# How was Mark Houck aquitted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2023, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029 "2023-04-21T20:23:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/1 "2023-04-21T20:23:41Z")
> **[Anti-Abortion Activist Accused of Pushing 72-Year-Old Volunteer Found Not Guilty](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/anti-abortion-activist-mark-houck-not-guilty-planned-parenthood-volunteer-1234671313/)** > > Mark Houck, an anti-abortion activist accused of pushing a 72-year-old volunteer outside a Planned Parenthood, was acquitted Monday of charges 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Access_to_Clinic_Entrances_Act), did so. This is when they “came in guns blazing.” > [@](#): > > Houck did not deny twice shoving Bruce Love, a patient escort at the Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center during their 2021 altercation, per the report. [The Heritage](https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-justice-department-twist-federal-law-arrest-charge-pro-life) article is a _bit_ biased, but goes into more detail. > [@](#): > > on multiple occasions this pro-abortion escort said “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to the Houcks’ son, such as “your dad’s a fag” and other vulgar slurs. > > Houck kept telling the escort to stop harassing his son, they say, but the escort refused to stop and when the foul-mouthed vulgarian got too close to his son, Houck protected him by shoving the escort away. > > The escort fell down, but, according to Houck’s family, the only injury he [suffered](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252385/mark-houck-fbi-arrest-abortion-clinic) required “a Band-Aid on his finger.” 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/2 "2023-04-21T20:29:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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? Was he charged with assault, or with battery, or with something else? ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/3 "2023-04-21T20:35:11Z")
He was charged with violating the Freedom of access to clinic entrances (FACE) act: > by force or threat of force or by [physical obstruction](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1805725225-910341878&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:13:section:248), intentionally injures,[intimidates](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1811188260-910341879&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:13:section:248)or interferes with or attempts to injure,[intimidate](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1811188260-910341879&term_occur=999&term_src=)or[interfere with](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1873263512-910341880&term_occur=999&term_src=)any person because that person is or has been, or in order to[intimidate](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1811188260-910341879&term_occur=999&term_src=)such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing [reproductive health services](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-568052354-910341877&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:13:section:248); So basically, looks like you have to prove the assault was for that specific reason. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/4 "2023-04-21T20:36:07Z")
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 > [@](#): > > - Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, [escort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinic_escort) or patient ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/5 "2023-04-21T20:40:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/6 "2023-04-21T20:40:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/7 "2023-04-21T20:45:17Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Since the person affected was only an escort and not a patient, the act obviously would not apply, 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. > [@](#): > > _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_ > > … > > - Committing any act of violence on a clinic employee, [escort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinic_escort) or patient > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I wonder that the Feds even tried it. 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. ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/8 "2023-04-21T20:52:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. It seems like your issue should be more with the DA who declined to charge him for assault. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/9 "2023-04-21T20:53:33Z")
I clearly did not dig deeply enough. Thanks for the clarification. Did the feds try for a change of venue? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/10 "2023-04-21T21:02:36Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But this jury just thought it was junky-dory to assault 72 year olds because of their speech. Jury nullification? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2023, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/11 "2023-04-21T21:03:42Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > It seems like your issue should be more with the DA who declined to charge him for assault. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/12 "2023-04-22T13:03:07Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/13 "2023-04-22T13:45:03Z")
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. > **[Fighting Words Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.](https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/)** > > Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person > which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer > emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately > [@](#): > > Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don’t constitute an assault. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/14 "2023-04-22T14:42:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/15 "2023-04-22T18:33:48Z")
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: > [@](#): > > this pro-abortion escort said “crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to the Houcks’ son, such as “your dad’s a fag” and other vulgar slurs. > > Houck kept telling the escort to stop harassing his son, they say, but the escort refused to stop and when the foul-mouthed vulgarian got too close to his son, Houck protected him by shoving the escort away. 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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/16 "2023-04-22T20:28:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But this jury just thought it was junky-dory to assault 72 year olds because of their speech. 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. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > 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,… Also, you didnt see or hear all the evidence the jury did. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > We don’t know what evidence they heard,… Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/17 "2023-04-22T21:05:53Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > (Also, why am I only seeing this on right wing media?) _Rolling Stone_ is right-wing media? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/18 "2023-04-22T21:08:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I doubt that. The Jury saw all the evidence, not just an article or two. They saw and heard evidence you didn’t. 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. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/19 "2023-04-22T21:09:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2023, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029/20 "2023-04-22T23:06:16Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-was-mark-houck-aquitted/983029.md?page=2)