How was Mark Houck aquitted?

Great Debates
1

I’m going with the Rolling Stone article as everything else I find on this is pretty right wing outrage, with a fair amount of disingenuity in them. For some reason, I’m not finding any more reputable outlets covering this story.

This story came to my attention as I was discussing the topic of “no knock warrants” with my mother, and she told me of how a minister had the cops come into his house, guns blazing in front of his 7 kids, because he was praying outside an abortion clinic.

I thought this sounded a bit fishy, so I pulled out my phone and within a few seconds, I had the Heritage foundation’s story on it. At this point, I could point out that it wasn’t a no knock warrant, there were no “blazing guns” and he was doing more than just praying. That was all I was really looking to do at that point, as I keep trying to tell my mother that she needs to stop listening to people who will twist and distort the facts.

However, when I looked into this further, I found it rather troubling.

The allegations are that he shoved a patient escort to the ground. From what I see, he does not deny these allegations, he just feels that they were justified since this escort would say mean things to his twelve year old son when he went by, he claimed that he assaulted this 72 year old man to defend the child that he chose to bring with him to what everyone knows is going to be a fairly uncivil atmosphere.

The local DA declined to press charges, so the Federal government, under the FACE act, did so. This is when they “came in guns blazing.”

The Heritage article is a bit biased, but goes into more detail.

Even given the biased source, this admits to assaulting someone because he didn’t like what they said. And I’ve never heard that assault is okay if the injury is minor.

But the jury acquitted him. What am I missing as to why this isn’t a pretty open and shut case? (Also, why am I only seeing this on right wing media?)

(No, discourse, my topic is not similar to Marc Almond and Mark-Almond)

I think that GD is a good place for this, but mods are welcome to move it if it would be more appropriate elsewhere.

2

Was he charged with assault, or with battery, or with something else?

3

He was charged with violating the Freedom of access to clinic entrances (FACE) act:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

So basically, looks like you have to prove the assault was for that specific reason.

4

The local DA declined to charge him, even though it seems to me to be a clear case of assault. (Which is more or less the reason for the FACE act, as local prosecutors were reluctant to press charges against abortion protestors.)

The Federal govt charged him with violation of the FACE act, which includes

5

So, someone could go to an abortion clinic and start assaulting people, and not get charged as you can’t prove that they were doing so to stop them from getting abortions?

“I didn’t punch that woman because she was there for an abortion, I was just there, protesting abortions, when I decided I wanted to punch someone.”

Huh, weak law.

6

If he was only charged with violating the FACE act, that isn’t the same as assault or battery. The closest item in the FACE act which might apply to this situation is:

the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion;

Since the person affected was only an escort and not a patient, the act obviously would not apply, and I wonder that the Feds even tried it. The local DA, who might have prosecuted for assault and/or battery, declined to do so. We are all free to speculate on their reasons.

7

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s not just patients, but those providing services to those patients, including volunteer patient escorts that are covered.

It seems it would have been tossed out of court rapidly if it didn’t even pertain to the person. Rather, it went all the way through a jury trial, where they acquitted.

That’s what I’m not understanding, he admits to the assault, admits that he committed the assault because he didn’t like what the escort was saying, which in nearly any other case, would find you convicted.

But this jury just thought it was junky-dory to assault 72 year olds because of their speech.

8

It seems like your issue should be more with the DA who declined to charge him for assault.

9

I clearly did not dig deeply enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Did the feds try for a change of venue?

10

Jury nullification?

11

I mean, sure, but that’s kinda the whole reason why the FACE act got put into place in the first place. Local prosecutors didn’t want to prosecute abortion clinic protestors, as they either agreed with them, or they needed to agree with them for political reasons.

But sure, if I get in an argument about a sports game with a 72 year old, they say nasty things to my son in return, and I shove them to the ground, I’m on the hook for assault. It’s just that abortion protestors seem to be given a whole lot more leeway.

My understanding is that before the FACE act violence towards those going in and out of abortion clinics was very prevalent, and never prosecuted.

12

Did it perhaps hinge on some form of “fighting words” doctrine? To be clear, I’m not advocating for that as an excuse (and certainly not for the biased spin).

13

That’s the sort of thing that I am wondering. I can’t find really any information about the case or trial from anything but right wing sites.

No mention on NPR, BBC, routers, or AP. Not even ABC or CBS. Not that I can find anyway with a search of “Mark Houck NPR” etc…

In any case, my understanding is that, while fighting words may give liability to those speaking them, they don’t excuse the retaliation.

And I don’t think that what was quoted, by those on Houck’s side, comes anywhere close to that standard.

Far worse is hurled at those seeking reproductive care and their escorts. If anyone would be justified in retaliating with violence, it would be them.

From what I can tell, this has been a long going issue. The escort is there, helping women on a regular basis, and that minister is there, harassing those same women on a regular basis. It certainly was going on all day, and my impression is that this is not the first day they met.

And so, the pastor is perfectly happy to be a part of a group that is hurling vile insults and hate at women going about their legal business, but reacts with violence when any part of that is turned around. Especially when it’s in front of his son, where he can teach a valuable lesson on how to settle disagreements.

14

Well, the short version is the jury didn’t want to, and sometimes that’s all you need.

But the long version is, one of the inevitable consequences of a trial by jury is that you’re never going to really know “how” someone was acquitted or not, other than that you know what the jury was told their job was, and you know how they found. (Sometimes jury members make public statements, and the court often has a little chat with the jury after the trial, but you still don’t really know what went on inside the jurors’ heads if you hear those little snippets).

What we know here is the jury would have been instructed on a few important elements of the crime, which could have been issues where the jury felt the case wasn’t made:

  • the defendant used “force,”
  • the defendant intentionally intimidated, injured or interfered with the victim, or attempted to,
  • because the victim was staff or a volunteer for an abortion provider

If you are willing to believe the jury did only what it was told to do, then that means the jury didn’t think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all of those things were true. Could be that they didn’t think what they heard involved “force” being used by the defendant, or that they didn’t think there was actual or attempted intimidation, injury or interference, or it could be that they didn’t find that it happened “because of.” We don’t know what evidence they heard, but certainly the defense would have offered up other ways of looking at all of it. Maybe they didn’t think the “injury” was serious enough, or they thought the evidence was muddled about who used “force,” or maybe they thought there were other possible "because of"s.

And then, of course, there’s the possibility the jury decided based on something else, or some ambiguous combination of all of this. They kinda just vibe it out a lot of the time.

15

What @Jimmy_Chitwood said.

I would just add that it could depend on the exact nature of the offence. If this was an element of the offence:

  • because the victim was staff or a volunteer for an abortion provider

that could have led the jurors to ask: “Did he hit the guy because the guy was a volunteer for an abortion provider? Or was it to protect his son?”

If this quote is accurate:

then I could see the jurors saying that the reason for hitting the guy was because he was angry that the guy was saying those things to his son, not because he was a volunteer at the clinic.

Hitting the guy would likely be assault or battery, but that’s not what the charge was.

16

I doubt that. The Jury saw all the evidence, not just an article or two. They saw and heard evidence you didn’t.

Based upon all the evidence the Jury found that a reasonable doubt existed.

Also, you didnt see or hear all the evidence the jury did.

Exactly.

17

Rolling Stone is right-wing media?

18

No, that seems to be the case. Houck admitted to shoving the guy in retaliation for what he said to his son, that fact is not in dispute. The jury was okay with that.

As other posters have pointed out at this point, which I appreciate, the jury may have been instructed to only return a guilty verdict if they felt that the assault was specifically due to the guy being an escort, and I suppose there was enough doubt that said that this minister would shove anyone who said mean things to his son, so it wasn’t a violation of the FACE act.

It absolutely was assault though, so I find the DA to be negligent in refusing to file charges, and apparently the FACE act needs an update, as it is exactly this sort of situation, where the local prosecutor could be sympathetic to the pro-life movement and refuse to press charges against them, that it was made to deal with.

As I said in the OP, it’s really hard to find any information about this case, as for some reason, it is only being carried by right wing media, and they all have some pretty severe spin on it, but now that I understand the limitations of the FACE act, it makes more sense.

19

No, as I said in the OP, it was the only media outlet that wasn’t right wing media that is covering it.

And while I don’t have any specific problems with Rolling Stone, they aren’t at the top of my list of trusted sources.

I’d love an NPR or BBC article covering it.

20

How do you know? Did you hear the Juries deliberations? Did you see all the evidence? What were the Juries instructions?

Second guessing a jury is fruitless and you never have the info.