NH man gets 3-6 for threatening a trespasser with gun

[JCT]

I'd like to hear THR members thoughts on this case. I'll link an article about Ward Bird who is currently in prison after a person trespassed onto his property, ignoring multiple postings and after refusing to leave, he threatened the trespasser with a gun. I think it's appalling that he's in jail. He's a father of 4, local farmer, boy scout leader, eagle scout counseler, respected in his town.....and now in jail for protecting his property.

video;
http://wn.com/Ward_Bird_Sentenced_t...rty_against_felon_convicted_of_animal_cruelty

article; http://www.wmur.com/news/25856072/detail.html

 

[alsaqr]

Threatening a trespasser with a gun is the wrong way to go. It is my sincere wish that Mr. Bird be pardoned. IMO: The prosecutor over-reacted.

 

[BCCL]

Utterly ridiculous.

 

[nyresq]

sounds like from what little info the article says that the owner may have been a little over the edge and could have handled the tresspasser in a better way. But one article that is written by one person has about as much information on the facts as a fortune cookie...

With that said, 3-6 years is total BS and will probably get reduced at some point. but unless he receives a full pardon, he is now a convicted felon, and has lost his right to have any firearms...

 

[Kleanbore]

Regardless of whetter the man's sentence is reduced, this should serve as a very pointed reminder that everyone should know and understand the laws pertaining to the use of force, deadly force and firearms in his or her jurisdiction.

I haven't researched it, but I imagine that the laws that Ward Bird was convicted of breaking have been in place for centuries. The article does say that the case went all the way to the state supreme court.

A lot of people seem to have the idea that they can pull guns on people who trespass. In some places that may be lawful under some circumstances, but, absent the presence of a serious imminent threat (A, O, J, & P), not in most. His action would have been unlawful where I live.

I don't know the reason for that apparently widespread misconception. Too much television?

Perhaps those who may consider drawing a gun for some reason, even when they are "on their own property", would be well served to first ask, "just what do I intend to do with this thing?".

 

[medalguy]

I don't know about the rest of you, and maybe I'm wrong in this, but I own some acrage in a remote part of New Mexico, and if I need to confront trespassers, which I've done in the past, I'm not leaving my home without a firearm of some sort in my hand. These days you don't know if that trespasser is just curious about why my gate is closed, or wants to check out my property for a return visit later that night.

I have never threatened anyone, but I have walked up to a car with a couple of guys in it driving past my house to the rear of my property to ask if I could help them, several times. I always had a S&W model 66 in my hand at my side. Each time they have said they were "just looking around" to which my response was that they were trespassing on private property and my wife was in the process of talking with the sheriff's department right then. They always have left quickly after that. But, you mnever know.....

Better to be prepared than not, in my opinion. Sometimes it takes the sheriff's deputies an hour or so to respond to a call and I don't want to be in a position of really needing them quickly.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by medalguy: I don't know about the rest of you, and maybe I'm wrong in this, but I own some acrage in a remote part of New Mexico, and if I need to confront trespassers, which I've done in the past, I'm not leaving my home without a firearm of some sort in my hand.

Again, know the law in your jurisdiction.

That might or might not be OK in New Mexico, but it would not be lawful where I live.

Would it be smart even if lawful? I really do not think so. I wouldn't leave the house without a firearm, but I would have it in a holster. I sure wouldn't want someone who is lost or looking for directions and has no idea who I am or what I am doing with a gun in my hand to assume the worst and use deadly force against me.

These days you don't know if that trespasser is just curious about why my gate is closed, or wants to check out my property for a return visit later that night.

If they were planning to come back later for unlawful purposes, would they say so?

I have never threatened anyone, but I have walked up to a car with a couple of guys in it driving past my house to the rear of my property to ask if I could help them, several times. I always had a S&W model 66 in my hand at my side.

Two things here.

First, if you were following directions and got lost and saw a stranger walking up to you with a gun in his hand, how would you react? We're all different, of course, but is only takes one who might assume the worst.

Second, the couple of other guys might tell a story that is decidedly different from what you relate, and they may be upstanding citizens. That seems to have been the case in the Ward Bird incident.

Better to be prepared than not, in my opinion. Sometimes it takes the sheriff's deputies an hour or so to respond to a call and I don't want to be in a position of really needing them quickly.

Yeah, good thing to be able to defend yourself if need be. I wouldn't expect to use a firearm to expel trespassers, however.

Again, there is a lot of confusion among many people about what to do in the event of trespass, and things vary among states. In all states, you may ask them to leave; in some, if they do not, you may use force (non-deadly) to make them leave, but in others, you are to call the sheriff. In some states, the sheriff will then issue a summons, similar to a traffic ticket.

Know the law. It is evident that Mr. Bird did not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As Kleanbore points out, you need to know the law in your jurisdiction. But in general, one may not threaten with a gun (threaten with lethal force) for mere trespass. One may only use lethal force to prevent an immediate lethal attack.

Can't blame someone for having a gun along when confronting a trespasser, especially on rural property. But keep it holstered while waiting for the sheriff, unless the trespasser becomes an imminent lethal threat.

...now in jail for protecting his property....

In general, the use of lethal force, or the threat of lethal force, is not appropriate for the protection of property.

 

[General Geoff]

In general, the use of lethal force, or the threat of lethal force, is not appropriate for the protection of property.

The government uses threat of lethal force to protect property all the time (see: all military installations). Blatant double standard.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The government uses threat of lethal force to protect property all the time (see: all military installations). Blatant double standard.

Swell, but you still can't. Welcome to real life.

 

[DT Guy]

Being the one who turns an encounter, even an unlawful one, into an armed confrontation is never a good idea.

Have a weapon readily available? Absolutely. Brandish it? Probably not....



Larry

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by General Geoff: The government uses threat of lethal force to protect property all the time (see: all military installations). Blatant double standard.

We the People assign different duties and responsibilities to different elements of society.

For the citizenry, we establish systems of laws, comprising ordinances, statutes and codes, and state constitutions and the Supreme Law of the Land.

We establish systems of justice to enforce those laws. We also maintain a Department of Defense to defend the country.

The reasonableness of empowering the Army and the Navy, etc. to do what is necessary to defend our military capabilities, the defense of which is essential to our national security, should be obvious.

On the other hand, establishing limits on the use of deadly force by individual citizens is absolutely necessary for any kind of order and safety in society. For one thing, we have to have systems for the redress of alleged civil wrongs and for the administration of criminal justice; we cannot have each citizen decide the facts, interpret the law, enforce the law, and impose punishment or exact compensation. For another, we have to have a way after the fact to decide consistently whether the use of deadly force by one citizen against another was murder, the result of mutual combat, or an excusable or justifiable act.

Those have been established truths for some four millenia.

No double standard--just different needs.

 

[maxthedog]

I live in NH, and brandishing and threatening with a weapon are illegal.

However if I was in my house, someone broke in and tried to do me or my family harm, I have the right to shoot. If they broke in, I confronted them and the perp ran off, I don't have the right to shoot. (This is a simple scenario based on what I learned from the lawyer in my NRA protection in the home class.)

With a new, more conservative state Legislature coming in in the new year, maybe some of the laws will change.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

couple questions

did he have legal representation?

and did he go against legal advice in rejecting the plea agreement?

these are also interesting


In 2002, he was fined for "unauthorized use of firearms" for being in a "compact part of Moultonborough" and "discharging a pistol ... without written permission of the chief of police."

Bird paid a $480 fine. His wife, Virginia, said it was an accident while Bird was target practicing.

might explain the harsh plea offer




and this is also part of the case

The state Supreme Court upheld Bird's conviction after taking a look at his appeal. It noted some specific points about the case in its decision, saying a person does have the right to use non-deadly force to terminate a criminal trespass.

However, the court determined that Bird knew the woman was in the area and was lost because his niece had called him to tell him the woman was heading his way.

 

[W.E.G.]

This is the problem with MANDATORY sentences.

I wasn't there, so I won't presume to say whether Mr. Bird over-reacted to the trespasser.

As a general rule, its a bad idea do pull your pistol until you are presented with threat of immediate bodily harm.
I wonder whether Mr. Bird might not be in this fix if he had left the gun in the holster.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by maxthedog: I live in NH, and brandishing and threatening with a weapon are illegal.

Generally speaking, that's true just about everywhere, but you might want to check on the details. I believe that New Hampshire has joined the small cadre of states, Arizona and Texas among them, in which the defensive display of a weapon is now permitted if necessary to warn or dissuade attacker. Do not rely on that.

However if I was in my house, someone broke in and tried to do me or my family harm, I have the right to shoot. If they broke in, I confronted them and the perp ran off, I don't have the right to shoot. (This is a simple scenario based on what I learned from the lawyer in my NRA protection in the home class.)

And, of course, you have the right to defend yourself out of doors.

With a new, more conservative state Legislature coming in in the new year, maybe some of the laws will change.

The governor was reelected, and he has more than once vetoed a "stand your ground" measure that would apply outside the home. I do not know whether an override is now more likely.

Stand your ground laws, which eliminate the long-standing duty to retreat if retreat is safely possible, are becoming somewhat more prevalent. We do not have one where I live.

As a matter of background, the duty to retreat is not the product of modern "liberal" legislatures. It has its roots in the English Common Law, and it is a product of the best legal thinking that could be brought to bear some eight or nine hundred years ago, in the age of contact weapons.

 

[JohnBT]

Let's see, he knew the woman was in the area and lost because his niece called him and told him the woman was headed his way.

So he pulls a gun on her and curses her?

What a dumbass.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Let's see, he knew the woman was in the area and lost because his niece called him and told him the woman was headed his way.

So he pulls a gun on her and curses her?

What a dumbass.

I know we probably don't have even 1/2 the story, but from what I have seen so far, I have to agree with JohnBT here. This guy was an idiot. Should he be doing that much time? No but he should be doing some for being so stupid. Of course if stupidity were against the law, 98% of us would stay locked up I guess.

 

[medalguy]

Re Kleanbore's post, what I failed to mention in my post is that in order to get where the cars were that I encountered, they had to open two closed and chained but not padlocked gates, and drive past three signs that clearly read "PRIVATE ROAD - THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD - NO TRESPASSING" so I assume anyone doing all that is not lost and looking for directions.

 

[sansone]

I believe displaying the gun when not threatened is "brandishing".. May I also say, only people who are a danger to society should be locked-up IMHO.

 

[RonDeer10mm]

Don't they have the "Castle Doctrine" over there? How is this any different than a home invasion,its private property.

 

[One-Time]

originally posted by: Kleanbore


No double standard--just different needs.

You spun that one pretty well, it is still double standards period, a citizen should have every right to defend, be it w/ a firearm or voice, their private property. That property is a representation of their life long labors, and all their items, from a $5 toaster to a 50K car represents time and labor, when said items are taken or damaged, you arent just losing an item, but also all the time and effort it took to gain said object, thus theft of an item deprives one of time they cannot gain back, labor they cannot undo etc

If one doesnt want to be shot or threatened, they should either not trespass or leave when told to do so, in Florida one may use force to remove someone from their property if they refuse, and their presence is even enough to use deadly force if needed as their mere presence is deemed a threat and that is how it should be

Anyone who supports less, has no respect for other men and their labors

 

[Prion]

However, the court determined that Bird knew the woman was in the area and was lost because his niece had called him to tell him the woman was heading his way.

He sounds like a fool to me.

I agree that if someone is breaking into someone's home they deserve what they get.

Lost in the woods and stumbling onto someone's property? Politely told the way out and asked to leave. Brandishing because an unarmed woman is on your property is out of line and a total overreaction.

Yes, I live in the sticks and I understand what it is like to encounter trespassers.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by One-time: ...a citizen should have every right to defend, be it w/ a firearm or voice, their private property. That property is a representation of their life long labors, and all their items, from a $5 toaster to a 50K car represents time and labor, when said items are taken or damaged, you arent just losing an item, but also all the time and effort it took to gain said object, thus theft of an item deprives one of time they cannot gain back, labor they cannot undo etc

If you steal a toaster and are caught , charged, and convicted, you may be imprisoned, but you will not receive a sentence of death. By what reasoning, then, would any government authorize its citizens to kill to prevent the taking of the toaster, or the car, for that matter?

This has been the subject of discussion since the code of Ur Nammu was put in place around 2100 BC. It was covered in the Old Testament and in Roman law. Most importantly, it was discussed in great depth by the judges whose deliberations resulted in the English Common Law, on which the laws of all of our states except one were originally based, in the twelfth century; their conclusions severely limited the right to use deadly force to protect property.

Without going into the reasons for their conclusions, and there were many. let me simply say that your opinion is not consistent with the law.

If one doesnt want to be shot or threatened, they should either not trespass or leave when told to do so, in Florida one may use force to remove someone from their property if they refuse, and their presence is even enough to use deadly force if needed as their mere presence is deemed a threat and that is how it should be

Slight but important overstatement there.

The person who went on to Mr. Bird's property had legal rights, too--maybe not to trespass, but the remedy for trespass is not severe, and there can be a necessity defense. It has been found in court that, under the long-standing law in New Hampshire, Mr. Bird overstepped his rights significantly.

What one thinks the law should be will likely differ depending upon whether one feels that he or she should empowered to enforce it, or whether it is about to be enforced against them. It does not matter--it's the way it is, as Mr. Bird found out.

So the question is, which hat does the reader imagining himself wearing?

Makes a lot of difference in what the reader concludes, doesn't it?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...May I also say, only people who are a danger to society should be locked-up IMHO.

...a citizen should have every right to defend, be it w/ a firearm or voice, their private property....

But the way you think things should be is not the way they are.