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 ...
Bttt.
5.56mm
Cause the word means whatever we want it to mean when we feel like changing it.
Besides, it is all cleaned up.
So how did that happen? And why didn't it happen in this case?
This idiot judge calling it "litter" is the same as that idiot California judge calling a bee a "fish."
It's the same legal idiocy we are seeing all over the country now.
No reasonable person would call it "litter." That is something that only a Legal @$$ would do.
They were there so long that they rotted?
And the guy wants to make an issue *AFTER* they had been there that long? What a putz.
You can generally count on the legal system being an @$$. It's rare when they do the right thing.
It means I need to make concepts simpler and easier to understand while i'm discussing something with you.
I never said the man was stupid, that's all *YOU*. I said that just because people tell you stuff, doesn't make it true.
I *WILL NOT* understand something because some yahoo *TELLS* me it is "thus."
I might use their assertions to look at the claim further, but I *WILL NOT* simply accept something that someone tells me.
I've met too many idiots in my life who didn't know what the h3ll they were talking about.
Thus the issue becomes moot and requires no legal action. The end! The Reverend Tom Ford is a hypocritical fool.
And this is why little kids stay in their own yard and never get into the neighbors yard.
Do you have any experience with little kids?
This. My understanding is that cemeteries normally cycle this stuff out. I guess they were lazy at this particular cemetery. Sounds about right for a government ran cemetery.
You are them! There is hard legal definition, you have read it, and yet "litter" it is whatever you decide it is. If I placed the Mona Lisa on the side of some street, it is legally defined as "litter". Does matter what you think or that it is worth a bazillion dollars. Same as if I dumped a ton of gold bars on someone' front lawn. I could get charged with littering.
Hardly. A store bought display for a grave is not "litter" unless you are the kind of idiot Judge that calls a bee a "fish".
It does mean that.
“...So I would like to hear the “facts” that makes that display into “liter” in a cemetery...”
It becomes litter in a cemetery when it is illegally placed on the contracted property of the family of Dr. Ford. It was requested not to be put there numerous times and the person not only ignored the request, but outright determined he was going to violate the law and made this knowledgeable to the attorney that told him not to put it there. What is on other locations in the cemetery is immaterial. That has nothing to do with Ford’s property and as it’s not Hagan’s property, he is leaving something that is not wanted and requested not to be there.
Littering means willful or negligent throwing, dropping, placing, depositing, or sweeping, allowing or causing such acts, of any litter on land or water, in other than appropriate storage containers or areas designated for such purpose.
He placed something not wanted on the land that was not designated by the person in control of it to be placed there.
“However, Ford provided photos of the different boxes, which showed them placed directly above the headstone, which showed them placed directly above the headstone
Not what I wrote but okay, we can play the game and break down what I did write:
“However, Ford provided photos of the different boxes, which showed them placed directly above the headstone, which was present in every image.”
He didn’t show the headstone picture in this one and never had to. He was showing the box and it was present in every picture. I equate your statement to trolling. Stay within the law and the world is your oyster. And when you make a point, make sure you are making one pertinent to what was written rather than changing it to fit your point.
wy69
Pick up the King James Version because the true depth of meaning of the word of God is lost in the modern translations. I cannot read them because they leave an empty feeling.
It's almost like reading a translation of Geoffrey Charger. Why bother with it if the meter and rhyme is missing?
I remember those days here in Maryland. In the early 60s our Methodist pastor had a daughter who married a Catholic. We were treated to regular anti-Catholic digs from time to time after that, which bored our family to death since half our in-laws were Catholic and we didn't want to hear that.
It being the Baby Boom and with many churches expanding, our congregation decided to build a larger sanctuary. Heavy machinery came to excavate the foundation, and a big pile of dirt soon rose up. Turns out, the Catholic Church right next door had also been having a building project. They actually needed some fill dirt; so the contractors worked it out between themselves to move the unwanted excavation material right across the street to the Catholic lot.
From then on, our pastor's triumphalist anti-Catholic rants began thusly: "Hah! That Catholic church next door is built on a good Methodist foundation!"
You're a bit behind the times. The "Methodist Episcopal" church ceased to be back in 1967, when they merged with Evangelical United Brethren to become UMC—and went down the tube.
I remember that M.E. liturgy—it was beautiful, and so were the socially conservative people of the M.E. churches. Long gone.
No it doesn't.
As Abraham Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
Everyone knows what "litter" is. You take a million people and run them past that grave, and if you ask them "Is that litter?" They will say "no."
Your "definition" would require "Jury Instructions" in order to reach the notion that it is "litter".
It is a Frankenstein creation of legal people that bears no resemblance to reality.
A better argument would be to claim "trespass" as Ford is the owner of the grave. Calling it "litter" is just stupid.
It looks the same because they cannot afford to remove all of the flowers and decorations very often. It is outside a small Methodist Church but the Church hasn't had any authority over the cemetery for a few decades. About twenty years ago the low-life husband of one of the trustees absconded with all the funds and were never recovered. Even the grave registrations had to be recreated from other sources.
I think that would depend on who is responsible for the litter left over after mowing. If it is just left there or if the plot owner is responsible, then perhaps the father/reverend has a point. I doubt the cemetery itself would hold itself responsible for cleaning up messes from unsuitable items being left on the gravesite on mowing day.
I thought the same thing. It's only been less than a year and a half. Sounds like it only took 4 to 6 weeks per wooden box to rot into litter. Either they had a whole lot of rain for the last 17 months, or somebody is bearing false witness.
“And the guy wants to make an issue *AFTER* they had been there that long? What a putz.”
No. The first time he just tossed them.
The second, third, fourth and fifth times he returned them.
Then he made an informal complaint which Winston said he would ignore the law.
After the ninth time he made the formal complaint.
A
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.