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 ...
“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 @$$.”
I finally understand.
Slavery was legal but immoral therefore slavery should be abolished.
Your example when applied to this situation becomes:
Owning private property is legal but immoral therefore ownership of private property should be abolished.
Even though I now understand you I still don’t agree with you.
Nope. That's just you straw manning again.
My first argument is "that's not litter".
My Second Argument is "The Judge should have talked to the man and dismissed the case."
My Third Argument is "A Pastor should have turned the other cheek."
I will point out that a charge of "litter" isn't a private property argument.
I will agree that the legal system will recognize the father as the owner of the property, but the charge isn't trespassing, it's "litter", and as near as I can tell the plaintiff is the City.
The boy feels he has some right to her memory, and I cannot fault him for feeling that way. This is likely his mechanism for grieving.
Or it was. I think once he realized the father was trying to hurt him, it became a pissing contest.
He will ultimately win it you know. The father will likely die before him, and with no one to complain, he can put that stuff back on the grave again.
Get ready for the catastrophic DEF shortage.
People are discussing the hacking of this DEF system on trucks to allow them to continue operating in violation of "The LAW"!
They warn that without doing something, the nation is heading for a serious disaster.
So what do you say about breaking the law?
Are you willing to starve for the sake of "The LAW!" ?
“Nope. That’s just you straw manning again.”
Nope. Reality.
“My first argument is “that’s not litter”.”
Which by legal definition IS litter.
“My Second Argument is “The Judge should have talked to the man and dismissed the case.”
He is judge not a counselor.
“My Third Argument is “A Pastor should have turned the other cheek.””
He did. Nine times.
“I will point out that a charge of “litter” isn’t a private property argument.”.
Alabama law specifically addresses littering on private property.
“I will agree that the legal system will recognize the father as the owner of the property, but the charge isn’t trespassing, it’s “litter”, and as near as I can tell the plaintiff is the City.”
LOL! Specifically stated that Ford is the plaintiff.
“The boy feels he has some right to her memory, and I cannot fault him for feeling that way. This is likely his mechanism for grieving”
For over year?
“Or it was. I think once he realized the father was trying to hurt him,”
There you go again. Seeing into the heart of someone based on the biased article from a liberal rag.
You can’t be taken seriously. Your “every one only obeys the laws THEY FEEL are MORAL” is a joke. Total anarchy. Do you want me to list all of the laws or rights (LIKE PROPERTY RIGHTS) that the left feels/thinks/k”knows” are IMMORAL?
P.S. What’s your Antifa posting name?
Lincoln: "Just because you call a tail "a leg", doesn't make it so."
Which by legal definition IS litter.
Not really. I read through the statute Woodpusher posted. (I assume it is the Alabama Statute.) The closest thing I saw that would cover your assertion is "foreign substance."
But a box with flowers doesn't even meet the definition of "substance." So no, it doesn't meet the definition of "litter."
He is judge not a counselor.
Human beings who are not pr*cks but who happen to be Judges too, have the authority to talk to a man and dismiss the charges. That he did not do so is a human failing, whether it is a legal failing or not.
He did. Nine times.
So now you don't understand "turn the other cheek."
Perhaps you should inform us all about how many times Jesus said to do it? I don't recall seeing a number in there. It seemed pretty open ended.
Alabama law specifically addresses littering on private property.
It isn't "litter". Till you get past that hurdle, you still don't have an argument.
LOL! Specifically stated that Ford is the plaintiff.
Does it? Because "Plaintiff" is used in civil cases, which would make more sense if this is regarded as a "private property" matter.
What you actually have here is some sort of unholy amalgamation of "private" and "public" property which exists in a state of quantum superposition being both "public" and "private" at the same time.
So the Prosecutor is the Plaintiff's attorney? I didn't know they could do that in their official role.
For over year?
Ah! I finally got you to admit that box had been there over a year. :)
There you go again. Seeing into the heart of someone based on the biased article from a liberal rag.
Speculation. Trying to empathize. Could be wrong, but that explanation makes more sense than others of which I could think.
This DEF thing is no joke, and you may have to make a very serious decision in the coming months regarding it.
Unless something changes, people will either be breaking the law or they will be starving\jobless.
If trucks can't move, neither can food.
Everyone can follow the law when it causes them no great discomfort. Can you follow it when it does?
Perhaps you missed the part where the called out for saying he wound never stop. The judge rightly convicted him.
“Ah! I finally got you to admit that box had been there over a year. :)”
I never said that. You are such a dishonest poster.
Well we know he will someday, but that doesn't absolve the pastor from doing what his religion teaches.
“Does it? Because “Plaintiff” is used in civil cases, which would make more sense if this is regarded as a “private property” matter.”
Again, your ignorance or dishonesty shows. This is a criminal complaint.
I know it is not ignorance since I posted to you the statute and you discussed it several times.
So again, you are a dishonest poster.
“Well we know he will someday, but that doesn’t absolve the pastor from doing what his religion teaches.”
What does Winston’s religion say for him to do?
Non Sequitur
"For over year?"
You are such a dishonest poster.
And you are too quick to accuse.
So was I "lying" about your position on that guy shooting the guy who was trying to visit his son?
You still haven't clarified that. You keep dodging an honest response. This is itself a form of being disingenuous.
So how is the father the plaintiff? You just said the father was the plaintiff. Were you lying? (See how your stupid accusation tactics feel?)
So again, you are a dishonest poster.
I'm beginning to think you are the dishonest one. You keep accusing without bothering to see if you are correct.
Years ago, my dad told me that "If someone tells you something that is not true, that person is a *LIAR*."
I said, "But dad, what if they believed it to be true, but spoke in ignorance?"
He said "They are still a liar."
I disagreed then, and I disagree now. To lie, you must knowingly say something which is untrue.
People make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they misremember something. Sometimes they were misinformed.
"Lying" has an evil mens rea.
If you don't have an intent to deceive, you aren't lying.
But you, with your dodging and vague answers, that shows intent to deceive.
“Here are your exact words:
“For over year?””
Which you posted without context to lie about the meaning of the post. You used it to claim that I sad the planter was there over a year.
Looking back at my post it was responding to the dudes grieving.
You are such a dishonest poster.
“If you don’t have an intent to deceive, you aren’t lying.”
Since you never apologize for your lies, intent is understood.
“So was I “lying” about your position on that guy shooting the guy who was trying to visit his son?”
Yes.
You know that's Latin, right? Well it has a specific meaning. It translates "does not follow", and it means you cannot arrive at your conclusion from the path you took.
It may surprise you to learn that it does not mean "These are magic words that I can say in lieu of a real reply."
Correct. We’ve already had this discussion.
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.