother posting Anything in the thread. PERIOD!

fatlazyless · 11-21-2010, 11:41 AM

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

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

wuwu · 11-21-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

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

Puckster · 11-21-2010, 12:02 PM

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

Puckster · 11-21-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

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

MarkinNH · 11-21-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

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

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

CTYankee · 11-21-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

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.

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

fatlazyless · 11-21-2010, 07:20 PM

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

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

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

Rattlesnake Guy · 11-21-2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

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

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

My thoughts and prayers for the Bird family.

MarkinNH · 11-22-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

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

My thoughts and prayers for the Bird family.

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

fatlazyless · 11-22-2010, 09:26 AM

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

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

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

Happy Gourmand · 11-22-2010, 09:50 AM

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

brk-lnt · 11-20-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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?

Yosemite Sam · 12-09-2010, 06:39 AM

Ward Bird sure does have a lot of support from local businesses.
These photos are in today's edition of THE MEREDITH NEWS :

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 08:01 AM

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.

MarkinNH · 11-30-2010, 08:13 AM

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.

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

fatlazyless · 11-30-2010, 08:49 AM

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.

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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.

tummyman · 11-30-2010, 09:03 AM

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.

fatlazyless · 11-30-2010, 09:13 AM

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.

RailroadJoe · 11-30-2010, 09:21 AM

The Supreme Court only needs a majority. Not all have to agree. Why not other trial using the majority?

MarkinNH · 11-30-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

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.

sa meredith · 11-30-2010, 10:20 AM

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?????

hazelnut · 11-30-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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?

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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.

NoRegrets · 11-30-2010, 12:24 PM

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.

fatlazyless · 11-30-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

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!

MarkinNH · 11-30-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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 definitely 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!

I have lived in NH for 40+ years and I have Never heard that holding a bat or a broom was considered "the learned NH legal sense" as a defense tool. I am not sure of just what that term is supposed to mean. Does the term actually exist, or is it something you just conjured up in your own little mind ?
Maybe we should issue all our soldiers and law enforcement personnel brooms and take away their firearms. I am sure they will feel much safer ! I am also sure that the mere presence of someone brandishing a broom will surely stop all the bad guys and girls in their tracks !!

I can guarantee you that if you show up uninvited and unwelcome on my privately posted property and start wandering around unannounced, it won't be a useless bat or a broom I will be holding when I come out to find out who you are and what the hell you want !!
The reasons for which I say that and mean it are simple. I don't know you ! I don't know what your intentions are ! and you could easily be armed !
Am I going to take a chance and just assume your there to pick flowers and come prancing out with a useless broom as you suggest ? I Don't Think So !!!
You will hopefully never give me a reason to let you know it's there but it will be there.

sa meredith · 11-30-2010, 02:42 PM

Maybe my real question is this...does anyone in this forum know this person, and his land? I guess I was curious if at some point he has been invloved with a land dipute with neighbors, and is therefore trying to prevent any sale of abutting property. Therefore protecting his privacy or property value. That might make more sense. If he is trying to somehow block a sale, I can understand his hostility toward a potential buyer.
Or even if he is just known to locals as a "grumpy old man"...things like this might make the situation a bit more understandable.
Someone here must know...
As to other issues brought up here...specifically, when would I think it OK to pull a gun. I would say, I guess if someone is trying to force their way into the house, unannounced, without knocking...I'm shooting, never mind "pulling the gun". Fire away.
But, for someone passing thru my property, unannounced or otherwise. As long as there are no unusual circumstances (like they are holding a weapon, or appear to be mentally/emotionally deficient) I don't think I'd consider self defense. Unless I asked them to stay put, and they continued toward me. Or somehow began acting erractic. But if they asked directions, or said they were just passing thru...no problem.
If I had asked this guy directions, or some simple question about some land I thought he might be familiar with, and he kibeyed out, and pulled weapon, I'd call him an ***** as well. If I thought he had pointed the weapon at me, I'd call the police as well.
Anyway...someone must know...is this just grumpy old man syndrom?

MarkinNH · 11-30-2010, 03:04 PM

sa meredith,
I have known ward for close to 20 years. A grumpy old man he is not. As far as there being some kind of land dispute, I am not aware of one.
The side of the mountain where Ward and his family live, has been in his wifes family for as long as I have lived in the lakes region. I used to help my father check the electrical connections on the lift towers every winter when Wards father in law operated the ski slope.
There good decent hard working people.

twoplustwo · 11-30-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

sa meredith,
I have known ward for close to 20 years. A grumpy old man he is not. As far as there being some kind of land dispute, I am not aware of one.
The side of the mountain where Ward and his family live, has been in his wifes family for as long as I have lived in the lakes region. I used to help my father check the electrical connections on the lift towers every winter when Wards father in law operated the ski slope.
There good decent hard working people.

Ditto most of that. The parcel in question is still in the family, and yes there have been family disputes over it's sale as it was intended to always be in the family. The volatility of those disputes has always originated on the other side, not from Ward and Ginny.

I've known Ward, Ginny and their kids for almost as long as MarkinNH has, and they are wonderful people. I would not hesitate for a moment to let my children hang out up there.

sa meredith · 11-30-2010, 03:17 PM

So, as stated earlier, I knew very little about the case, but posted a couple of times anyway..but have now done some research...
HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE OPENED FIRE!
I know who this woman is...I live in the same town where she was constantly bothered by neighbors about her house/trailor. Anyone who has an even mild affection for animals would want this woman gone. When she was in the news a few years back, I took a drive by her place, just to see what all the fuss was....HOLY CHRIST... how could anyone live like the that. The smell alone, FROM OUTSIDE, was simply unbearable. And, yes, she is very abrasive. A very confrontational person...at least this is what is common knowledge in town. I have never had any dealing with her directly. I believe they removered 50 some odd animals from her home. Obviosly neglected. Heart breaking...just heart breaking. Many could not be saved. Many people donated to save some of them thru surgury etc... most were adopted.
Anyway...this is a stange person, to be sure....
I retract any negative comments I may have made about Bird...in a million years, I would not want this woman around me...no where near.
I have no doubt there are two sides to this story...
In case you are interested:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1...d-with-assault

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

So, as stated earlier, I knew very little about the case, but posted a couple of times anyway..but have now done some research...
HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE OPENED FIRE!
I know who this woman is...I live in the same town where she was constantly bothered by neighbors about her house/trailor. Anyone who has an even mild affection for animals would want this woman gone. When she was in the news a few years back, I took a drive by her place, just to see what all the fuss was....HOLY CHRIST... how could anyone live like the that. The smell alone, FROM OUTSIDE, was simply unbearable. And, yes, she is very abrasive. A very confrontational person...at least this is what is common knowledge in town. I have never had any dealing with her directly. I believe they removered 50 some odd animals from her home. Obviosly neglected. Heart breaking...just heart breaking. Many could not be saved. Many people donated to save some of them thru surgury etc... most were adopted.
Anyway...this is a stange person, to be sure....
I retract any negative comments I may have made about Bird...in a million years, I would not want this woman around me...no where near.
I have no doubt there are two sides to this story...
In case you are interested:

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1...d-with-assault

I read the article that you posted and found an interesting statment that came from a couple by the name of Jeffrey and Kay Bird. They live/lived near Harris when she was having a problem with the animals and police.
Does anyone know if they are related to Ward Bird?

This is what the article said:

Jeffrey and Kay Bird, who have been living a few doors down from Harris for nearly 14 years, said yesterday that they have never had a problem with Harris, but feel sympathy for the animals locked away in her home.
"A lot of people have had problems with her, but we've never had a bad word with her," Jeffrey Bird said, sitting on his shaded front porch. Kay Bird said, "I feel sorry for her, but she hasn't abided by the rules."

Resident 2B · 11-30-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

I read the article that you posted and found an interesting statment that came from a couple by the name of Jeffrey and Kay Bird. They live/lived near Harris when she was having a problem with the animals and police.
Does anyone know if they are related to Ward Bird?

This is what the article said:

Jeffrey and Kay Bird, who have been living a few doors down from Harris for nearly 14 years, said yesterday that they have never had a problem with Harris, but feel sympathy for the animals locked away in her home.
"A lot of people have had problems with her, but we've never had a bad word with her," Jeffrey Bird said, sitting on his shaded front porch. Kay Bird said, "I feel sorry for her, but she hasn't abided by the rules."

YS,

So what!

I know of a basketball player that played in Boston years ago who liked animals. His first name is Larry. I wonder if there is a connection there?

I see no importance at all in whatever you are trying to connect.

R2B

Yosemite Sam · 11-30-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

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.

fatlazyless · 11-30-2010, 01:03 PM

Yes, a gun unlike a knife has pretty much just one purpose, while a broom has both a broom handle on one end and a straw broom end at the other so it is perceived to be much less threatening. One can say something like; "While sweeping the floor, I heard a tap-tap-tap on the window so I stepped outside to see who was there?" if a county attorney decides it is reasonable to throw the book at you for defending yourself with a broom.

DickR · 11-30-2010, 01:11 PM

Hazlenut said: "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."

He's right, of course. But neither could the jury know, for sure. Wouldn't that uncertainty have constituted "reasonable doubt," preventing a conviction?

Should Ward be released? - yes, we think so.

Was he an "unintended consequence" of a perhaps poorly crafted law? - yes, we think so.

Did the case get out of hand, driven by personalities? - yes, we think so.

Can we really resolve the case on this forum, knowing less than what presumably the jury knew? - probably not.

VitaBene · 12-01-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickR

Hazlenut said: "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."

He's right, of course. But neither could the jury know, for sure. Wouldn't that uncertainty have constituted "reasonable doubt," preventing a conviction?

Should Ward be released? - yes, we think so.

Was he an "unintended consequence" of a perhaps poorly crafted law? - yes, we think so.

Did the case get out of hand, driven by personalities? - yes, we think so.

Can we really resolve the case on this forum, knowing less than what presumably the jury knew? - probably not.

I don't know how to sum it up any better than this!

VitaBene · 12-01-2010, 11:01 AM

I will add one further comment- never, ever make a statement to the Police without legal counsel.

NEVER!!

nvtngtxpyr · 12-01-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I will add one further comment- never, ever make a statement to the Police without legal counsel.

NEVER!!

Excellent advice VB. Take the time to view the attached if you want to know why.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

MarkinNH · 12-01-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I don't know how to sum it up any better than this!

Yes, some how I missed that post and I highly agree with you and DickR. Thank you for quoting him.
Several times I have told myself to just stay away from this thread, that I have said all I can and I am doing nothing more then arguing and repeating myself. Next thing I know, I am here running my mouth and posting again.

sa meredith · 12-01-2010, 11:14 AM

Couple of final thoughts for me...(in case you missed it, check out the link in post 156)
I'm curious, after reading about Bird's day in court, why the Harris woman's previous indiscretions with the law, and her history of mental instability, were not allowed to be entered. They are indeed so relevant. Here is a woman, who I know to very abrasive and confrontational, who has refused, in the past, to comply with an officer of the law, that had a search warrant in hand.
That smacked a tow truck driver trying to remove her two illegal cars from her trailor.
Who thought living in a trailor with 50 dogs was an "OK" thing.
Who has a history of acting, let's say..."a little off".
Bird probably realized pretty quickly her elevator didn't go all the way up, and wondered what her deal was.
Further more...and this is compete speculation...I seriously question her ability to enter into any finacial agreement to buy property.
So..adding everything together...perhaps she went there with some sort of agenda. Seems like simply math in the court of common sense.

tis · 12-01-2010, 01:21 PM

It's not allowed sa meredith.

Pineedles · 11-30-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Yes, a gun unlike a knife has pretty much just one purpose

And if I may be so stupid as to ask, what one purpose is that?

fatlazyless · 11-30-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

And if I may be so stupid as to ask, what one purpose is that?

Most handguns are expensive, high quality design, high quality steel, precision made mechanisms that are capable of repeatedly firing hundreds and even thousands of rounds, and get treated accordingly by their owners. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the butt of a handgun handle would ever get used as a hammer, or that the barrel would get used as a prybar. Basically, a handgun gets used for its' one and only intended purpose and that is to fire a bullet. And yes, it is much more likely "to have a gun and not need one, than to need one and not have one" which strongly alludes to having a handgun for self defense without ever firing a round, which is still based on the gun's single purpose which is to fire a round.

A knife is indeed a very different type of a weapon, because by its' design a knife can be used for a number of non-weapon uses such as slicing an apple, scraping an old state inspection sticker off a windshield, or opening up the top on a can of tuna fish if you had no can opener.

Here's a simple question for you? If you needed to remove a state inspection sticker from a windshield would you ever use your Colt 45 as a scraper tool? Sure, it is probably possible to find a corner edge on a handgun to work as a scraper but would you ever honestly be doing that?
.................

Growing up in Massachusetts, I learned to differentiate between the concept of self-protection when inside one's dwelling, ie house, apartment, condo, etc, and self-protection when on one's land. It is my view that the justice system in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire take a dim view on showing a hand gun when out on one's land, but do indeed take a much less negative view on showing or pointing a handgun when inside one's dwelling as a defensive action.

As I see by reading through all these posts it does not appear that this concept of differentiating the use of a handgun when inside your house as opposed to outside on the land has been discussed. That was always a primary issue in Massachusetts to be considered when thinking about the legal system and the appropriate law and how it thought along the issue of self-defense for inside and for outside. In Massachusetts, I'm pretty sure it makes a big difference.

..................

"You watch zombie movies, do you?" ... Argie's Wife

Yes, I'm a long time, big fan of zombie movies! And back in 1974 I got to play the lead role in a little seen movie: "The Cockroach that Ate Cincinnati." Thanks for asking.......such a memory! ..

RI Swamp Yankee · 11-30-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.... And back in 1974 I got to play the lead role in a little seen movie: "The Cockroach that Ate Cincinnati." ....

The song The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati was released in 1974
........

The movie The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati was released in 1996
95 min - Comedy | Sci-Fi

Storyline
The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati is about rock & roll, hero worship, hallucinations, drugs, madness, myth, rebellion and the search for individual integrity in a world on the brink of cultural and physical self-destruction. Written by Michael McNamara

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115919/

*** sigh ***

tis · 12-01-2010, 08:48 AM

Poor Ward Bird is not the only one who got a crazy sentence. Did you hear about the 27 year old guy in NJ (I think it was) who had 2 legal guns in his car and is spending 7 years in prison. How do these judges come up with these sentences. Yet the Supreme Court just ruled that an illegal who used his own name but another's ss number to get a job didn't do anything wrong. Could it be it is politically incorrect to blame an illegal for anything??? Give me a break. (Not to go off topic but just to show how unfair things are sometimes.)

Pineedles · 12-01-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Most handguns are expensive, high quality design, high quality steel, precision made mechanisms that are capable of repeatedly firing hundreds and even thousands of rounds, and get treated accordingly by their owners. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the butt of a handgun handle would ever get used as a hammer, or that the barrel would get used as a prybar. Basically, a handgun gets used for its' one and only intended purpose and that is to fire a bullet. And yes, it is much more likely "to have a gun and not need one, than to need one and not have one" which strongly alludes to having a handgun for self defense without ever firing a round, which is still based on the gun's single purpose which is to fire a round.

A knife is indeed a very different type of a weapon, because by its' design a knife can be used for a number of non-weapon uses such as slicing an apple, scraping an old state inspection sticker off a windshield, or opening up the top on a can of tuna fish if you had no can opener.

Here's a simple question for you? If you needed to remove a state inspection sticker from a windshield would you ever use your Colt 45 as a scraper tool? Sure, it is probably possible to find a corner edge on a handgun to work as a scraper but would you ever honestly be doing that?
.................

Growing up in Massachusetts, I learned to differentiate between the concept of self-protection when inside one's dwelling, ie house, apartment, condo, etc, and self-protection when on one's land. It is my view that the justice system in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire take a dim view on showing a hand gun when out on one's land, but do indeed take a much less negative view on showing or pointing a handgun when inside one's dwelling as a defensive action.

:

Fire a bullet is an acceptable answer. At least you didn't say kill. However, I have many guns that not a single bullet has been fired from the muzzle and I don't intend to do so ever. They are collector issue guns. They will appreciate in value much more if they are not used for what you call, their one and only purpose. So, these firearms are non-weapons, imo.

Sorry for getting off topic. I believe Ward Bird was wrongly convicted and pray for his release.

DoTheMath · 11-30-2010, 12:45 PM

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!

MarkinNH · 11-30-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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.

brk-lnt · 11-30-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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.

11-20-2010, 10:39 AM	#9
twoplustwo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 456 Thanks: 51 Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts	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.

11-20-2010, 12:22 PM	#10
Pepper Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Laconia, NH Posts: 1,284 Thanks: 409 Thanked 155 Times in 40 Posts	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!

11-19-2010, 08:37 PM	#20
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,782 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,022 Times in 744 Posts	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 12:32 PM.

11-20-2010, 07:36 PM	#27
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,782 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,022 Times in 744 Posts	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 09:36 PM.

11-20-2010, 09:56 PM	#29
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,782 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,022 Times in 744 Posts	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!

The Following User Says Thank You to wuwu For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (11-19-2010)

11-19-2010, 08:39 AM	#4
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,766 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	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.

11-19-2010, 09:31 PM	#6
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,766 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	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.

11-20-2010, 06:40 AM	#7
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	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.

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)

The Following User Says Thank You to Slickcraft For This Useful Post:
Onshore (11-19-2010)

11-19-2010, 03:28 PM	#15
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	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?

11-19-2010, 05:04 PM	#16
ishoot308 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island Posts: 6,302 Thanks: 2,405 Thanked 5,308 Times in 2,069 Posts	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??

11-20-2010, 03:14 PM	#22
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	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.

The Following User Says Thank You to RailroadJoe For This Useful Post:
tis (11-20-2010)

11-20-2010, 03:18 PM	#23
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	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

11-20-2010, 04:32 PM	#24
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	NoBozo -- Sounds like lawyer talk to me.

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)

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)

11-21-2010, 12:58 AM	#31
wuwu Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 35 Thanks: 27 Thanked 26 Times in 10 Posts	Free ward bird! This is the woman that went on Birds property! http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...ssault&h=ba929 She would have violated her parole! This all seems so unfair!

11-21-2010, 10:35 AM	#32
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Injustice I just HAD to cut and paste the link from Twoplustwo if this is even 50% true it turns my stomach that Bird is serving even one day for this: Ward Bird from Moultonborough, NH was sentenced to 3-6 years in prison for criminal threatening with a firearm. The facts of this case, most of which were not allowed into court, should chill anyone who still thinks they have a right to be secure on their private property. Christine Harris, a notorious animal abuser and hoarder with over 60 convictions in at least 3 states, went driving onto Mr. Bird's private, posted land. She claimed in court that she was looking at a property for sale so she could run an "educational farm." Stopping at at least one wrong address, Mr. Bird's niece directed her to the property she was supposed to view. The niece gave her clear directions, and warned her that if she passed a white travel trailer, she had missed her turn and should turn back, as that was private property. The niece called Mr. Bird and said that he may see this "lost" person on his property. Ms. Harris passed the trailer, did not heed the warning from the niece, and continued on toward Mr. Bird's private property after numerous (at least 12) "Private Property" and "No Tresspassing" and "DANGER!" signs. She got out of her vehicle and began to walk around the home, looking into windows. Mr. Bird had come out onto his porch with a pistol in a holster. He saw this woman skulking around his windows and called out to her. He told her that she had received the correct directions from his niece and that the proerty she wanted was (paraphrased)"down the road and over that way." Ms. Harris did not heed this, and accused Mr. Bird of being the spouse or boyfriend of the property owner and trying to deceive her about the property for sale, or somesuch. Mr. Bird then told her she was tresspassing, and to get off his property. Ms. Harris decided to stay and argue with him about not wanting to sell to her. He told her he was going to call the police, and turned to go back into the house. He removed the pistol from its holster to check that the safety was on as he was entering the home. But Ms. Harris, facing more felony counts in court at the time, whipped out her cell phone and called police first! She claimed Mr. Bird was "waving a gun in my face" and threatened her, blah blah... In my opinon, she knew her goose would be cooked if this man got a hold of the police before her. Mr. Bird was recovering from a serious abdominal surgery at the time, and was moving slow, with dozens of stitches to his abdomen. (I am hearing from people who know him that it was surgery to repair his abdominal aorta? If so, that's pretty heavy surgery and recovery, as my own father had it 7 years ago and could barely shuffle his feet, let alone charge down a porch and wave a gun around!) Since I'm posting this story here, you all know what happened. The facts of Ms. Harris' apparent mental disorder(s) were not allowed into court. Mr. Bird is an upstanding member of his community, active in his church, Boy Scouts, charity... he even received a Hero citation about 20 years ago for saving a woman whose Jeep overturned in a swamp; he bent the vehicle frame and held her head above water until rescue could arrive. He has a solid family, wife and four children. He has a farm business, and is really a nice all-around person who whould do anything for anyone- and he has. There are some real freaks or just ignorant people out there commenting on these articles, saying he came out of his house waving a gun at a lady who was lost, and what a crazy gun-toting teabagger, etc... But the facts of the case, most of which were not allowed into court, are extremely important. In my opinion, this paranoid, mentally-disturbed Christine Harris was clearly "not right" and Mr. Bird justifiably, while legally bearing a legal firearm, asked her, and then told her to leave his property after being accused of lying about who he was and lying about his property being for sale.

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
angela4design (11-29-2010), ishoot308 (11-21-2010), jeffk (11-26-2010), nicole (11-21-2010), RailroadJoe (11-21-2010), Resident 2B (11-21-2010), RI Swamp Yankee (11-21-2010), tis (11-21-2010), wuwu (11-21-2010)

11-21-2010, 11:07 AM	#33
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,934 Thanks: 478 Thanked 694 Times in 389 Posts	I still can't get past the fact that this lady was trespassing, period. Looking at real estate does not absolve her from trespassing. She had been warned not go on this man's property. She admittedly argued with this man when he told her to get off the property. To me, that rises to the level where I think this guy would be justified revealing a firearm. No shots were fired, according to the court brief, she turned around and got into her car to leave, then apparently called the police. She caused this whole incident, and from what I read here and from the court briefs, I think this man should have been acquitted. Apparently Mr. Ward admitted to the police that he unholstered his gun. I have to think to what I have been told by lawyers: don't talk to the police, especially if you think you are in trouble. I'm thinking that had this admission not been made, that this case would have gone differently, food for thought when dealing with police. Anyway, this guy should be freed. This woman obviously got away with trespassing and saved her own skin. I'd like to know where the "public funds" she was going to use to buy this land was coming from?

11-21-2010, 11:32 AM	#34
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Re-reading the article submitted by Twoplustwo I can't get this one image out of my head: If in fact Bird was recovering from surgery and was in pain imagine dealing with a woman who most likely engaging him in some sort of argument that he was being less than truthful about the property. Based on what we have learned about the woman she appears to be less than stable. So again even if we only believe half of what we read I can imagine that he could have felt threatened by her aggressive questioning and at that point he was physically impaired due to the recent surgery. Take a look at the article submitted by wuwu I'll quote it for you: "The owner of the dogs, Christine Harris, 54, of 75 S. Policy St., Lot 61, was charged with simple assault for allegedly shoving a tow truck operator..." So is it a stretch to think that Ward may have felt threatened by this woman? I know the shoving incident was long after the encounter with Ward but it certainly shows what kind of "woman" she is. Is it hard for anyone to imagine that she was probably aggressive towards Mr Bird? If that is the case I go back to illustrating my point where if Mr. Bird was in pain and physically limited at the time can you really blame him for letting her know that if she persisted he was capable of defending himself and his property. Before anyone attacks me I am merely illustrating a reasonable scenario that could have happened. I am not suggesting that I know exactly what happened. But with all of the information coming in does anyone really believe that this was a "damsel in distress" that was attacked by and ogre of a man hell bent on blood shed? It sounds to me that the State of New Hampshire has grossly failed in this case.

12-01-2010, 09:36 AM	#35
JDeere Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 295 Thanks: 74 Thanked 52 Times in 25 Posts	I am not saying he should have received 3 years I guess I like many of you I only know the story about what happened from other people who claim to know what happened. The version I heard was the Bird was recovering from hernia surgery and not something more serious. I am told he is a large man and hernia surgery or not I very, very much doubt that this woman posed any type of threat to Bird. Finally, I have no idea what type of gun he had but many guns do not have a safety, regardless I do not find it credible that he removed the gun to check the safety. I am not a believer in mandatory sentencing however Bird flat out was wrong to remove his gun with the implied threat of deadly force when there was no reason whatsoever for him to believe his life was in and danger. So, before you all bash me I am not saying he should have received 3 years in prison but on the other hand does anyone want people “waving” a gun just because someone ignoramus trespassed on your property?

11-21-2010, 10:40 AM	#36
no-engine Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: West side Winnipesaukee, Lakes Region Posts: 516 Thanks: 20 Thanked 52 Times in 40 Posts	I don't know why I am reading this thread! Unless we know the facts, sitting in court and listening to the full proceeding, how can 90% of us make a valid statement? I agree that the Ward Bird family are great people, but I was not in court so will not comment on proceedings. PERIOD!

The Following User Says Thank You to no-engine For This Useful Post:
Yosemite Sam (11-21-2010)

11-21-2010, 11:06 AM	#37
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	How can you listen to ALL the facts when most of them are no longer allowed in courts. They don't really want the WHOLE truth, only what they will allow. Lawyers being lawyers.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarkinNH For This Useful Post:
olde nh (11-22-2010), Resident 2B (11-21-2010)

11-21-2010, 11:41 AM	#39
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,782 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,022 Times in 744 Posts	Better to wave a broom & smile friendly, than to raise a gun and curse! Old Chinese proverb: If you want an enemy for a neighbor then you should treat him like one! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wuwu For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (11-21-2010), hazelnut (11-21-2010), nicole (11-21-2010), Puckster (11-21-2010)

11-21-2010, 12:02 PM	#41
Puckster Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 38 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	the point is they took the word of a possible fellon over that of Mr. Bird. It is scary that he goes to jail for 3 years and she continues on her way. This lady is no peach. She new exactly what she was doing. I am confused about my rights as a land owner and when it is okay to show someone a gun. I am not sure why people are thinking they are missing something. Yes we do not have all the details, but the state is trying to get the sheeple under control. This is just another small removal of your rights... test case, trial ballon.. you fill in the blanks.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MarkinNH For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (11-21-2010), olde nh (11-22-2010), RailroadJoe (11-21-2010), Ryan (11-22-2010), Seeker (11-22-2010), Skip (11-21-2010)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CTYankee For This Useful Post:
jeffatsquam (11-21-2010), Skip (11-21-2010), Yosemite Sam (11-21-2010)

11-21-2010, 07:20 PM	#45
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,782 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,022 Times in 744 Posts	FREE WARD BIRD is what the big sign out front of the Congregational Church, next to the post office in Center Harbor, says. Who knows but with their help maybe he can find some divine intervention from above? Will most definately be less expensive than finding an attorney knowlegable with habeas corpus pleadings! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!