Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[Yosemite Sam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MarkinNH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

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

You're right....Silly me

[Yosemite Sam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

NEVER!!

[nvtngtxpyr]

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

[jeffatsquam]

Go to the laconia citz. for today's letters to the editor.

Letter from Gorden Blise re. Ward Bird.

He has had dealings with Chirstin (the combat-en) Harris

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by jeffatsquam

Go to the laconia citz. for today's letters to the editor.

Letter from Gorden Blise re. Ward Bird.

He has had dealings with Chirstin (the combat-en) Harris

Here it is for the less inclined:

Editor, The Citizen:

I have been following the recent events concerning the terrible travesty of justice concerning Moulntonborough resident Ward Bird. While I do not know Mr. Bird and have never met him, I feel I must speak out on his behalf.

From what I have read Mr. Bird has always been an outstanding citizen of our Lakes Region Community, a hard working man, who takes care of his family, pays his taxes, a man who can be trusted and always tries to do the right thing. He is now sitting in jail for exercising his constitutional right to protect his home and property against an intruder.

As it so happens I know the person who was the cause of this entire injustice. A few weeks before the incident on Mr. Bird's property I met this woman as part of a potential business deal and tried to work with her to meet the goals she was trying to attain. I can tell you for a fact that I quickly found out she was delusional, who was not thinking or acting in any way rational. She became angry and made accusations that were unfounded and absurd and I quickly broke off all dealings with her. After talking with other colleagues in my field I learned that others have had dealings with her before she came to me. They coined her with the nickname "the crazy lady". This incident I had with her occurred just a few weeks before her encounter with Mr. Bird.

As I understand things this woman has since been incarcerated for an animal cruelty conviction. I sincerely hope she is receiving the help she needs for mental health issues as I know she was clearly in need of that kind of assistance.

Also I believe none of these facts about her could be brought out at Mr. Bird's trial and she was portrayed as a poor innocent lady who was lost and had simply wandered onto his property by mistake. I do not believe that is true given what I know about this woman.

We all know that Amendment Two of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But we also know that we are a nation of laws, and to allow everyone to brandish weapons against our fellow citizens at a whim would not be logical. So the states pass laws that regulate how citizens can use weapons under various circumstances. I understand that this is necessary otherwise chaos would reign and we would all be walking around armed all the time feeling we need this protection to defend ourselves. But clearly a man has a right to protect his home, family, and property, against an intruder whose motives are unclear. This is part of the core values of our American way of life.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know all the specific details of the encounter Mr. Bird had with this woman, but from everything I have read, and what I know, I believe that Mr. Bird was unfairly convicted and incarcerated. After all, while a firearm was shown it was never fired and nobody was hurt in any way.

If a crime was committed, does this punishment fit? I think not.

I am calling on Governor Lynch to look into this matter immediately, and to free Mr. Bird, overturn his conviction, clear his record and bring him home to his family for the Christmas Holliday. Also to look into the laws that led to this man's unjust incarceration and rewrite them to allow the citizens to protect that which is ours, and those that we love.

I call on all the citizens of this great state to call their representatives and demand they put pressure on Governor Lynch to do the right thing. I feel so strongly about this that if he does not move to free Mr. Bird the citizens of this state ought to move for immediate impeachment. We must send a message to our elected officials that we the citizens have right to protect our families, and property and nothing less will be acceptable. LIVE FREE OR DIE.

Gordon Blais

Meredith

[ishoot308]

Gordon Blais couldn't have stated it any better!! He pretty much summed it all up.

Dan

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

As it so happens I know the person who was the cause of this entire injustice. A few weeks before the incident on Mr. Bird's property I met this woman as part of a potential business deal and tried to work with her to meet the goals she was trying to attain. I can tell you for a fact that I quickly found out she was delusional, who was not thinking or acting in any way rational. She became angry and made accusations that were unfounded and absurd and I quickly broke off all dealings with her. After talking with other colleagues in my field I learned that others have had dealings with her before she came to me. They coined her with the nickname "the crazy lady". This incident I had with her occurred just a few weeks before her encounter with Mr. Bird.

As I understand things this woman has since been incarcerated for an animal cruelty conviction. I sincerely hope she is receiving the help she needs for mental health issues as I know she was clearly in need of that kind of assistance.

Gordon Blais

Meredith

I'm sorry but I just don't get it.....Why would a realtor who is affiliated with a well respected real-estate agency such as Maxfield Real Estate, Inc. make such slanderous remarks about one of his former clients. Also why would he make statements about what his colleagues think about Harris.

I don't know anything about the Code of Ethics for realtors, but there must be something written about client confidentiality.

I think if I owned Maxfield Real Estate, Inc., Mr. Bais would have some explaining to do.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

I'm sorry but I just don't get it.....Why would a realtor who is affiliated with a well respected real-estate agency such as Maxfield Real Estate, Inc. make such slanderous remarks about one of his former clients. Also why would he make statements about what his colleagues think about Harris.

I don't know anything about the Code of Ethics for realtors, but there must be something written about client confidentiality.

I think if I owned Maxfield Real Estate, Inc., Mr. Bais would have some explaining to do.

Sam,

He never identifies himself as a Realtor nor which company he is affiliated with. We don't even know if it is RE deal. He actually goes out of his way to call it a business deal and not a RE deal.

Her whackiness is a matter of public record, so no slander there.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Sam,

......

Her whackiness is a matter of public record, so no slander there.

My thought exactly....

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Sam,

He never identifies himself as a Realtor nor which company he is affiliated with. We don't even know if it is RE deal. He actually goes out of his way to call it a business deal and not a RE deal.

Her whackiness is a matter of public record, so no slander there.

He is not listed on Maxfield's site as an agent either. My place has been for sale and the contract just ended. I like honest people that stand up for what they think is right. If he was with Maxfield, I was going to give him my listing.

R2B

[MarkinNH]

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]

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]

It's not allowed sa meredith.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

.... 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. ...

Originally Posted by tis

It's not allowed sa meredith.

I guess that is what I find as strange about the NH legal system. In RI certain things are allowed if they pertain to the witness state of mind, that is, the ability tell the truth, make rational decisions and present true factual testimony. Based on what I have read about her background, any 3rd rate defense attorney in RI would have ripped her apart even if 2/3 of her background was not allowed in court.

[fatlazyless]

Today's December 2 www.concordmonitor.com has an editorial, "Clarify the Criminal Threatening Laws," on Ward Bird's arrest for felony threatening that takes a look at the NH law and some of the legal thinking behind it........and a lot of follow up comments.......pretty interesting stuff......which will probably lead to more disagreements over his guilty verdict.

[tis]

The Court is a strange place. They don't allow a lot of things in testimony, even things that are totally relevant in most people's opinion. They are not allowed for various reasons, many of which I would certainly question.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by tis

The Court is a strange place. They don't allow a lot of things in testimony, even things that are totally relevant in most people's opinion. They are not allowed for various reasons, many of which I would certainly question.

Let’s say that the jury heard testimony about all the bad things that Harris did in her life time. Would that have made a difference as far as the verdict is concerned?

Maybe and maybe not.

“Maybe” because no one wants the bad guy to win and the good guy to lose.

“ Maybe not” because it appears that Bird admitted to the police that he did have a gun and did something with it during the confrontation with Harris.

IMHO I think if we could read the police report it would help us understand how Bird was convicted of felony criminal threatening.

I think that if it was just a matter of he said she said, Mr. Bird would not be in jail right now.

[Pineedles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.