« A Deserved Comeuppance, Sadly, We All Pay For | Main | Come Back Carol!! »
Friday
Nov262010

OK, They Have Ward Bird - Now What Will They Do With Him?

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.

Reader Comments (13)

Free Ward Bird.
November 27, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMe
Well said. I have all ready contacted my senator elect Stiles as we have finally sent that progressive hag Clark packing here on the seacoast.
November 28, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterdilusional
Remember, according to the way I read the trespassing statute Ward Bird was dealing with a person who was involved with crimminal trespass three ways:

She knowingly went onto property legally posted after she was told not to, saw the signs and refused to leave.

If you read the posting statute RSA 635:4 it says:

"This section shall not prevent any owner from adding to the language required by this section."

Which leads me or any rational person to the conclusion you may ADD to your lawfull sign that an armed property owner will confront you if you crimminally trespass.

Now would a NH judge find that in the law? (Hint: Only if he wanted to.)
November 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
www.freewardbird.com
November 28, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMHDJake
FYI, that site should be .org not .com
November 29, 2010 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Robin Gordon didn't convict Ward Bird, a jury of his fellow Live Free or Die State peers did. And their verdict was upheld on appeal.

Ward Bird is in jail today only because he refused a generous plea bargain which would have required him to give up his gun. Hmmm, his gun v his kids. His choice says a lot more about him than his supporters can.
December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSanity
Sanity:

Robin Gordon prosecuted Ward Bird - but not the person who purposely and willfully criminally trespassed on his property and refused to leave when directed to. The person who started this whole mess did not have to bargain her way out by pleading to a lesser charge of something she did in fact do.

The nut who started this was not arrested and no one searched her car for a weapon - did that cross your mind?

Robin Gordon had a political agenda and it cost her her seat as prosecutor.

Ward Bird is costing Lynch his seat on the comfortable fence of not being anti-second amendment.
December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
you diminish the equinimity of your arguement by disparaging the prosecutor for her physical appearance
December 18, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterharvard
Harvard,

Read the posts....it was former State Senator Martha Fuller Clark that was referred to as a "progressive hag" not Robin Gordon...Your post most impressed me, however in the use of the word, "equinamity" excellent quip! well done! but you certainly ruin your own "equanimity" when you errantly point to the wrong "progressive hag".
December 19, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRick Olson
oh...whoops, I actually spelled EQUANIMITY wrong....SORRY....such are the ills of typing on little tiny keys with great big huge fingers like mine.

Rick "Sausage Fingers" Olson
December 19, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRick Olson
Mr. Olson, Harvard may have been referring to Mr. Naile's description of Robin Gordon in the lead paragraph of his post --

"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."

BTW, with Ward Bird knowing of the drunk shooting episode in his recent past, it's even more foolish of him not to have accepted the plea deal.
December 30, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersanity
Harvard:

At any rate, the larger point that might be considered are the varying shades of sensitivity about pejorative descriptions of appearance in any blog....Even if pejoratives are gratuitous, typically more Hell is raised when Ed Naile makes the comment, versus Kathy Sullivan, Ray Buckley or any hosted array of lefties given to the making of such pejoratives. We hear little or no criticism, only the requisite crickets.

So, in fairness, I went on the web and looked for a picture of Robin Gordon. And in all honesty, I found Ed Naile's description to be...well....not as unkind as could have been, given the utter emphasis our culture places on ones appearance....And lets face it...Robin Gordon is a "Public Figure" and personally, I find the Ben Franklin look for a woman to be limited.

Or you decide...does she look like SNL's Church lady? or Artie Johnson in drag? But its not like "I" am being unfair...I'd be rich if I were given a nickel for every single time I was called a fat bastard, both to my face and behind my back...

to even complain about a pejorative on personal appearances is nothing short of "limited"
December 31, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterRick Olson
Rick:

"sanity" wants Ward Bird to surrender his freedom to carry on his own property and be free of criminal trespassers for a plea deal he did not have to plea to.

Alas "sanity" will not surrender his fake name on this blog. Isn't that brave.

And "harvard' talkes issue with my dead on description/explanation (until your Ben Franklin) of Robin Gordon, but none of the detail in my post.

Maybe it isn't "fair", but I am not fair in the progressive/Alinski sense, that I can more often than not walk into a room full of cops out uniform and tell the difference between a room full of accountants or journalists.

That is the way it is with liberal females - so I added that unscientific- global warmingish point to the post.
January 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.