Posted on 06/13/2022 7:53:40 AM PDT by grundle
An Alabama man who planted flowers on the gravesite of his fiancee and was arrested at the direction of the woman’s disapproving father was found guilty of littering this week.
About a month after Winston “Winchester” Hagans got engaged, his fiancee, Hannah Ford, was killed in a three-car crash in January 2021 that shattered what was supposed to be the happiest time of their lives. To honor the 27-year-old, Hagans placed a planter box full of fresh flowers and photos of the two of them on her grave in Auburn, Ala.
But earlier this year, Hagans was arrested on a charge of criminal littering. City officials had reassured him that he could put the planter at Ford’s gravesite unless there was a complaint. Then he discovered that a complaint had been filed — by the Rev. Tom Ford, his fiancee’s father.
“The police don’t enforce the law unless the owner of the plot tries to do something about it,” Hagans told The Washington Post earlier this year, adding that his late fiancee’s father did not approve of their relationship.
Hagans was convicted Thursday on one count of criminal littering and ordered to pay about $300 in fines and court costs, the Opelika-Auburn News reported. The 32-year-old man was also given a suspended jail sentence of 30 days that will remain suspended as long as Hagans does not place any more flowers or planter boxes on his fiancee’s grave.
(Excerpt) Read more at webcache.googleusercontent.com ...
How Godly of her father, the right reverend...
“So I would like to hear the “facts” that makes that display into “liter” in a cemetery ...”
Object placed on private property against owner’s declarations.
They all sounds like jerks……and crap like this needs to be put to the side while we whistle past the graveyard losing our country.
I had many a prayer to St. Jude said for me at school......
“Do you know of the incident of which I speak?”
I remember one where a dad was shot on the porch of the mother’s boyfriend’s house.
” My recollection is that someone with “Texas” something as a name, was quite happy about the man being gunned down in cold blood.”
Proof that recollections are not always accurate.
The real issue here is between the young man and the father and the father seems to be acting out his distaste for the young man that he has always had and publicly admits and no one here knows the facts about all – despite the usual free republic sound and fury and earnest opinions about everything
Having five children including two daughters I have learned unless there is a problem that is extremely severe it is best to stay out of it
Because there’s always the danger it becomes about you
I think the father is doing just that
he should just let the guy do it until he gets tired of doing it he will not do it forever and he also needs to think about what would his daughter have wanted and let’s face one fact we do know she stayed with the guy until she was killed
Just because you own the grave side does it mean you get to re-create history as you would like it …well maybe.. Yankees did that at all our Civil War parks in the south…. To their credit they also paid for some of the southern memorials and contribute to pensions for CSA veterans so I should not be too harsh
The go to any Civil War battlefield out here and it’s all about the union even when they lost the battle
Down here we say take the highroad I have found people who proclaimed their Christianity the loudest generally do it the least
Am I lying ?
Hattip Hopper
now that I see the photo montage over the grave I can understand the father’s take....its his daughter and the boyfriend has completely taken over the grave leaving the entire rest of the family out....
If we are going to cite a law, and the law says "litter", then the definition cannot rely on the subjective opinion of some particular fellow who owns a grave site.
I cannot conceive of a law written so narrow that it would allow that display on other graves but call it "litter" on one particular grave.
It's either litter no matter where it is, or it's not litter. I see this as just another warpage of the law to mean what they want it to mean at any given time.
To wit, putting a memorial on the side of the road where someone died. Some of these are amazingly ornate.
I've seen them. Some I regard as tacky, ugly and an eyesore. I remember one in particular that is still stuck in my mind. It featured a picture of a young man in a suit, and it was affixed to a large utility pole along a highway.
I thought to myself that the young man wasn't a particularly impressive specimen of mankind, but clearly someone loved him dearly and wanted him to be remembered.
It would deteriorate over time as these things do, but about every so many months or so, someone would replenish it. I thought to myself, "they must really be hurting if they are trying so hard to keep his memory alive."
I think this went on for a decade or so, and I haven't noticed that display lately so maybe it's gone.
But I would not have gainsaid them in doing it.
I think they are inappropriate. That is what gravesites are for. But I’d compromise with a “six month memorial” rule, eventually reduced to 90 days, and eventually not at all.
As the years pass by, these things don't last and they go away on their own eventually.
I find them ugly and annoying, but if they help a family to cope, I am willing to put up with them.
Oh, and that boy's mother would occasionally take out an ad in the local newspaper to remind everyone about her boy.
Read post 23
What makes it "litter"? Would it still be "litter" on another grave?
But I also deal in reality.
This is what *I* would do, but then i'm not uppity and pretentious.
One doesn’t ever
Loss of a child
Especially violent and sudden of an innocent young child
Uvalde parents will never get over it
This I believe.
Covers the entire cemetery, does it? I haven't seen that photo.
Well perhaps you could share it with me so I could look it over in case you missed one of the graves that might have such a display on it?
None that I have ever seen.
You must go to swankier cemeteries than to those which I have been.
With the exception of a relatively recent visit to a military cemetery, many of the cemeteries I have seen have tacky all over them.
And what does the city do with all those dead flowers and other stuff put on graves?
Was it too much to ask for them to do the same with this one?
My words are my *lack* of actions. I should be doing something more useful than sitting here talking to people on the internet.
He can set up a memorial tablet, shrine or something similar in the privacy of his house and avoid the ahole father .
Not in *that* photo, but it can hardly represent the entire cemetery. Also I think those fake flowers in the background are tacky, but that's just me.
In my opinion, any kind of plastic flower is tacky.
At least this photo shows real living flowers.
Does it say that in the statute? We must adhere to "THE LAW" after all.
If it doesn't say that in the statute, then it doesn't apply.
I also dare say if you took that display to a thousand people and asked them if it was "litter", 999 of them would say "no."
There is the odd chance that they might run into someone like you.
That's it! And which way did you lean on the incident?
This is about a private property rights issue. Would you think it was ok for BLM protesters to put signs all over your front lawn, because they had strong feelings about the sign’s messages? If you asked them to “please do not do that” 10 times and their reply was always “screw you, we’ll do whatever we want”, would you just say “ok”. All the other talk (tacky/not tacky, etc.) is just sideshow chatter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.