Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[Yosemite Sam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


My thoughts:

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

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

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

[tis]

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

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

My thoughts:

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

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

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

Who the Hell is Mark Bird ?

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Who the Hell is Mark Bird ?

Whoops, I should have said Ward Bird.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

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

Belmont Resident,
I like your logic!

Originally Posted by tis

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

You are correct tis.

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

[hazelnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

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

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

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

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

[DoTheMath]

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

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

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

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

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

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

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

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

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

Shameful!!

R2B

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

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

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

Shameful!!

R2B

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