Let’s look at the scorecard in the Ward Bird case.
The tubby little Democrat prosecutor, Robin Gordon, with the bad men’s haircut has, I believe, lost her re-election to the lifetime position of Carroll County Prosecutor she had sewn up for so long. I guess the fuzzy progressive feeling that NH has turned deep liberal blue didn’t pan out in her re-election. She did prove she could convict a person of defending his own property. But it is a sad going away present nonetheless.
Ward Bird did not take the original plea bargain offered to make a criminal out of him on the cheap. Mr. Bird went the distance and has exposed a few realities not many of our fellow NH citizens are aware of - just yet. He is now in jail serving a sentence he did not deserve.
The person who trespassed on Ward Bird’s property isn’t the most sympathetic victim progressive Prosecutor Robin Gordon could have found. She deliberately trespassed, knowing full well she was not to be on the property and had no compelling reason to be there or not leave when repeatedly asked, directed, and ordered. She has a past and current criminal history of her own which itself shows a complete disregard for common sense, shoving a tow truck driver, multiple animal cruelty problems, you know, standard “victim” offences.
The prosecutor brought no charge against the trespassing victim?
Here is the statute Prosecutor Gordon did not use on her “victim”:
635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,500 to the value of the property of another.
III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, "secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
VI. In this section, "property,'' "property of another,'' and "value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 377:7. 2005, 125:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006. 2010, 239:2, eff. July 1, 2010.
The Court let this charade continue when it could have easily thrown the case out for lack of a crime, or the intent of a crime, being committed by Ward Bird, but they went along even though they had no victim.
The Court has all but negated another statute involved in this case. Here it is, for what it is worth:
635:4 Prescribed Manner of Posting. – A person may post his land to prohibit criminal trespass and physical activities by posting signs of durable material with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing'', printed with block letters no less than 2 inches in height, and with the name and address of the owner or lessee of such land. Such signs shall be posted not more than 100 yards apart on all sides and shall also be posted at gates, bars and commonly used entrances. This section shall not prevent any owner from adding to the language required by this section.
Source. 1977, 284:1, eff. Aug. 21, 1977.
So Ward Bird dutifully and purposefully followed the law regarding posting and was faced, if you read it in English, with a criminal trespasser who refused to leave when asked, demanded, and ordered. Well there goes that law. According to the Superior Court and the State Supreme Court, posting your land has no effect on criminal trespassers.
How about the criminal threatening statute?
Here is the relevant portion for brevity:
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…
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).
It looks like you may not, in Carroll County, EVER use a deadly weapon to defend yourself. I mean that is what you do when you defend yourself; “purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact.”
If you can’t show a firearm to a criminal trespasser on your own property in NH according to progressive prosecutors and activist judges – when exactly can you do so? I remember the vacationing father and son who were visited by the Zantop murderers’ right before the two teenagers slit the professors’ throats. The savvy father brandished a handgun when he became suspicious of the killers attempt to get into his home. I guess criminal threatening charges were in order there?
And of all the laughable items involved, the sentencing judge says he is confined by “the law” to a mandatory prison term for Mr. Bird.
An innocent man is in jail on a gun charge that will motivate the new NH Legislature to pass an ever more broad series of Second Amendment laws.
Fence-sitting Governor Lynch is going to be faced with a decision in this case, dumped on him by a progressive prosecutor no longer in office and liberal court that picks and chooses the meaning of laws – how fitting.