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 ...
(b) "Litter" means rubbish, refuse, waste material, garbage, dead animals or fowl, offal, paper, glass, cans, bottles, trash, scrap metal, debris, or any foreign substance of whatever kind and description, and whether or not it is of value.
You want me to accept your word that "THE LAW" is the most important thing ever, and I simply reminded you that being "THE LAW" does not make something morally right.
God's law is higher than man's law, and I advise you that whenever you see the two in conflict, it would be better to follow God's law and not man's.
Is this your son? I have to ask to try to explain why you are defending them so vociferously. Me, after 3 years (BLM protests, COVID restrictions), of seeing private property rights trashed by people with your mindset, I am in the mood to defend them vociferously.
“This could have been handled with patience and understanding, “
They tried several times over a period of a year but he told them where to go and what to do!
Two questions.
Is that from the Alabama Statute?
Does that make anything put on a grave "litter"?
Non Sequitur
“This could have been handled with patience”
So you ignore the fact he was given 10 chances? That was your “patience” right there. That by any measure that was PATIENCE. YOU strangely keep ignoring that inconvenient fact.
“Is that from the Alabama Statute?”
Yes.
“Does that make anything put on a grave “litter”?”
No. It is a definition in the littering statute and applies only to:
Criminal Littering
(1) Knowingly deposits in any manner litter on any public or private property or in any public or private waters, having no permission to do so.
I have no knowledge of this person.
I have to ask to try to explain why you are defending them so vociferously.
I guess you haven't read very many messages from me. Whatever I discuss, I do so vociferously.
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
I will stand up for fair treatment even for people I do not know.
Me, after 3 years (BLM protests, COVID restrictions), of seeing private property rights trashed by people with your mindset, I am in the mood to defend them vociferously.
Well then you have me mistaken. I fully believe in private property rights, but this in my mind is not an issue of "rights", but of propriety.
The father clearly has all legal rights to be an @$$, but the point here is that he should not have been.
This was posted here, you had to have read it.
“It is against the law to place items on a gravesite in Alabama unless it is cleared by the family of the deceased.”
And yet you once again IGNORE inconvenient facts. That is called being disingenuous.
” I fully believe in private property rights, “
Except in this case?
The son also...I think there is a 4th side; grief doen’t excuse angry pride and disrespect of elders particularly the girls father. Yes we don’t follow th old rules of chivalry where if dad says no then that’s it...no marriage; but i do think there is a bit of rebellious push back on the count of the young man to the point where he is willing to allow the drama to be heightened publicly so that the girl’s father would be the one who is the “bad” guy. The young man is a Christian too and the son of an evangelist. I’m sure the daughter looking down from heaven would want everyone to be at peace.
The judge needed to get both of these people into a room and have a stern talk with the both of them reminding them both of the girl that was lost and how the daughter would want them both to be at peace!
Yes, you do remind me of him, but he was a lot more articulate and knowledgeable.
I didn't like him.
“I will stand up for fair treatment even for people I do not know.”
And so when someone is WARNED 10 times, in your mind that is not a fair warning? What is your standard? 20 times? 50 times?
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.
Your 222: God’s law is higher than man’s law, and I advise you that whenever you see the two in conflict, it would be better to follow God’s law and not man’s.
Me: Non Sequitur
You: Yes, you do remind me of him
I am flattered but you forgot to capitalize Him.
So perhaps you can set me straight on this particular point.
How many times should a Christian turn the other cheek? Is 10 too much? Fight back after 10?
People are, ..... ehrhrrr .... ummmm...different....?
“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.”
The first one was rotted and tossed away by the father.
The father had a friend return the others and ask Winston to cease.
After the fifth time an informal complaint was made and the city told Winston to cease or he might face legal action. He told then he wouldn’t stop.
After the ninth time, a formal complaint was made.
“It is against the law to place items on a gravesite in Alabama unless it is cleared by the family of the deceased.”
So why wasn't the guy charged with *THAT* statute instead of "littering"?
And yet you once again IGNORE inconvenient facts. That is called being disingenuous.
Just because I don't obsess on the same particular points you find significant doesn't mean I am trying to deceive anyone. I just don't consider your points to be as important as my own.
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.