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 ...
I agree with you that it left out key details. Clearly the boy was being an @$$ too.
You argue regular stuff as well as you do WBTS
HIT THE ROCK DOG
U don’t meet tone to tone
Me
Not so good at tranquil lol
I didn't broach the topic of the Washington Post attacking a Southern Christian man, but as it turns out, Judge Roy Moore was also in Alabama, and I think the Washington Post *DID* deliberately attack him.
But this Ford guy? Is he famous for something? Is there some reason why the Washington Post would specifically target him other than his being a Southern preacher?
Where were we on Christians should turn the other cheek except for you?
I think I mentioned earlier that someone's refusal to post something in context just defaults to "they are trying to hide something" in my opinion.
It saves me a lot of time looking something up.
“People would not agree with me regardless of reality, they would simply acknowledge the same reality that we can all see if we just look at it.”
Ah, yes! If only people would understand your view of reality they would all agree with you.
“This guy can also see into other people’s hearts. “
FAIL! I’M JUDGING HIM BY HIS WORDS AND ACTIONS. All day long, every single datly, we have to make judgements of people by what they DO AND SAY.
That's still you. I pointed out what Jesus said in a context that would apply to this one. I don't think I said anything that makes this about me.
If only they understood you they would all agree with you.
That's you again. It has nothing to do with me, but everything to do with a better understanding in general.
Yet you do not see this slanted article objectively as it is.
I will grant you that it could be a deliberately slanted attack article, but I see other possible explanations. One is that they needed some sort of story, and the way they presented this one, it is far more likely to garner interest.
They may hate Southern preachers, but that is not necessarily their primary motivation.
A liberal media ht piece on a Southern preacher.
So you think if he was a car salesmen or something, they wouldn't have written this story?
I'm not so certain. Long experience has taught me that certainty is unwise.
“I think I mentioned earlier that someone’s refusal to post something in context just defaults to “they are trying to hide something” in my opinion.
It saves me a lot of time looking something up.”
You were arguing the law while being completely ignorant of the law. I posted in context even adding some context.
The only way I can satisfy you is to post the entire code but you already said it would be too much trouble for you to searchnit all.
Non Sequitur
Don’t make the mistake of characterizing mild contempt as anger.
“And if they don’t you are free to chose what you want”
you nailed it, captain obvious. Why is this observation relevant to anything?
What have I said about what is in their hearts?
I believe i've said the preacher doesn't seem to be acting like a preacher.
Oh, and i've said the courts don't do a very good job, but I say that a lot and on a lot of threads.
“I agree with you that it left out key details.”
Why did they leave out MANY key details favorable to the preacher and include unsourced facts favorable to Winston?
Because it is a slanted hit piece on a Southern Christian preacher by a ultra-liberal media.
"The Law" is also calling men "women" and bees "fish."
When the law stops being a joke, we can start taking it seriously again.
HIT THE ROCK DOG
U don’t meet tone to tone
Well thank you. I like being grounded in reality, and having a distrust of my fellow man doing the right thing helps.
Civility is good, but you don't always get it back.
They both are true and both relate to plot deed restriction and what the cemetery will allow.
Which you know nothing about. You also seem strangely concerned with thing that aren’t in the rules, which arent relevant to anything being discussed.
You still trying to make this about me? Look up "Tu quoque."
As for me, i've already said that were I in his position, I would not make an issue over grave decorations, especially with the man she loved. None of that crap would bring my baby back.
Nothing else matters.
“What have I said about what is in their hearts?”
You have called the preacher several derogatory names and other comments.
“I like being grounded in reality, “
LOL. You fell for this liberal hit piece and made no effort to find reality.
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.