Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[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??

[MarkinNH]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

NoBozo -- Sounds like lawyer talk to me.

[brk-lnt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[fatlazyless]

When people have an injury and have the pain of healing and recovery it can easily alter their usual good judgement as to how they react to other people. Basically, sometimes people just get cranky and do something dopey.

All things considered, based on his life history, a much more just sentence would be to let Ward go free. No shots fired, no harm done, no big deal, everybody has a temper and sometimes their temper may show its' bad side especially when recovering from a medical operation.

It is incredibly unfair that Ward is stuck away in a prison cell for what may or may not have happened considering there is no personal injuries here.......no bruises, no blood, no marks, no scrapes, NO NOTHING!

And, let's not forget the big impact of the huge legal expense for Ward to get to this place legally. Hiring a defense attorney is very expensive, with all payments up-front, and having this whole event drag out from 2006 must be very difficult.

The whole Carrol County legal process here is a BIG STINKER!

Had I been sitting on that jury, and I usually like to disagree with people, I would have held out as one vs eleven, and not been swayed just to get the trial over and done with. It just takes one out of eleven to get a 'no decision' aka a 'hung jury' which ends the trial with no finding of guilt and may lead to a second new trial.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by JDeere

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?

The surgery he was recovering from was for a Ruptured Abdominal Aorta !
There is No proof that he "pulled the gun out" to imply a threat. Only the womans say so, that he waved it in her face.
You obviously no Very Little about firearms ! Short of revolvers, Most All modern firearms have safety's. I find it quite credible that he removed the gun from the holster to check the safety as he reentered his house. It would have been a conscious act of a responsible gun owner. I own and actively carry and I frequently check the status of my weapons safety.
There is also No proof that he "waved a gun" again, only this womans say so. His word against hers.
Read the letters on this website from people who know Ward Bird, http://freewardbird.org/
there is even one letter that will give you some history of what kind of person this Christine Harris really is and there is also the recent post from "sa meredith" who has personal knowledge of this woman.
Do some research and reading up on this woman and decide for yourself if you think she was really a credible person who was being honest and truthful with her testimony or is it possible she would have said anything to cover her a$$ and make everybody believe she was a poor innocent victim.

[JDeere]

Does anyone own a Glock? Great gun....no safety.

Where any of you who are so adamant about this at the trial? Better yet where you there? I was not.

I hate to agree with anything FLL has to say but I too would not have convicted Bird.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Does anyone own a Glock? Great gun....no safety

Sometime about two months ago, the LaDaSun had a photograph and article of the then candidate Jeannie Forester either holding or taking aim or something with her pink colored Glock pistol, and she went on to win the race and become State Senator (elect) Jeannie Forester for the district that includes Meredith and Center Harbor.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Does anyone own a Glock? Great gun....no safety.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/glockpistols.htm 4th paragraph down.

"As for the rumors of a lack of safety, they were based on the fact that Glock handguns were one of, if not the first, semi-automatic handguns designed with no external safety lever. However, there are more safeties on a Glock handgun than there are on any revolver. The Glock handguns all have three safety mechanisms: 1) the trigger safety, 2) the firing pin safety, and c) the drop safety. The only way a Glock handgun will fire is for the trigger to be pulled fully to the rear. The Glock is neither a technically true Single Action, nor a Double Action. Glock calls its action the "Safe Action", which is close to a Double Action. The rumors of a lack of safety also stem from the integration of polymer into the receivers."

The following comes directly from Glocks website !

TRIGGER SYSTEM
The “Safe Action” system is a partly tensioned firing pin lock, which is moved further back by the trigger bar when the trigger is pulled.
When the trigger is pulled, 3 safety features are automatically deactivated one after another. When doing so, the trigger bar is deflected downward by the connector and the firing pin is released under full load. When the trigger is released, all three safety features re-engage and the GLOCK pistol is automatically secured again.


TRIGGER SAFETY
As the first of the three GLOCK “Safe Action” safety features, the trigger safety prevents inadvertent firing by lateral forces on the trigger. Releasing the trigger will automatically reactivate the safety

FIRING PIN SAFETY
The GLOCK firing pin safety is a solid hardened steel pin which, in the secured state, blocks the firing pin channel, rendering the igniting of a chambered cartridge by the firing pin impossible. The firing pin safety is only pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing when the trigger is pulled and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar. Releasing the trigger will automatically reactivate the firing pin safety

DROP SAFETY
In the line of duty it may happen that a loaded pistol is dropped on the floor. Contrary to conventional pistols, the GLOCK drop safety prevents unintentional firing of a shot through hard impact. When the trigger is pulled, the trigger bar is guided in a precision safety ramp. The trigger bar is deflected from this ramp only in the moment the shot is triggered.

The internet is a Wonderful tool.

[MarkinNH]

Let me re quote you Exact comment.

Originally Posted by JDeere

Does anyone own a Glock? Great gun....no safety.

You clearly stated that a Glock has no safety ! I believe I have proved otherwise.

I also believe that if you read how the multiple internal safety's of a Glock work you will see that you Do indeed turn them off / on through the squeezing and releasing of the trigger. It may not be in the form of the traditional external button or lever but you certainly turn the safety"s Off and On.

Originally Posted by JDeere

Do you really believe that he was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt

ABSOLUTELY !! Where are the witness's or the evidence to back up the Crazy Lady's "say so" ? There doesn't seem to be any proof to back up the Lady's claim. The local police did what they had to at the time, due to the womans claim then that joke of a county attorney bought the Lady's whole cock and bull story and chose to pursue this case when it clearly should have been drooped. This whole mess literally screams of reasonable doubt !

Originally Posted by JDeere

Cleary some of you know nothing about guns

With over 40 years of owning, collecting, reloading, target practicing, skeet and trap shooting, hunting etc. I believe I can comfortably hold my own in most conversations.

Originally Posted by JDeere

The argument is not if Bird should or should not be in jail

It most certainly is ! Just because You believe he belongs in jail doesn't not make it written in stone. The judicial system very clearly failed it's duty's in this particular case. Unfortunately it happens.
You are correct about the argument over the mandatory sentencing. In this particular case the mandatory sentence does not fit the supposed crime. This is why so many people are now pushing to change this particular law.

[MarkinNH]

Let me re quote you Exact comment.

Originally Posted by JDeere

Does anyone own a Glock? Great gun....no safety.

You clearly stated that a Glock has no safety ! I believe I have proved otherwise.

I also believe that if you read how the multiple internal safety's of a Glock work you will see that you Do indeed turn them off / on through the squeezing and releasing of the trigger. It may not be in the form of the traditional external button or lever but you certainly turn the safety"s Off and On.

Originally Posted by JDeere

Do you really believe that he was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt

ABSOLUTELY !! Where are the witness's or the evidence to back up the Crazy Lady's "say so" ? There doesn't seem to be any proof to back up the Lady's claim. The local police did what they had to at the time, due to the womans claim then that joke of a county attorney bought the Lady's whole cock and bull story and chose to pursue this case when it clearly should have been drooped. This whole mess literally screams of reasonable doubt !

Originally Posted by JDeere

Cleary some of you know nothing about guns

With over 40 years of owning, collecting, reloading, target practicing, skeet and trap shooting, hunting etc. I believe I can comfortably hold my own in most conversations.

Originally Posted by JDeere

The argument is not if Bird should or should not be in jail

It most certainly is ! It is merely one of the aspects of this whole mess. The judicial system very clearly failed it's duty's in this particular case. Unfortunately it happens. The county attorney bought the Lady's song and dance and turned right around with prejudice and sold it to the jury.
You are correct about the argument over the mandatory sentencing. In this particular case the mandatory sentence does not fit the supposed crime. This is why so many people are now pushing to change this particular law.
I believe that we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[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!

[RailroadJoe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Yosemite Sam]

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

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

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

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

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

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

He told Varney he had no knowledge there were houses beyond the stump and later came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered an AMT Automag III .30 carbine with eight rounds and two clips.

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

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

[Puckster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It just seems like a lot of you people are not making a rational judgement on this.

The day that you can comment about other peoples rational thoughts or actions is going to be a very strange one indeed.

[ClosetExtrovert]

http://dailypaul.com/node/149906

Ron Paul, in Texas, has picked up this story!!

[Yosemite Sam]

Good article on the front page of todays LDS that talks about the petition to free Ward Bird.


“At the request of the newly elected Speaker of the N.H. House William O’Brien, Gov. John Lynch yesterday met with him and a small delegation of legislators to receive a petition supporting a pardon for Ward Bird.

The petition, signed by about 100 representatives from both parties, asks that Lynch “take the necessary steps” to release Bird from the Carroll County Jail before Christmas.
“It is well known and understood that if this request is acted upon it would represent a very rare circumstance for a convicted felon in this state,” wrote O’Brien.”

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Rattle Isle Windy Side

Seems pretty clear the guy broke the law, and is paying the price for it. Where it sounds like this really went wrong is possibly what he admitted to and how poorly his attorney handled it. I think the law was pretty clear.

As a longtime gun owner I dont think he should be given a pass for anything. You dont wave pistols at people in anger. This is the type of thing that results in a few shootings that result in absurd gun laws like NJ/NY impose. It affects all of us law abiding people who want to enjoy their rights. Should you sit in jail for years? NO!!...but you shouldn't own any guns. I suspect any others he owned have been taken. Losing that right and some anger management/community service seems safe and fair and punishment enough.

People make mistakes, it could have been far worse. The sad part is how quickly you can railroad yourself by not abiding to the golden rule - Dont say a word to anyone. Nobody is out to protect the gun owner. Nobody is on your side.

The right to remain silent is as important as the right to bear arms! With a closed mouth and representation with a brain this would not have happened.

Ward Bird did not admit anything and his attorney did everything he was supposed to do. For some reason the jurors believed her and not him.

Please go HERE and read the "Trial Documents" that are posted there and you will see that Ward did not say he waved or pointed a gun at her.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Rattle Isle Windy Side

Seems pretty clear the guy broke the law, and is paying the price for it. Where it sounds like this really went wrong is possibly what he admitted to and how poorly his attorney handled it. I think the law was pretty clear.

As a longtime gun owner I dont think he should be given a pass for anything. You dont wave pistols at people in anger. This is the type of thing that results in a few shootings that result in absurd gun laws like NJ/NY impose. It affects all of us law abiding people who want to enjoy their rights. Should you sit in jail for years? NO!!...but you shouldn't own any guns. I suspect any others he owned have been taken. Losing that right and some anger management/community service seems safe and fair and punishment enough.

People make mistakes, it could have been far worse. The sad part is how quickly you can railroad yourself by not abiding to the golden rule - Dont say a word to anyone. Nobody is out to protect the gun owner. Nobody is on your side.

The right to remain silent is as important as the right to bear arms! With a closed mouth and representation with a brain this would not have happened.

Have you even bothered to read ANY of the court transcripts ??
There is NO PROOF or WITNESS'S that back up or support the claim that he EVER WAVED A GUN at Anybody !! Only the "say so" of the woman !
I to have been an owner of firearms since I was a boy and have actively carried concealed for the last 30+ years. Now I am no Einstein, but there is a huge difference in taking a handgun out of it's holster to check it's safety and waving it in somebody's face

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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?

There is No proof that he ever "waved" the gun around ! Only the womans say so !
And if it were you in some similar situation, would you except a plea bargain which is still an admission of guilt, for something you Didn't Do, because it comes with a lesser sentence ?
You have finally removed All doubt, not only are you clearly a Pompous A$$ but you are most assuredly a fool and an antagonistic jerk to boot !
I suspect this thread and an innocent man sitting in prison is nothing more to you then a form of cheap entertainment.
Now, Go Away !!

[Happy Gourmand]

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

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

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

I don't think a discussion and grass-roots suport campaign for an unjustly imprisoned person should be shut down simply because the thread has been invaded by a child.

The better course of action would be to remove the cancer before sacrificing the entire limb.

[Slickcraft]

From WMUR web site:
http://www.wmur.com/news/25877303/detail.html
Patten has submitted a House bill that would allow a property owner to display a firearm to a trespasser.

Protesters Call For Release Of Man Convicted Of Threatening

CONCORD, N.H. --
Ward Bird Rally
Kria Sakakeeny
Nearly 100 protesters gathered outside the state house in Concord on Monday morning to call for the release of Ward Bird, who was sentenced to prison for criminal threatening.

Bird turned 49 on Monday. He just started serving a mandatory sentence of three to six years in prison. Supporters called the sentence unjust, saying Bird was within his rights when he had a gun while confronting a woman who went past "no trespassing" signs onto his property.

Bird's wife, Virginia, was among the protesters on Monday, as was state Rep. Betsy Patten.

Patten is advocating for Bird's pardon from prison. Bird's wife said he has been mailed an application for a prison pardon. She said he was offered a plea deal for no prison time, but he refused because, she said, he was innocent.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

From WMUR web site:
http://www.wmur.com/news/25877303/detail.html
Patten has submitted a House bill that would allow a property owner to display a firearm to a trespasser.

Finally, a bill from Rep Patten that I fully support. Thank you Rep. Patten for starting something that makes sense here!

Now, someone, somehow has to stop this foolishness and free a unjustly-convicted, family man. Rep. Patten, can you help here? What has happened is completely wrong!

I know the area and the no trespassing signs are very clear. No way she should have been on his property, especially after being warned about it. No way anyone should be looking into the windows of a house when they do not know the owner. Plenty of justification for Ward's reaction in my mind. He has a right to protect his family and his property!

I really cannot believe this is happening in our country.

R2B

[brk-lnt]

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]

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