Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[LadyEMT]

PLEASE help Ward Bird, his family, friends and the Moultonborough community that he lives in. His case needs public attention, and support. You can find all the info you may need by visiting this web adderess. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169135639777900

[loopcharged]

The state of NH in conjunction with the Moultonborough police dept. Are grossley out of control. I have also had the displeasure of experiancing the wrath of a system which penilizes citizens for telling the truth by imprisoning them and stealing thier children. Please write the Govenor, your senator/congressman and say a prayer in support of Ward Bird and his family/community in an effort to right this wrong. You can also show your support by joining Free Ward Bird on facebook. Thank you, Dave A. Rossetti

[loopcharged]

United we stand!

[ITD]

Wow, tough case, I guess the waving the gun around part is contested, but three years seems like a harsh punishment even if that is the case.

Seems to me a more appropriate punishment would be to take the guns away plus probation for a year or so, especially if this guy has no prior indications of violent behavior. Just seems like a travesty in that this guy obviously wants to be left alone and was minding his own business when some ditz drives past no trespass signs, ignores prior instructions about not to drive past a trailer and intrudes on this guy. Of course on the other hand, he was warned that this lady might mistakenly come on his property by his niece and he knew what she was driving, so the gun probably wasn't needed. Still, from what I see here, the sentence doesn't fit the crime and should be reduced.

[wuwu]

Thank you ladyEMT for your post! I, too, believe a terrible injustice has been done to Ward Bird! Drunk drivers, drunk boaters and sex offenders receive less of a sentence than this! This man is a HONEST person and a fantastic father! We must undo this injustice! http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...010114bird.pdf
www.courts.state.nh.us
Please read what a convicted felon, who was on parole, said so she didn't violate HER parole.
It is a real shame to let Ward Bird spend one more night in prison!

[LadyEMT]

As well as getting the word out, I have known Ward and his family for the past 10 years.. Long enough to know that this conviction needs to be relooked at. I have written a character letter on his behalf, and will be attaching it to any emails I send out, ie; congressmen, senators, governor... I will do what I can for Ward and his family !!

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by LadyEMT

.... visiting this web adderess. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169135639777900

Can not see the page

You must log in to see this page.

[wuwu]

more on FREE WARD BIRD
Man's Prison Sentence Sparks Anger In Community
www.wmur.com/news/25839677/detail.html

[LadyEMT]

I am sorry RI Swamp Yankee.. I failed to realize that unless people had a FB account, some people would not be able to see it..

Truely sorry..

[nicole]

Thank you so much for posting this-what an outrage. I just joined his Facebook page and my family and I will be writing letters. I will pass this on to as many people as I can.

[magicrobotmonkey]

Wow, this is a crazy story. I just met ward this summer and was buying a lot of produce from him. The story about him definitely doesn't fit the man I've been working with all summer.

[secondcurve]

Blizzard's punishment wasn't nearly as severe as this and she killed someone. I guess on that basis maybe the sentence should be suspended? However, old Ward should learn to keep his gun at rest unless he is really threatened. It certainly is a crazy world.

[Lakesrider]

With the new early release program, he will be out in 90 days. Wait and see. What a waste of tax payers money to put this guy in jail....

My email will go out tomorrow. I need to calm down before I write it....

[RI Swamp Yankee]

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

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

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

[wuwu]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by wuwu

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

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

[tis]

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

[tummyman]

Somehow there is a wide difference in the sentence that Erica Blizzard received vs. Ward Bird. In one case a person is killed and in the other, no physical injury. Guess he maybe didn't have the "right" legal counsel. There does not seem to be equal treatment under the law in this situation when you look at the Blizzard case. There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. The law isn't intended to destroy a person for relatively minor issues......... WAKE UP !

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

There is NO "supposed trespasser" about it. The person, who from what I have read is NO Lady, clearly and blatantly entered onto property that was clearly marked as private.
The "supposed trespasser" also did not get the "go ahead" from the niece to enter Wards property. Apparently the "supposed trespasser" was clearly told by both the niece and the realtor, to Turn Around if she got to the white trailer. so why didn't the dumb Bch do as she was instructed to do and turn around at the white trailer ? Instead she chose to ignore what she had been told to do as well as ignore All the signs because she was lost. Lost my A$$ !!
How lost could she truly have been ? I have been in there several times and this is not a housing development with lots of little side roads. Turn the car around and go back the way you came. It is not a difficult concept for most people.
None of us were there, so it is unfair and wrong for any of us to assume and speculate whether or not Ward acted in an irrational manor and / or that he should have acted or behaved differently. There are only 2 people who know EXACTLY what happened that day. Having known Ward and Ginny for better the 20 years, I have to and happily, choose to side with and support them. Ward may be a man who speaks his mind and stands his ground but a lunatic or psychotic or irrational, as some people have refereed to him as, He is not !. These are hard working decent people, to lock him up for 3-6 years or even for 90 days is ludicrous and is indeed a travesty of justice !!
I blame the woman who started all this by ignoring the signs and trespassing, the police for not using simple human common sense and especially the county attorney who ultimately chose to pursue the original charges and push it until she got her way. Hell hath no fury like a womans wrath !!

[Happy Gourmand]

There just has to be another side to this bizarre story. Was anybody from the forum in the courtroom to hear the whole story? I have no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious to know "the rest of the story."

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

There just has to be another side to this bizarre story. Was anybody from the forum in the courtroom to hear the whole story? I have no dog in this hunt, I'm just curious to know "the rest of the story."

I completely agree. I watched this story on the news last night, and my first thought was...what am I missing?

[VitaBene]

There are several petitions going around town to free Mr Bird. I signed one last night at the athletic awards at the Academy.

From what I understand, there really is no other side to the story other than an overzealous prosecution of a case by liberal former County Attorney, Robin Gordon (recently ousted in the elections earlier this month).

[Lakesrider]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Somehow there is a wide difference in the sentence that Erica Blizzard received vs. Ward Bird. In one case a person is killed and in the other, no physical injury. Guess he maybe didn't have the "right" legal counsel. There does not seem to be equal treatment under the law in this situation when you look at the Blizzard case. There is a difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. The law isn't intended to destroy a person for relatively minor issues......... WAKE UP !

Exactly. Maybe if it was dark rainy/foggy, had been drinking, and running around his property at speed, and simply ran into the woman, he would have been let off......

[wuwu]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I completely agree. I watched this story on the news last night, and my first thought was...what am I missing?

You are not missing anything! This is why this community has come together to stand with the Bird family.

[fatlazyless]

Have you seen the long article in today's Union Leader starting on page B1 complete with two very attitude-positive color photos of Ward and his wife, Ginny. The article is most definately written with a helpfull editorial slant in support of Ward. It says he had a 45-caliber handgun so does that mean something like a world war-II combat pistol or does it mean a western style six-shooter? ....


In a case like this, even if one manages to stay out of prison, then how much do you end up paying to a defense attorney who usually gets their money up-front, before a sentence is issued by a court. You can probably just about go broke just by trying to prove your case in court.....from what I have heard? ...

The Union Leader article brings up some negative background info about the plaintiff and it suggests the info was not allowed to be heard in the trial.

So is it the reporter or the newspaper editor who makes the decision on how the reporter writes up a news report; slant positive - slant negative - slant neutral ??? It's pretty common for the Union Leader as well as other papers to chose photographs that help to support their story slant.

As the saying goes; there's two sides to every story.

[RailroadJoe]

If he had Blizzard's money it may have been a different ending. Equal justice under the law! You have got to be kidding. Maybe Lynch will pardon him, if he can.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

That fact is not supported in the appeal

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

The niece only gave directions and a warning.


One troubling phrase that was repeated through the appeal was:

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

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

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

[Slickcraft]

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

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

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

[Paragraph IV effective January 1, 2011.]

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

[Onshore]

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

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

If he had Blizzard's money it may have been a different ending. Equal justice under the law! You have got to be kidding. Maybe Lynch will pardon him, if he can.

When you have a biased County Attorney who's case history has always seemed to favor the womans side, you don't need money. The unofficial word I hear, is it that she prefers donuts over éclairs.

[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

[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!

[PennyPenny]

Originally Posted by tis

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

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

[tis]

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

[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.

[RailroadJoe]

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

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

[wifi]

Originally Posted by tis

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

I don't believe there was bad blood between the parties involved, certainly if there was, one of the attorneys would have brought this out to benefit their side. It was simply that the person was warned NOT to trespass and they did anyway. The property for sale was owned by Wards sister in law and Ward had a FROR on it (ALL publicly available information). I went to visit that land many times, both with and without a REA in tow, with the intent of purchasing it.

None of the times was I chased by someone, BUT I didn't cross over the boundary well marked with no trespassing signs. There was also adequate room to turn around, if you missed the small driveway crossing the stream to the for sale property.

What is the ambiguity in a no trespassing sign? What is in the mind of someone who crosses this sign then won't leave, or, if reminded by the property owner they are trespassing, doesn't issue an immediate apology turn on their heals and run...its not to the benefit of the land owner, for sure. The message is being sent you can do what ever you want on someone else's posted private property until (or if) the police finally arrive and they decide what that person can do.

Another factoid is that there is almost 2000 feet of driveway between that job trailer and Wards house, how could a reasonable person not know they were deep into someone else's posted private property? Thank you Slickcraft for noting the law will change on 1/1/11, obviously the general court saw a problem with the laws as they are now interpreted and currently enforced. Maybe, Lynch, based on the law changing, will take an interest and reverse more of this liberal insanity. Time for a petition to the Guvnah ?

[twoplustwo]

On Rand Paul's Daily Paul site from someone obviously closer to the family. If this is closer to the truth than what the media is spewing, Sisti blew it in court.

http://dailypaul.com/node/149906

FLL, normally I can ignore your goofy ramblings because it is what's expected from you. In this case, I find your stupid jokes in ridiculously poor taste and wish you'd go to McD's for breakfast and stay away from your computer. Ward Bird is a kind man, father, husband and friend. He shouldn't be in jail, period.

[Pepper]

twoplustwo, thank you for that link. It certainly does provide a bit more of the detail we've all been seeking.

At this point I'm quite surprised that this story has not attracted national attention. I suspect it won't be long before it does.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Pepper

twoplustwo, thank you for that link. It certainly does provide a bit more of the detail we've all been seeking.

At this point I'm quite surprised that this story has not attracted national attention. I suspect it won't be long before it does.

Amen. I expect we'll see it on Drudge Report soon...

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!!

[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

[NoBozo]

I am not going to reread 77 posts. If I have misconstrued...PLEASE correct me. I am ON Wards SIDE. HE got screwed. I think I read that Ward had recently had a Abdominal Aneurysm Operation just prior to this altercation and was in pain (many stitches) when the women in question arrived.

I also seem to remember Ward had his pistol in a holtser..and removed the pistol to check the safety at some point. Holster belt around his waist...??

I have had that same operation THREE times in ONE year. The doctors and hospitals (3) were totally incompetant. The Fourth time was the CHARM..MASS GENERAL in Boston. They saved my life.

MY POINT relative to Ward. First..I have a very high threshold of pain it seems. I didn't require ANY seditives imediately after my operations or at any time afterward. I had no pain. I'm lucky.

However: When you have this operation...My incission was ~12 inches long from just below the breastbone to just above my pubic area...Zigging around my navel.

There is NO way someone in pain.. post OP would have a pistol belt with the weight of a pistol, around their waist over those stitches.. No Belts Whatsoever...not even to hold up your pants. I have worn suspenders ever since.

There must be somehing in the WARD story ..as told by others..that is not correct.....NB

[wuwu]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I am not going to reread 77 posts. If I have misconstrued...PLEASE correct me. I am ON Wards SIDE. HE got screwed. I think I read that Ward had recently had a Abdominal Aneurysm Operation just prior to this altercation and was in pain (many stitches) when the women in question arrived.

I also seem to remember Ward had his pistol in a holtser..and removed the pistol to check the safety at some point. Holster belt around his waist...??

I have had that same operation THREE times in ONE year. The doctors and hospitals (3) were totally incompetant. The Fourth time was the CHARM..MASS GENERAL in Boston. They saved my life.

MY POINT relative to Ward. First..I have a very high threshold of pain it seems. I didn't require ANY seditives imediately after my operations or at any time afterward. I had no pain. I'm lucky.

However: When you have this operation...My incission was ~12 inches long from just below the breastbone to just above my pubic area...Zigging around my navel.

There is NO way someone in pain.. post OP would have a pistol belt with the weight of a pistol, around their waist over those stitches.. No Belts Whatsoever...not even to hold up your pants. I have worn suspenders ever since.

There must be somehing in the WARD story ..as told by others..that is not correct.....NB

it was a holster worn on the small of your back!

[Slickcraft]

In today's Citizen:

Article published Nov 23, 2010
Bird case prompts bill to change law regarding gun use
Moultonboro:

A state lawmaker has filed a bill to explicitly permit residents to ward off trespassers by exhibiting a firearm.

"We want to make it very clear to the courts that protecting our property is an absolute right," said state Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough, who filed the bill at the Statehouse Monday while group outside the Capitol protested the imprisonment of a Moultonborough resident for criminal threatening for brandishing a firearm when a woman trespassed on his property.

Patten acknowledged that if the bill were to become law it would not help Ward Bird who is serving a three- to six-year sentenced in State Prison.

In an nine-page opinion authored by Associate Justice Gary Hicks the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld Ward's conviction late last month ruling that, "a rational juror could have found that the defendant's belief that it was necessary to wave his pistol to terminate (the victim's) 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 pointed a gun toward the victim, while yelling "get the f¿ of my property," constituted felony criminal threatening," the Supreme Court ruled.

Bird's supporters claim he never leveled the gun at the woman, but rather took it out of back holster and checked it to assure the safety was on.

Patten said Rep. Leo Pepino of Manchester was the prime sponsor of House Bill 160 that was approved last year and becomes law in January 2011. That law relative to physical force in defense of a person reads, "A person who responds to a threat considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act."

Patten said her proposed legislation mirrors Pepino's, yet specifies defense of private property instead of a person.

Meanwhile, Patten said, she has obtained the necessary paperwork for Bird to apply for a pardon from Gov. John Lynch and the Executive Council. A pardon request requires an investigation by the Department of Justice and solicits recommendations from the prosecutor, the trial judge and the alleged victim among others.

Even if pardoned, Bird's guilty conviction would still stand, but he would be able to walk free.

On Monday morning Patten drove Bird's daughter, Aberdeen and a fellow Moultonborough Academy student Matt Tolman to Concord when she filed the legislation. The pair received excused absences from school to participate in a civics lesson, Patten explained. She said in talking with Academy Principal Andy Coppinger she has learned that many students are interested in the outcome of the Bird case and said because they feel they have a "vested interest" she hopes the process will be a learning one for the communities youngsters. Bird is the father of four children.

About two dozen of Bird's supporters gathered outside the State House on Monday to protest his imprisonment while Patten went inside to file her legislative service request.

[dpg]

Like others have stated I have no dog in this fight either I'm just blown away by the clear one-sided opinions "for" Mr. Bird. He WAY over reacted plain and simple. This is 2010 folks not the Cartwrights trying to protect their cherished Ponderosa...

[fatlazyless]

Isn't there a number of utility and local town people who have a legal right to be on your land; cable, electricity, telephone, water & sewer, town assessor, DPW, and local police come to mind.

The whole concept of ownership of land needs to be re-considered because who really owns the land? If you do not pay your property taxes then the town can auction it off at a fire sale price so it's more like the town has a lien on it and you are required to pay a monthly tax payment, similar to a rent payment, to the town. So, who really owns the land, and does the land itself have any personal feelings? Does the land say, well just look at all this snow piled up on top of me, will somebody please remove all the snow so I can feel that sunshine....don't ya know.....no, the land does not usually say things like that.....at least it does not say them to me?

Does your land talk to you? ...

[tis]

fll ---Or if the town or state decided to take it by eminent domain, good luck fighting them. Maybe all of us need to protect our land that way.

In the case of Mr Bird though I do think they way over reacted. Going to jail for that? I think there is a lot to the story, she must have really agitated him in the past.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

..no, the land does not usually say things like that.....:

No, Land does not make assanine comments. That job is reserved special, Just for you because you are so proficient at it !

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Does your land talk to you? ...

No, my land doesn't speak to me and I wish you wouldn't either !!

[dpg]

Originally Posted by tis

In the case of Mr Bird though I do think they way over reacted. Going to jail for that? I think there is a lot to the story, she must have really agitated him in the past.

Or maybe HE has a way to short of a fuse...Just sayin.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by dpg

Or maybe HE has a way to short of a fuse...Just sayin.

If you walked out on to your porch to find somebody on your privately posted land, peeking in windows, and then that person wouldn't leave when told to, how would you react ? Just asking.

[jeffatsquam]

Mr. Bird has been wearing suspenders at least for the 25 years I have know him.

His and Ginnie's land could definitely be considered for a episode of bonanza.

He has been asking trespassers to leave his land for decades.

His very well posted land is at the very end of a road called Yukon trail.

His family lives off the grid in a beautiful home he built with the help of his wife.

This land he is protecting is the major water shed for Shannon brook.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by dpg

Or maybe HE has a way to short of a fuse...Just sayin.

From what I've seen and read this issue isn't from Bird having a short fuse. It seems that he took MANY reasonable precautions to keep trespassers off of and away from his property. I would like to think that in the US, and especially NH, we are entitled to our freedom and personal space.

The only REAL mistake Ward Bird made in this case appears to be offering a statement before consulting with qualified legal counsel.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

If you walked out on to your porch to find somebody on your privately posted land, peeking in windows, and then that person wouldn't leave when told to, how would you react ? Just asking.

Well I can tell you that if that happened at my house, I wouldn't have to worry about the peeping tom calling the cops or trying to sue me later...

Dan

[dpg]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

If you walked out on to your porch to find somebody on your privately posted land, peeking in windows, and then that person wouldn't leave when told to, how would you react ? Just asking.

I wouldn't pull a gun. Besides, who knows she wouldn't leave? Not you or me. Just answering.

[MarkinNH]

The big question and concern at this point of the situation is.
Does this man truly deserve to spend the next 3 to 6 years behind bars for protecting his property ? NO ! However extreme his actions may seem to some the answer is still NO !
This man is not and never has been a danger to society. The standard sentence that comes with this conviction is absurd !
Erica Blizzard is out walking the street, working and living a somewhat normal life after her actions, poorly chosen or otherwise, took a human life.

Ward Bird, is destined to spend a minimum of 3 years in prison after his actions, poorly chosen or otherwise, for kicking a trespasser of his property.

Now, irrelevant of whether anybody here thinks Mr Bird acted irrationally or not. Does this sentencing sound like proper justice. NO !
To take this man away from his family, to take up prison space and tax dollars better spent on locking up a Real criminal. Is just plain, flat out, absurd.
Anyone of us, who has the kahonies to do what they feel is necessary at the time, to protect their home or property, could easily be the next person to suffer the same ludicrous sentence.
Many of you will say and think. It can't and won't happen here, not to me !
You keep thinking that !!!
I only hope that you have the kind of genuine friends and loving family that Ward Bird has. Who will be willing to fight for you and support you, the way Wards friends and family are doing for him..

[Puck]

This was a jury trial, right? Twelve people listened to this case being argued and unanimously decided this gentlleman was guilty of criminal threatening. The thing I can't figure out is where the heck did they find 12 peple who thought this was criminal threatening? We can all scream at the top of our lungs about the law, and the judge, and the attorneys, but if this was a jury trial then 12 other NH citizens made the decision to to return a guilty verdict. How on earth did not one of them say "hmm... I think something iis wrong here?"

Was this somehow not a jury trial?

[TheProfessor]

The judge reads the law to the jurors and states to jurors that the law must be followed. Not individual opinions of jurors - but the laws.

The law apparently in this case seems to have gone too far - and no one noticed until this case.

Apparently, the law is going to be changed if legislature agrees.

[RailroadJoe]

Just because it is the law, does not make it right. Remember Germany in the 1930's

[CTYankee]

It appears that Mr. Bird is being punished by a law that won't be found on the books. In criminal law, the "law of unintended consequences" often results in sentences that are disproportionate to the crime. I'll explain. Legislatures often respond to "hot button" issues by crafting statutes that permit or even mandate enhanced sentences when the criminal act includes certain "aggravating" factors. Often these statutes prevent judges from exercising discretion when fashioning sentences. It appears that Mr. Bird is caught in just such a situation. In his case a gun was part of the fact pattern. The New Hampshire Legislature previously enacted a law making this an aggravating factor. This resulted in a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. This is an issue that has been hotly debated for many years among academics, the judiciary and the criminal bar. What starts out as a "tough on crime" law ends up snaring average citizens in a legal nightmare.
In my view, in Mr. Birds case the prosecutor should have exercised her discretion by charging him in a way that would not yield such a draconian result.

[Irish mist]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

From what I've seen and read this issue isn't from Bird having a short fuse. It seems that he took MANY reasonable precautions to keep trespassers off of and away from his property. I would like to think that in the US, and especially NH, we are entitled to our freedom and personal space.

The only REAL mistake Ward Bird made in this case appears to be offering a statement before consulting with qualified legal counsel.

Yes......this is a CLASSIC case of not giving the police the rope to hang you with your own words. Say nothing to the police until you secure legal counsel. It's your right not to talk to an officer unless you want to.

[NoBozo]

This is probably not relevant to this case but it came to mind after reading many of these posts. MANY of you will not remember this because it was 50 years ago.

I was in the NAVY (Onboard Ship) at the time and we had a movie every night on the mess decks.

The name of the movie was "Billy Budd". It was about a young Seaman Apprentice in the Royal Navy (Around 1812) that evidently "Touched" the "Master At Arms,"... breaching naval etiquette. The Master At Arms on a Naval Ship is the person, or persons charged with maintaining law and order onboard ship. When I was in, they actually wore a badge like a police officer.

Billy Budd (beloved by his shipmtes) was tried, convicted, and hanged at the yard..........you have to see the movie...

I remember the reaction of MY crew members to the movie.. They were mortified that such an event could happen. There was a deeper reason (Absolute Discipline) why the verdict was justified...

BUT that would not be relevant in the Bird case. NB

[tummyman]

Seems like a perfect time for an ARMY of attorneys to offer pro-bono legal help to get this situation resolved NOW. How about Jim Moir, who earned many $$$'s defending Erica Blzzard so she only got a month in jail for killing someone? Where are all these defenders now that a terrible wrong has happened? Time for Mr. Moir and an large number of legal experts to step forward and work pro-bono to get this man home for Christmas. This is a stupid waste and NH, including the governor, needs to step up/buck up. Wonder how many legal volunteers will step forward..... We also need to get a group going on getting this into the national media...FOX News, CNN, etc... why haven't they already been on board????

[MarkinNH]

http://freewardbird.org/

There are also two Facebook pages pertaining to this situation. You do need to be a facebook member to access them There is plenty of reading here for anybody interested.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...69135639777900

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...67812149908211