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 ...
he article further down says Hagan kept doing up to 10 times even after the Dad asked him multiple times to stop. Then the complaint was made. It changes the storys complexion.
he article further down says Hagan kept doing up to 10 times even after the Dad asked him multiple times to stop. Then the complaint was made. It changes the storys complexion.
he article further down says Hagan kept doing up to 10 times even after the Dad asked him multiple times to stop. Then the complaint was made. It changes the storys complexion.
They ultimately are voted on by the public, because that's how the lawmakers get their office.
Also, I disagree that this was the applicable law. The material in question is clearly not "litter". Therefore the man cannot be accurately accused of "littering."
If you want to go drag out the Alabama statute on "littering" we can see if this fits within the law.
You wouldn't want to go against "THE LAW" would you?
“Once again, you are dodging the question.”
I directly answered your question. Issue is too far removed to discuss without revisiting details but for you to make references to this must mean “Texas” is living in your head. I recommend a cleansing of the mind.
“How do you feel about those people who helped slaves escape, or those people who helped Jews escape from the Nazis?”
And you accuse me of making unwarranted comparisons! LOL!
” How do you feel about those people who helped slaves escape, or those people who helped Jews escape from the Nazis?
Were they “lawless scum”? “
Pathetically lame try with cherry picked blatantly immoral laws. Surprised you didn’t concoct some equally silly straw man like would I consider people lawless scum if they refused to rape or murder and it was “the law” to do so.
+1.
It makes it a little easier to understand why the father, the city and the Judge would be so callous, but it doesn't morally justify what they have done.
All three entities should have handled this differently.
"Texas" doesn't bother me, but I remember that "Texas Gator" has been on the wrong side of a lot of other issues that i've noticed in the past.
Pretty sure that guy gunning down the man who was trying to visit his kid was another one of those issues in which you were on the wrong side.
Yup....some FR people didn’t read the entire article...the 10 boxes despite multiple requests to stop kind of changes the angle of the story a bit. Pastor angry at kid...the kid angry greiving and arrogantly defying the father’s wishes. Two wrong sides in this story. Maybe 3....why was the daughter so strongly minded to marry Hagans despite the dad’s wishes...what was going on there? These stories are written to inflame untill you take a second to sit back and ask questions...then the “easy” answers and judgments aren’t so easy to come by.
Me...I want to know why another rising bright Republican star was killed in another strange “accident”. Reminds me of that boyfriend of the Governor’s daughter in Georgia that died in a weird “accident”.
This is what the judge said”
““You’ve got a deed that says ‘no boxes.’ You’ve got a gentleman who’s been told ‘no boxes’ by a city lawyer in uncontroverted testimony. You’ve got a gentleman who says – and this is frankly where I lose my patience – ‘I don’t care what the rules are and what the law says, I’m going to do what I want.’ Well, he’s not. It’s a clear case of a violation of this deed,”
“The Judge should have done the right thing and talked to the young man”
The guy WAS “talked to” 10 times. When judges get people before them who thumb their nose at the law again and gain and again, they typically throw the book thrown at them, and rightly so. This judge let the guy off easy.
until I seen that I was sympathetic for the guy. Now, I would say he was trying to leave a message. the father n law didnt like him so he’s gonna leave picture of himself makin out with the daughter!!?? I’d sue his ass as well!!
Like we don’t have enough REAL crimes and instead cater to this kind of nonsense? Dad shoulda been told to pack sand.
If I were a member of her Dad’s church, I would lead the “tar & feather” operation...
For that matter...why is this a national Washington Post Story about a dust up in some town in Alabama? The story mentions the rising star republican who was killed. What and to whom was the Washington Post trying to signal?
Wait, What? "Immoral Laws"? Hold the presses!
You mean to say "The LAW" is not sacrosanct, and that there are *MORAL* laws and *IMMORAL* laws?
So we should disobey "immoral laws" but we should obey "moral laws"?
Well how does a person who simply relies on what they were taught about being a Christian able to determine what is a "moral" law vs an "immoral law"?
I see it as immoral for them to arrest and fine this young man simply because he was grieving a little over the top. This could have been handled with patience and understanding, but instead the Reverend sicced the government on the guy.
Whether he had a *RIGHT* to do so does not address the point of whether it was the moral or appropriate thing to do.
One would think the Reverend wouldn't need bible lessons, but it would seem that someone needs to tell him about "turn the other cheek."
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.