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 ...
But why would I want to? This is fun! :)
No, I didn't join the Washington Post conspiracy to deride all Southern Preachers. I just think it's a reach to come to that conclusion on the basis of so little data.
“Still making it about me? Is that the only tactic you know?”
No. Just using your words to show you reality.
“Nah, I’m pretty sure waiting so long that the boxes have rotted before making a stink about decorations that must have been there for months, is pretty much a putz type move.”
Do you work for the liberal media?
“No, I didn’t join the Washington Post conspiracy to deride all Southern Preachers.”
Just this one?
” I don’t recall calling him any derogatory names.”
#303 for starters
People must make judgements to go through life. I'm not telling people to not make judgements. You have to make judgements. Just don't be so darn certain that they are accurate. Often, snap judgments aren't accurate.
And you to talking to the person to confirm or refute as some type of surety of your judgement is equally absurd.
You may be surprised to discover that people will see things differently from you, and what you think they are thinking, is not always what they are thinking.
If you talk to them, maybe they will give the truth, or let it slip, but you can have a better grasp of it than otherwise.
Did anyone ever tell you people lie?
Yes, many times, and i've figured it out myself years ago.
But they don't always lie, and sometimes they let slip the truth even when they are trying to lie.
Time to do that anyway. Time for me to go have dinner with my family and enjoy the evening with them.
I suspect the same is true for you.
Later Gator. :)
“The moral ones. ...there are moral laws and immoral laws.”
Awesome, there we go. It is so simple. So “each man does what is right in his own eyes”. You believe it is moral for one’s feelings to trump other’s property rights. No, thanks. The left always has a a smug moral superiority.
What you suggest would lead to total anarchy.
“The moral ones. ...there are moral laws and immoral laws.”
I’ve got to bail too. I have a night of heavy lifting ahead, searching out my feelings on whether the law requiring me to get a fishing license is moral or not. After that, I’ll tackle the other 2 million, 876 thousand, and 492 laws.
You seem to have very strong emotions about this guy’s flowers.
I don’t believe I have enough information to exonerate or condemn either side of this argument. Hagen could very well be a love-smitten, heartbroken fiance who just want to honor his beloved and the father won’t allow it because he, as you seem to believe, can’t handle the thought that his daughter defied his authority and now is vindictive enough to torture Hagen just for loving his daughter. On the other hand, Hagen could just as likely have been what the father perceived as trouble for his daughter in an unhealthy relationship. Dad might have seen a controlling, stalking guy his daughter was blind to in her romantic fantasies, a man who encouraged his fiance to defy her father and not listen to sound advice and now Fagen uses his grief to get in Dad’s face and prove the girl loved him more. Or the story could be a variation of those possibilities with both wrong and/or both right. Which is it? I don’t know and that’s why I refuse to judge either party based on what I know from this article.
Right here:
https://sachsmedia.com/florida-population-statistics/
Quote:
Indeed, the share of Florida residents born outside the United States has almost quadrupled since 1900, up to 21 percent. Only 36 percent of Floridians were native to the state – down from 43 percent in 1950 – with the remaining 43 percent coming to Florida from other states.
Unquote
The total population of the state of Florida: (US Census Bureau): 21,781,128
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/FL
36 % of 21 million = 7,560,000. That is 7.5 MILLION native-born Floridians.
Total population of the state Alabama: 5,039,877
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/AL
So, there are 2 MILLION more native-born Floridians than all of the TOTAL population of Alabama.
26% of Alabama are African American. Yes, some are even Rednecks, but not most (sadly).
26% of 5 million = 1,300,000 so 5,039,877 - 1,300,000 = 3739877.
So, in all of Alabama, there are 3,740,000 White, Hispanic and Asian Alabamians. Assume even 90% are Rednecks, that = 3,365,889 Rednecks.
Assuming 50% of the Native-Born Floridians are Rednecks, that means 50% of 7,560,000 = 3,780,000. You got us beat by about 414,000 Rednecks.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/10/alabama-man-convicted-of-littering-for-decorating-fiancees-grave/
Since May 2021, Ford testified, a total of 10 boxes have been placed on the grave, and he either discarded them or sent them back to Hagans.[...]
The cemetery is owned by the city, and municipal prosecutor Justin Clark said regulations prohibit “benches, urns, boxes, shells, toys and other similar articles” on graves.
City employee Sari Card said she told Hagans that Ford didn’t want the boxes on the grave and planned legal action.
“He said he didn’t care, that every time a box is removed he would make another one to replace it,” she said.
While the defense argued that flower boxes aren’t litter, Judge Jim McLaughlin, who convicted Hagans in a non-jury trial, said the boxes were “a clear case of violation of this deed and violation of littering statute.
“The box does not occur naturally in nature. It is a foreign substance. Whether it’s pretty or not is not a consideration for this court,” he said.
The location was Auburn, Alabama.
https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2021/title-13a/chapter-7/article-2/section-13a-7-29/
2021 Code of AlabamaTitle 13A - Criminal Code.
Chapter 7 - Offenses Involving Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property.
Article 2 - Criminal Damage to Property.
Section 13A-7-29 - Criminal Littering.
Universal Citation: AL Code § 13A-7-29 (2021)
Section 13A-7-29
Criminal littering.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal littering if he or she engages in any of the following acts:
(1) Knowingly deposits in any manner litter on any public or private property or in any public or private waters without permission to do so. For purposes of this subdivision, any series of items found in the garbage, trash, or other discarded material including, but not limited to, bank statements, utility bills, bank card bills, and other financial documents, clearly bearing the name of a person shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the person whose name appears on the material knowingly deposited the litter. Advertising, marketing, and campaign materials and literature shall not be sufficient to constitute a rebuttable presumption of criminal littering under this subsection.
(2) Negligently deposits, in any manner, glass or other dangerously pointed or edged objects on or adjacent to water to which the public has lawful access for bathing, swimming, or fishing, or on or upon a public highway or within the right-of-way.
(3) Discharges sewage, oil products, or litter into a river, inland lake, or stream within the state or within territorial waters of the state.
(4) a. Throws, drops, or permits to be thrown or dropped any litter upon or alongside any highway, road, street, or public right-of-way and does not immediately remove the same or cause it to be removed; or
b. Removes a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a highway and does not remove glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the highway from the vehicle.
(b) For the purposes of this section, litter means rubbish, refuse, waste material, garbage, dead animals or fowl, offal, paper, glass, cans, bottles, trash, scrap metal, debris, plastic, cigarettes, cigars, containers of urine, food containers, rubber tires, or any foreign substance. Any agricultural product in its natural state that is unintentionally deposited on a public highway, road, street, or public right-of-way is not litter for purposes of this section or Section 32-5-76. Any other law or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding, the unintentional depositing of an agricultural product in its natural state on a public highway, road, street, or right-of-way shall not constitute unlawful littering or any similarly prohibited activity.
(c) It is no defense under subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(4) that the actor did not intend, or was unaware of, the act charged.
(d)(1) Criminal littering is a Class B misdemeanor. The fine for the first conviction shall be up to five hundred dollars ($500). The punishment for the second and any subsequent conviction shall include either a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) and up to 100 hours of community service in the form of picking up litter along highways, roads, streets, public rights-of-way, public sidewalks, public walkways, or public waterways, or by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) and not more than three thousand dollars ($3,000).
(2) In addition to the penalties provided in subdivision (1), littering of any of the following in violation of subsection (a) shall result in an additional fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) per violation:
a. Cigarettes or cigars.
b. Containers of urine.
c. Food containers.
(e) Fifty percent of the fine from a conviction under this section shall be distributed by the court to the State General Fund and 50 percent to the municipality or county, or both, following a determination by the court of whose law enforcement agencies or departments have been a participant in the arrest or citation resulting in the fine. The award and distribution to the county and municipality shall be made on the basis of the percentage as determined by the court, which the respective agency or department contributed to the police work resulting in the arrest, and shall be spent by the governing body on law and litter enforcement purposes only. Litter enforcement may include, but not be limited to, anti-littering education, publication and distribution of related educational materials, and anti-littering advertising.
(f) No action for criminal littering based on evidence that creates a rebuttable presumption under subdivision (a)(1) shall be brought against a person by or on behalf of a county or municipal governing body unless he or she has been given written notice by a designee of the governing body that items found in an accumulation of garbage, trash, or other discarded materials contain his or her name, and that, under subdivision (a)(1), there is a rebuttable presumption that he or she knowingly deposited the litter. The notice shall advise the person that criminal littering is a Class B misdemeanor, and shall provide that, unless the person can present satisfactory information or evidence to rebut the presumption to the designee of the governing body within 15 days from the date of the notice, an action for criminal littering may be filed against him or her in the appropriate court. If the person responds to the notice and presents information or evidence to the designee of the governing body, the designee shall review the information or evidence presented and make a determination as to whether or not an action should be brought against the person for criminal littering. The designee shall provide written notice to the person of its determination, and if the intent is to proceed with an action for criminal littering, the notice shall be sent before any action is filed.
(g) Upon approval of the county commission, the county license inspector and his or her deputies employed under Section 40-12-10 shall have the same authority to issue citations against persons violating this section as county license inspectors have with regard to persons violating revenue laws as provided in Section 40-12-10. In addition, the county solid waste officer, as defined in subsection (b) of Section 22-27-3, shall have the same authority to issue citations against persons violating this section as solid waste officers have with regard to persons violating the Solid Wastes Disposal Act pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 22-27-3.
(h) Nothing in this section shall authorize a county license inspector or solid waste officer to take any person into custody pursuant to this section unless the inspector or officer is a law enforcement officer employed by a law enforcement agency as defined in Section 36-21-40.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §2725; Acts 1990, No. 90-585, p. 1020; Acts 1997, No. 97-712, p. 1475, §1; Act 98-494, p. 954, §1; Act 2001-469, p. 623, §1; Act 2010-260, p. 468, §1; Act 2019-530, §1.)
Good to see you are still with us.
So do you. Remember slavery?
Or do you support legal rights to slaves back when they were "the Law"?
Stop. Just stop with your crap. Every single one of you out there would break the law if you thought it was absolutely the right thing to do.
Spare me your false piety for the law.
Making it about someone is a well known logical fallacy that is so old it even has a Latin name. (Argumentum tu quoque.)
It is *NOT* addressing any point brought forth in the argument, it is merely attacking your opponent, and it produces nothing in the way of supporting with logic and reason the topic being discussed.
Do you work for the liberal media?
And see? Here you are doing it again. My comment was "Nah, I’m pretty sure waiting so long that the boxes have rotted before making a stink about decorations that must have been there for months, is pretty much a putz type move."
You don't address the point about the display having been there so long that it rotted, you simply attack me.
I think it's a very valid point. Most people visit a grave during the funeral, and then some will visit it later, but in this case it was so much later that wooden containers rotted.
What this means is that this display had been there for a long time. Maybe a year or more.
I believe you said the father removed it and threw it away.
One wonders how the fiance became aware that it had been removed. Does he visit the grave often? That would seem unlikely. Did someone on the Cemetery staff call him up and tell him? That would also seem unlikely.
This is an interesting question, because I would have regarded it as unlikely that the man would have came back and put on another display without someone telling him.
Now that I think about it, the only thing that makes sense is that the father told him. Probably told him he didn't want that stuff on his daughter's grave. This is probably what turned it into a pissing contest.
Yes, if you go out of your way to piss people off, they will get pissed off.
Father probably should have just removed the stuff and said nothing, but I guess he wanted to hurt the young man a little.
No you stop with your idiotic crap. You have to cherry pick two extreme examples from 60 and 200 years ago. Plus you are totally disingenuous and IGNORE, over and over again hard facts in this case that are INCONVENIENT for you and your position.
On June 6, 2021, Ford said, he found another box on the grave.
“I went to the city, asked the city to remove it, and there was a surveillance camera that was posted in a tree near the box,” Ford told the court. “The city removed the box and surveillance camera.”
No I don't. I pick those because they are simple, and easy to understand, which makes it difficult for you to dismiss the point without looking like an @$$.
Yes, people decide whether or not to obey the law based on their own morality, not because it's "the LAW!"
Plus you are totally disingenuous and IGNORE, over and over again hard facts in this case that are INCONVENIENT for you and your position.
Do these facts address the moral issue? No? Then they are irrelevant and they should be ignored.
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.