Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQ Members List Donate Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-28-2010, 08:38 PM   #1
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,937
Thanks: 349
Thanked 1,708 Times in 602 Posts
Default

Makes me wonder why the Moultonborough PD and county attorney even bothered to pursue this case......a respected local and cub scout leader accused by a person with a 12 year record of assault and operating a filthy and illegal dog breeding operation.I've always appreciated and backed our local PD........but now I'm wondering if they are just looking for a body count........somebody accuses you and off to jail.Pretty chilling.
SAMIAM is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SAMIAM For This Useful Post:
nicole (11-29-2010), RailroadJoe (11-29-2010), tummyman (11-28-2010)
Old 11-28-2010, 10:49 PM   #2
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 484 Times in 278 Posts
Default Good information and discussion

First, I have been looking for more information about this and this site came through with pointers to the details in various articles. So big kudos to Winnipesaukee.com.

I cannot understand how Ward was convicted. If all he did was walk out with a gun in it's holster and pull it out to check the safety that is not threatening. This dingbat of course says she was threatened but she is far from a reliable witness. Given the he said/she said circumstances and the lack of additional witnesses doesn't the defendant get the benefit of the doubt? How could a jury in good conscience vote for conviction? Were they aware that a conviction required a minimum sentence?

I understand how the judge's hands were tried by minimum sentencing rules. How did it get to that point?
jeffk is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 12:56 AM   #3
4 for Boating
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 241
Thanks: 1
Thanked 41 Times in 28 Posts
Default Sad State of Affairs

Independent observation with no dog in the fight,

1. Unnecessary to take a gun out when you “know” and are informed that someone is potentially lost in the area looking at a lot for sale

2. Dumb to call the police to report someone potentially overreacting when she is clearly in the wrong by getting lost and not observing the no trespassing signs in the first place

3. Completely Ludicrous penalty for what breaks down to some type of domestic dispute/argument

Possibly some past bad-blood regarding the personalities or the land in general BUT Two people overreacting and one judicial system out of control.

In the end, it pains me to think someone is in jail over the whole thing. Sad and just not right I think.
4 for Boating is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 07:51 AM   #4
jeffatsquam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: moultonborough/sandwich
Posts: 187
Thanks: 173
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Good - man

bad - law

ugly - sentence
jeffatsquam is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:06 AM   #5
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Here is another Independent observation with no dog in the fight:

Below is what THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE stated as to why they upheld the conviction of Ward Bird:

“Christine Harris arranged to meet a real estate agent on March 27, 2006, at his office to view a property for sale in Moultonborough owned by Patricia Viano that Harris was interested in purchasing.

That day, she called the real estate agent to inform him she was running late and could not make the appointment. Because he could not meet her later that day, she decided to look at the property herself.

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.

After Harris left the home of the defendant’s niece, the niece telephoned the defendant to warn him that Harris was going to look at the Viano property and that she might show up on his property. She also told the defendant that Harris was driving a Ford Ranger.

Harris followed the niece’s directions and drove past signs that stated “Private road, keep out” on Emerson Path and “no trespassing” on Yukon Trail. She missed the left hand turn off of Yukon Trail, drove past the white trailer, and ended up in front of the defendant’s house. She parked her car and got out. The defendant emerged from his home “screaming, get the F off my property.” He came down from his porch, continuing to yell profanities while waving a gun at her.

At trial, she testified that he pointed the gun “[t]owards” her. Harris asked the defendant whether he was the boyfriend of the woman selling the property. He repeated his command for her to leave his property.

Harris eventually climbed back into her car, mouthing “[w]hat an ass.” The defendant then walked off the porch toward her waving his gun as she backed out of the driveway.



My thoughts:

Mark Sisti (Bird’s Lawyer), or Mark Bird did not dispute the fact that Bird waved and pointed a gun at Harris (at least the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they did).

Bird’s niece telephoned the defendant to warn him that Harris was going to look at the Viano property and that she might show up on his property.

The above being said, how could the NH Supreme Court not uphold the conviction of Mark Bird of criminal threatening per RSA 631:4 (2007).
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 11-29-2010, 08:19 AM   #6
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,946
Thanks: 795
Thanked 1,493 Times in 1,040 Posts
Default

Remember though, her past as well as his past make no difference in this case. You can't bring old cases into a new case. So the issues she had with dogs could not be brought up here. The jury should not have know she had a past.
tis is online now  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:42 AM   #7
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
My thoughts:

Mark Sisti (Bird’s Lawyer), or Mark Bird did not dispute the fact that Bird waved and pointed a gun at Harris (at least the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they did).

Bird’s niece telephoned the defendant to warn him that Harris was going to look at the Viano property and that she might show up on his property.

The above being said, how could the NH Supreme Court not uphold the conviction of Mark Bird of criminal threatening per RSA 631:4 (2007).
Who the Hell is Mark Bird ?
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:44 AM   #8
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkinNH View Post
Who the Hell is Mark Bird ?

Whoops, I should have said Ward Bird.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 09:03 AM   #9
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont Resident View Post
I was told on Wednesday of this story.
Being a gun owner living out in the woods, why did the gun even come out if it was originally in a holster?
Unless the other person had a weapon he was 100% wrong when he removed the gun from a holster.
Guns are not a toy. All he had to do to make a point was have the gun holstered and visible.
If this same person had been someone with a shady background with past problems with the law many would look at it differently.
The bottom line is the law weather it is right or wrong applies to all of us not just the bad element of society.
Maybe everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a class on hand gun safety both inside and outside the home. The laws vary in both instances.
My wife is taking the classes now.
Belmont Resident,
I like your logic!


Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
Remember though, her past as well as his past make no difference in this case. You can't bring old cases into a new case. So the issues she had with dogs could not be brought up here. The jury should not have know she had a past.

You are correct tis.

IMHO the jury probably knew a little bit about Harris and probably thought it really didn’t matter. The law (as written today) is the law so they had to convict Bird.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 10:19 AM   #10
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default Black and White?

This isn't as Black and White as some may think.

I'm having a hard time with this one. I keep thinking to myself Don't we all have a right to protect ourselves and our property? If this was a woman waiving a gun at a big man with a criminal background would there even have been an investigation? Ward is a big man and this was a woman on his property so now he has no right to protect himself from a woman that won't leave and is arguing with him?

So where is the line? If a man comes on my property and he is larger than me and could potentially harm or even kill me with his bare hands can I pull a gun? What if the man is the same size? What if my wife is home with the kids and a man is peering in my windows can my wife pull a gun if the man won't leave and she fears for her life? Would she go to jail for protecting herself and my children?

Ward was injured and by some accounts feeble at the time, I am going on hearsay but if it is the truth does this not even the playing field? Did he feel threatened as he was physically limited at the time? Again is it a stretch to imagine this woman was a raving lunatic? (Check prior link where the "woman" pushed a tow truck driver)

Was he right or wrong? I don't know but the punishment sure feels wrong.

Clarification: I am not nor have ever been a gun owner.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 12:06 PM   #11
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
Here is another Independent observation with no dog in the fight:

Harris eventually climbed back into her car, mouthing “[w]hat an ass.” The defendant then walked off the porch toward her waving his gun as she backed out of the driveway.”[/I]

So, Bird is waving a gun and yelling and Harris sees fit to run her mouth at him? Can you say, "poor judgement"?

I thought Bird's intent was well placed; he wanted her to go away. He didn't want to shoot - or he would have cocked the hammer or taken aim. He sent a clear message. His intent wasn't a criminal one but he's being treated like a criminal.
Argie's Wife is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Argie's Wife For This Useful Post:
jeffatsquam (11-29-2010), MarkinNH (11-29-2010), Meredith lady (12-05-2010), nicole (11-29-2010), SAMIAM (11-29-2010)
Old 11-29-2010, 01:36 PM   #12
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Moultonborough
Posts: 146
Thanks: 47
Thanked 43 Times in 18 Posts
Default

As we all know, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth. Only two people really and truly know what happened that day between Ward and Christine, clearly there is a difference in opinion amongst them.

Aside from that, regardless of what went down between them - she was told "if you get to this point, you have gone too far and you should turn around". (fair warning). Why did she keep going all the way up to his house? Why was she out of her car and snooping around looking in the windows? She was on HIS private property, looking in HIS windows - I think they call people like that "peeping tom's" - don't they? Isn't that in-and-of-itself a crime? From what I can tell there are a number of signs posted that say no trespassing, and not one that says "house for sale". What was the actual exchange between the two of them that day? If she was told she was in the wrong place and asked to leave, and did not, what reason did she give as to why she wouldn't? If your car has broken down, or if you are lost and come and ring my bell FIRST asking for help, you've got my assistance. As a husband and father, if all of a sudden I see you peering in my windows, (and I don't recognize you), I'm prob. not coming out with guns-a-blazing, but you can bet I'm coming out to see what's up (and more than likely prepared for whatever might face me). If you are on my property and it gets to the point that I ask you to leave, and you don't... we have a problem. If I continue to ask you to leave, and you don't - we have an escalating problem.

You are taught that you don't USE a gun (for self-defense) unless you feel / are in imminent danger, and it's not like the movies where you pull it to scare someone, you pull it to use it. All that said, I think that where Ward was on HIS property, and she was trespassing, she was in the wrong - period. What actually happened with the gun, only two people really know - and in my eyes, pulled, shown or "brandished", if he asked her to leave and she didn't...

So, what was said at THAT point? Did she come off as angry, hostile, did she make any threats, what did SHE say or do to make him feel "I think I'm going to call the police now"? It's all on him right now, or so it seems, what about her!? There seems to be a lot of he said / she said to this, but at the end of the day - I find it atrocious that he is where he is in all of this, and she is just out and about with what seems to be no accountability!?

Shame on the local PD for handling it like they did and shame on the judge / court for escalating it to where it is! Live Free Or Die is the state motto and yet every time we turn around, there are issues like this that refute that stance. This incident has such far-reaching repercussions, I fear what's next as this set's a terrible precedent on so many levels.
DoTheMath is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to DoTheMath For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (11-29-2010)
Old 11-29-2010, 01:45 PM   #13
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,358
Thanks: 996
Thanked 314 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath View Post
Shame on the local PD for handling it like they did and shame on the judge / court for escalating it to where it is! Live Free Or Die is the state motto and yet every time we turn around, there are issues like this that refute that stance. This incident has such far-reaching repercussions, I fear what's next as this set's a terrible precedent on so many levels.
The most shameful group here is the DA's office for bringing this into court. They knew what they were dealing with and still moved forward.

Resume building at the expense of a family man defending his family and property.

Shameful!!

R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Resident 2B For This Useful Post:
MarkinNH (11-29-2010)
Old 11-29-2010, 03:01 PM   #14
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Moultonborough
Posts: 146
Thanks: 47
Thanked 43 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B View Post
The most shameful group here is the DA's office for bringing this into court. They knew what they were dealing with and still moved forward.

Resume building at the expense of a family man defending his family and property.

Shameful!!

R2B
Agreed!!! (although not listed, I was including the whole chain of command in the fray...)
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:17 AM   #15
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 410 Times in 251 Posts
Default I agree with 4 for boating.

I was told on Wednesday of this story.
Being a gun owner living out in the woods, why did the gun even come out if it was originally in a holster?
Unless the other person had a weapon he was 100% wrong when he removed the gun from a holster.
Guns are not a toy. All he had to do to make a point was have the gun holstered and visible.
If this same person had been someone with a shady background with past problems with the law many would look at it differently.
The bottom line is the law weather it is right or wrong applies to all of us not just the bad element of society.
Maybe everyone who owns a gun should be required to take a class on hand gun safety both inside and outside the home. The laws vary in both instances.
My wife is taking the classes now.
Belmont Resident is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 11:24 AM   #16
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,953
Thanks: 484
Thanked 703 Times in 393 Posts
Default

Apparently the gun did leave the holster, what is contested is whether the gun was "waved" in the face of the "victim", which supposedly rises to the level of felony threatening. Again, reading this story, I'll have to say that Ward shouldn't have spoken to the police without counsel,other than to say this lady was trespassing and he wanted her removed. This even in light of the fact that I'm sure he was protecting his property.

This lady was antagonistic, even by her own testimony, where she said she thought she was dealing with the brother of the landowner who was selling and didn't want the property to be sold. She stood and argued, plus apparently she was walking around looking in windows before Ward came out.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I end up on a wrong property and the owner comes out screaming to leave, I apologize and leave, no gun necessary. (Yes this has happened to me before and it was my fault for screwing up directions). This lady sounds like a whack job, and this case should not have been prosecuted, never mind having this guy end up with a 3 year sentence.
ITD is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 05:31 PM   #17
Belmont Resident
Senior Member
 
Belmont Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belmont NH but prefer Jackman Maine
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 491
Thanked 410 Times in 251 Posts
Default Correct about council.

The in house gun protection class my wife took had an attorney there who specializes in fire arm laws.
He said when the police arrive do not under any circumstances give any details but instead refer them to your attorney. You are perfectly within your rights.
Any and all information you say no matter whom is at fault may be used against you.
I feel for the family but the law is the law and we all make mistakes and it appears he unknowingly made a mistake.
To have pulled the gun out it seems like someone might have a temper.
Guns and tempers do not go hand & hand. And this is why my wife will carry a gun and not me.
Belmont Resident is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 05:47 PM   #18
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 6,536
Thanks: 2,455
Thanked 5,468 Times in 2,143 Posts
Default

So let me get this straight.... If I hear someone rustling outside of my house at night and I grab my handgun and run out to investigate I'm guilty of criminal threatening because it's not in a holster?? NOT!!

Holster or un-holstered has nothing to do with criminal threatening. He would of had to point it at her and or threaten to shoot her. Simply having the gun in his hand and un-holstered is not a crime or criminal threatening.

What if he had a rifle and not a handgun and he came on to his porch to confront the trespasser is that criminal threatening??... no place or way to holster a rifle...

He was well within his legal right to have a firearm in his hand while on his property.
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 06:08 PM   #19
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,947
Thanks: 545
Thanked 570 Times in 335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
So let me get this straight.... If I hear someone rustling outside of my house at night and I grab my handgun and run out to investigate I'm guilty of criminal threatening because it's not in a holster?? NOT!!

Holster or un-holstered has nothing to do with criminal threatening. He would of had to point it at her and or threaten to shoot her. Simply having the gun in his hand and un-holstered is not a crime or criminal threatening.

What if he had a rifle and not a handgun and he came on to his porch to confront the trespasser is that criminal threatening??... no place or way to holster a rifle...

He was well within his legal right to have a firearm in his hand while on his property.
Exactly how the gun was visually presented seems to be debated, and certainly far from clearly discernable based on what we have to go by here.

Given that this went to court, and was heard by a jury, I'm thinking there is more to it than he "unholstered it to check the safety".

If you are a responsible gun owner and pay attention to past cases and so forth, one of the first things you tend to figure out is that the person on the business end of the gun is going to perceive the situation very differently than yourself. The weapon should not be unholstered unless you actually intend to use it, and even in this case there is much room for interpretation.

IMO, the "warning" call his niece made to him probably worked against his defense. It would be one thing if this woman just showed up on his property completely randomly and out of context. However, with him having been warned that she was coming, and was looking for real estate (and not intending to harm or threaten him) it makes his rationale for making his weapon visible to her in ANY manner much more delicate.

This is certainly an area of the law that needs further clarification. IMO, a NH property owner should be free to carry and present a firearm on their own property under reasonable circumstances. Although, even with a legal right to do so, I'm not in favor of brandishing a firearm as a way of making a threat. I think it both exposes you to legal issues, and from a practical defense standpoint gives a legitimate adversary too much opportunity to react and/or present their own weapon.

A more all around practical approach to dealing with trespassers on your property is to keep the firearm in a small-of-the-back holster, with your hand on the weapon if necessary. This stance would indicate to most logical people that you have some kind of weapon at the ready, without actually revealing said weapon. I'd also recommend that if you intend to carry a weapon on your own property, or in a concealed manner in public, that you practice at a gun range with the weapon in the stored position. Being able to fluidly draw, aim, un-safety, and fire the weapon should be a smooth, continuous second-nature maneuver.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 07:30 PM   #20
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,173
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 310
Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts
Default

Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.....guns just escalate the situation...and besides, after all is said and you go back inside....you already are all worked up....so's you might as well go sweep the floor!

No way, can you sweep the floor with a Colt .45!

Message here: carry a broom and you get to clean up! But, carry a gun and you get three to six years in a very small, steel and masonry, slammer door, prison cell!

And what does the defense attorney get....maybe a second new Mercedes just for the weekends!
__________________
.... Banned for life from local thrift store!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:03 PM   #21
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Been watching and reading this for a while and have a silly question. Was this woman charged with trespassing? I have not read or heard anything about it and it would seem to me she clearly was trespassing.

Oh, and my opinion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
Irrigation Guy is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:40 PM   #22
MarkinNH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 392
Thanks: 177
Thanked 146 Times in 76 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalRealtor View Post
Been watching and reading this for a while and have a silly question. Was this woman charged with trespassing? I have not read or heard anything about it and it would seem to me she clearly was trespassing.

Oh, and my opinion is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
No ! This woman was not charged with anything.
I would love to here an answer from both the Moultonborough police and the Carroll County Attourney Robin Gordon as to why this was.
As I said earlier in the thread. Robin Gordon hates men and always takes the womans side. I wonder why ?
MarkinNH is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:31 PM   #23
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,947
Thanks: 545
Thanked 570 Times in 335 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.
Why do you keep making this asinine comment? Had the trespasser been an actual threat with intent to harm, a broom would have been to no benefit to anyone other than Harry Potter. Your "advice" is foolhardy, repetitive, tasteless and long past its expiration date.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
eillac@dow (11-29-2010), ishoot308 (11-29-2010), nvtngtxpyr (11-30-2010), RailroadJoe (11-30-2010)
Old 11-29-2010, 08:35 PM   #24
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.....guns just escalate the situation...and besides, after all is said and you go back inside....you already are all worked up....so's you might as well go sweep the floor!

No way, can you sweep the floor with a Colt .45!

Message here: carry a broom and you get to clean up! But, carry a gun and you get three to six years in a very small, steel and masonry, slammer door, prison cell!

And what does the defense attorney get....maybe a second new Mercedes just for the weekends!
Every time I read this comment all I can think about is one of those old fashioned tombstones with the following Phrase:

"Here lies fatlazyless he came to a gunfight with a broom"

All kidding aside less you assume that every trespasser comes on your land unarmed? A trespasser is sometimes knowingly breaking the law and occasionally may be armed. So if you run out on your porch waving a broom around you may actually escalate a situation with a criminal in which they pull a gun. Then what?

I'm not saying that was the case in this situation but you are painting some mighty broad brushstrokes with that broom of yours.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:36 PM   #25
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 6,536
Thanks: 2,455
Thanked 5,468 Times in 2,143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.....guns just escalate the situation...and besides, after all is said and you go back inside....you already are all worked up....so's you might as well go sweep the floor!

No way, can you sweep the floor with a Colt .45!

Message here: carry a broom and you get to clean up! But, carry a gun and you get three to six years in a very small, steel and masonry, slammer door, prison cell!

And what does the defense attorney get....maybe a second new Mercedes just for the weekends!
Yeah right, and I am sure the Mont Vernon mother who who was recently murdered and her young daughter who barely survived the attack wishes she had a broom to defend herself and daughter against the machete wielding punks who invaded their home!!

Get real man!!
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:24 AM   #26
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Talking Capt. Obvious

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Don't mean to sound like a broken record here.....but you is probably much better off running out the door with a kitchen broom and just go shake the broom at the stranger than using a gun.....guns just escalate the situation...and besides, after all is said and you go back inside....you already are all worked up....so's you might as well go sweep the floor!

No way, can you sweep the floor with a Colt .45!

Message here: carry a broom and you get to clean up! But, carry a gun and you get three to six years in a very small, steel and masonry, slammer door, prison cell!

And what does the defense attorney get....maybe a second new Mercedes just for the weekends!
You don't watch zombie movies, do you?
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:29 AM   #27
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

I wonder if Bird met the following requirements for posting signs?


Under state law (RSA 635:4), the legal manner of posting calls for posting durable signs with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing," in letters at least 2 inches high, and with the owner's name and address. The signs may be no further than 100 yards apart on all sides of the property and shall also be posted at gates, bars and all commonly used entrances.

These are the signs that Bird has on his property:
Attached Images
  
Yosemite Sam is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Yosemite Sam For This Useful Post:
RI Swamp Yankee (11-30-2010)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.64925 seconds