The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 30, 2009, 12:37 PM   #1
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
Stand Your Ground

I thought this might of interest to many of you:

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11744698

CLAREMORE, OK -- A Green Country man hopes the New Year is better for him than the last two.

Mark Abshire was charged with shooting with intent to kill in 2007, and his life turned upside down until his trial a few weeks ago.

The jury found Abshire not guilty, that he was acting in self defense. Now, he's finally able to tell the story, in his own words.

Mark Abshire has relived the night of September 2, 2007, over and over.

It changed his life in ways he could never have imagined: he was forced to sell his home, lost a six-figure job, pension, 401K and faced life in prison.

"My intention was 'everybody stay back, let the police handle it,' but I don't think in their state of mind, they cared," Abshire said.

It started after vehicles had sped through the neighborhood for the second time and a neighbor's wife, hollered at them to slow down.

Two cars came back to Abshire's house, cussed his wife and attacked his neighbor.

He says he sprayed pepper spray, pulled his gun and told them to leave.

A third car pulled up, so now he was facing six angry, drunk men while his wife was on the phone to the sheriff.

"When we told them they need to leave, they were still screaming we messed with the wrong people and didn't know what we'd done," Abshire said. "One guy started reading the house numbers off my house and said 'we don't care if the police are coming, we'll burn your f-ing house down and kill everybody in it.'"

Mark says he turned to look at his wife, when Robbie Case tackled him, knocking him to the concrete, cracking his teeth.

"Starting pulling me by the throat into the ditch, choking me while he friend was kicking me, I finally managed to get his hand off my throat, drew my gun and shot him," Abshire said.

He fired again; Case was hit in the chest and the back and paralyzed.

Abshire was arrested and sat in jail 18 days before being charged with shooting with intent to kill.

Two and a half years later, the trial began. After six days of testimony and two hours of deliberations, the jury found Mark not guilty.

"It was an overwhelming feeling of relief and happiness for my family - unable to put words to it, the emotions - very thankful to the jury," Abshire said.

Mark is very grateful for the friends, family and church that stood beside him and his attorney Jack Gordon, Junior.

Abshire plans to sue for civil rights violations. He says people are still making threats against his family.
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:05 PM   #2
M4Sherman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
I would have thought Ok would have had a castle law. Still glad he didnt get thrown in the pokey for the rest of his life.
M4Sherman is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:15 PM   #3
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Ordinarily we close drive-by posts (cut & paste with no discussion), but I'll leave it to the L&CR moderators to make that call if they wish. If you'd like to keep the thread open for discussion, I'd suggest you contribute some of your own thoughts to your opening post.

Meanwhile, I followed the link and from that page there is a link to an extended video interview with Mark Abshire. I would love to discuss the effect this justified shooting had on this man's life, family, and finances -- and how others who are interested in self-defense might avoid the hell he's been through.

Please do go ahead & post some thoughts of your own.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:27 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I think that this whole situation speaks to the folly of inserting yourself into a situation with such a strong potential for violence. The neighbor should have stayed inside, his wife should have stayed inside and he should have stayed inside.

I'm glad it worked out for him, it certainly appears that the shooting was justified, but I still say that it could of and should have been avoided.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:37 PM   #5
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Since we have a legit discussion running - let's go with it.

My take away point reflects back on something I read in another ongoing thread. If it's a good shoot then XY or Z won't matter.

But the shoot can be ambiguous to a jury or a DA can not see it as righteous. There's no such thing as a guaranteed "good shoot" - so that kind of advice is not really useful.

This one might seem clear cut to us - but we are the choir. Thus, the above mentioned cautions are to be taken seriously.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:44 PM   #6
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
Oklahoma has castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

What is interesting here is that Abshire's civil rights may have been violated, and if so, who will be required to provide restitution for his losses. It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

This is more than just a 'drive by'. I am surprised that he was even charged.

I'm pretty sure that the attackers have no civil claim against him since he was found not guilty. If I were he, I would certainly entertain suing them for restitution, not that would ever collect. That could be costly however.

Certainly makes you think twice about what could happen if your excercise your rights under the law, eh?
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:51 PM   #7
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
peetzakilla, yes staying in side would have kept that particular incident from unfolding. But, if you cannot go outside on your own property, you've given up rights. That's what the Stand Your Ground law is all about - not having to vacate your legal and ligit space, where ever you happen to be.

On the flip side, hollering at some one to slow down does give them the right to come on your property and threaten and attack you and you family.
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 01:56 PM   #8
stacks04
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Posts: 62
hollering to someone to slow down gives them the right to come on your property and give you a beat down???? please explain that to me.
stacks04 is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 02:18 PM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundog
peetzakilla, yes staying in side would have kept that particular incident from unfolding. But, if you cannot go outside on your own property, you've given up rights. That's what the Stand Your Ground law is all about - not having to vacate your legal and ligit space, where ever you happen to be.
I understand and agree with that assessment. However, being within your rights does not automatically mean "wise choice". After all, it has been found by a jury that Mr. Abshire WAS within his rights, but do you think that Mr. Abshire might be wishing that he and the other victims had made some different choices?

Think of this analogy, this is a true story. I have cousin who is extremely intelligent, but not very smart.... if you know what I mean. He got hit by a car once, in broad daylight, dry roads, no extenuating circumstances. I went to see him a couple of weeks afterward and asked him how it was that he got hit by the car. I said "Did you look before you stepped into the street?" "Yep." he said. "Did you see the car?" I said. "I saw it" says he "but I had the right of way!".

I asked him if having the right of way made the car not hurt when it hit him. He didn't think that was very funny, but it's a valid question.

In Mr. Abshires case, he had "the right-of-way" but do you think that made the "car" not hurt?

I don't.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 02:24 PM   #10
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
peetzakilla, yes staying in side would have kept that particular incident from unfolding. But, if you cannot go outside on your own property, you've given up rights. That's what the Stand Your Ground law is all about - not having to vacate your legal and ligit space, where ever you happen to be.
sundog, I believe that what peet is trying to say is that even though the "stand your ground" law does give you a statutory right to protect yourself, one must choose his battles carefully. Being in a conflict with six people, when you are only armed with a handgun is an incredibly bad idea. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Notice what Mr. Abshire said;

Quote:
"My intention was 'everybody stay back, let the police handle it,' but I don't think in their state of mind, they cared,"
Had he followed that instinct, the incident would likely have not escalated, or perhaps even taken place at all.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 02:41 PM   #11
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
Quote:
He says he sprayed pepper spray, pulled his gun and told them to leave.

A third car pulled up, so now he was facing six angry, drunk men while his wife was on the phone to the sheriff.

"When we told them they need to leave, they were still screaming we messed with the wrong people and didn't know what we'd done," Abshire said. "One guy started reading the house numbers off my house and said 'we don't care if the police are coming, we'll burn your f-ing house down and kill everybody in it.'"

Mark says he turned to look at his wife, when Robbie Case tackled him, knocking him to the concrete, cracking his teeth.

"Starting pulling me by the throat into the ditch, choking me while he friend was kicking me, I finally managed to get his hand off my throat, drew my gun and shot him," Abshire said.
I am glad the homeowner FINALLY won his freedom back. I do wonder if i am misunderstanding the sequence of events based on the two bits i bolded there; IOW, he sprayed pepper spray, pulled his pistol, then after getting tackled and dragged drew his pistol again?

Again, regardless of my confusion over the quote, it certainly sounds like the homeowner was "in the right" or was, at the very least, more careful of the drunks' rights/health or hesitant to shoot than i would be able to be in that situation.
EDIT* After reading some of the other accounts listed below, i am not certain the homeowner acted appropriately.

Last edited by orangello; December 30, 2009 at 05:39 PM.
orangello is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 02:48 PM   #12
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Here's a direct link to the video I referenced in my first post: http://www.newson6.com/Global/catego...autostart=true

Please go watch that video, guys. There's a lot more info there that's not in the written account.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 02:50 PM   #13
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
This guy lost 2 years of his life, job, friends (possibly), and suffered emotional distress for lawfully protecting his life. I would like to know if he has any legal recourse for compensation for what seems to be an unreasonably long pre-trial period. It seems to me that whether he was in the right or wrong, he had a right to a speedy trial.
tet4 is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 03:34 PM   #14
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
One thing I haven't found is why the DA charged him in the first place. Was it because he did not retreat into his home? The video doesn't really say.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 04:52 PM   #15
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,125
Claremore, Rogers county; OK is on the outskirts of Tulsa. When you think of Tulsa and the vicinity think of the district attorney in Boston, MA. Several years ago a motorist came upon a scene where a lady was being raped: When accosted by the good guy, the rapist jumped into his vehicle and tried to run over him. The good guy who shot and killed the perp.

The Rogers county DA prosecuted a guy for not having a concealed carry permit. He was found innocent but not before some legislators took notice. The law was changed. A person who does not have a concealed carry permit cannot be prosecuted for a failure to have that permit if he is involved in a righteous shooting.
thallub is online now  
Old December 30, 2009, 05:01 PM   #16
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Please go watch that video, guys. There's a lot more info there that's not in the written account.
You are correct pax, the video does illuminate the facts bit, but it also raises a lot of other questions.

From his comments, it appears he may have been somehow thrown under the bus by LE or the DA, I wish we had more facts.

ETA: here is the first report of this shooting from the same TV station: http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=135345

More information: http://www.claremoreprogress.com/loc...342111149.html


And some of the testimony: http://dailyme.com/story/20091215000...continues.html

Very different story !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; December 30, 2009 at 05:25 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 06:53 PM   #17
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Very different story !
Somebody lying big. I guess the jury believed Abshire. Screwed up his life though. I think it was avoidable and that it is a bad idea to get into fights with folks when carrying gun but just my opin. Can't say I fault the DA as this may not have been so clear cut. But I don't know what evidence they have.

BTW Around here when there is a lot of speeding they put in "Traffic Calming" bumps that would take the undercarriage out of a vehicle going too fast.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 08:15 PM   #18
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
Good discussion folks, that's why I thought to put it out here. I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing right now, and I live here in Oklahoma and carry daily. Yes, discretion is the better part of valor. Sure can't argue that. Sometimes that is not possible, not by my part, but by another, and that what bothers me. The aftermath can be staggering, just for being right.

On the flip side, speeders in residential neighborhoods are a low life form. I've hollered at a few myself. Never had to shoot though.
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 09:02 PM   #19
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Somebody lying big.
That is my impression too TG, I will research this more, but I smell a rat !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old December 30, 2009, 11:52 PM   #20
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,750
Obviously, two very different versions. But look at the version given by Case, the guy who was shot. He goes through a neighborhood, hears yelling and turns his car around to come back and confront the person who yells. Passengers jump out of the car and he gets on the phone and calls for reinforcements. Meantime, one of his passengers gets maced (apparently on Abshire's property), so he decides to take out the homeowner by tackling him.

Here's the curious part:
Quote:
Hester told Gordon at the preliminary hearing in February 2008 that he and other investigators and deputies interviewed several of Case’s passengers and friends and family at the scene, but not the friends that were present at the Abshire home at the time of the incident. Those witnesses were interviewed at a later date, according to Hester.

Gordon said he plans to call to the stand several of the state’s witnesses, mostly passengers from Case’s vehicle, because their written statements differed from Case’s testimony at the preliminary hearing.
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/loc...342111149.html

Why didn't the police talk to the eye witnesses at the scene before charging Abshire? This guy certainly did not seem to be the type that had to be immediately arrested to insure the safety of the public. Looks like very sloppy police work.

Also, the claim that he was held 18 days without being charged doesn't make sense. Maybe it was 18 days before he was indicted.

As far as a civil rights violation, this will be hard to prove given that it actually went to trial and there was differing testimony.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old December 31, 2009, 08:30 PM   #21
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
One thing that bothers me about this is tactically, you've got a ranged weapon and guys who have no ranged weapons.

I realize the average suburban lawn doesn't give you that much space; but I think I would definitely want to maximize that space. Maybe even use that house to create a barrier between me and the problem. This way, I get the maximum amount of notice that somebody is coming at me and it will make it easier to show aggression on their part hopefully.

It also sounds like that second shot was problematic from a forensics standpoint. From the accounts, it sounds like the first shot hit Case in the front; but the second shot hit him in the back. There are lots of reasons that could happen; but I can see why it is a tough case.

Which brings up another point, what may be real clear to you may not be so clear to investigators and if you get several different people saying different things about what happened, well that is why we have a trial system.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 31, 2009, 09:34 PM   #22
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Which brings up another point, what may be real clear to you may not be so clear to investigators and if you get several different people saying different things about what happened, well that is why we have a trial system.

Exactly Sir, You have hit the nail squarely. The circumstances vs/ the account of what transpired have made this case what it evolved to be.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 10:42 AM   #23
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
I found this link (http://bubbaworld.com/2007/09/04/shooting-speeders/) dated from the time of the original incident which quotes the Rogers county sheriff as saying both men (Abshire and Case) may have used alcohol.

I don't know how accurate that is; but it might help explain the DA's actions when you add in the second shot to the back and the two conflicting stories about how it got there.

I would really be interested in seeing the transcripts from the trial. It sounds like there is more going on here than any of the news stories have related.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 4, 2010, 03:25 PM   #24
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
CCW-Double Edge Sword

I have been reading and watching the videos about this incident. This story just reminds me of the fact that CCW can be a double edged sword. Not assigning fault or even saying it will stop me from carrying...because it won't, but this is the type of incident that you can be drawn into that could have possibly been avoided. I know life is not perfect and you cannot control everything, but I hope that anytime I draw my firearm it is due to a direct un-avoidable situation.

I carry most of the time and I have told my wife that I will do more to go out of the way to avoid trouble when I carry than when I am un-armed. Again, not assigning blame in this incident, just saying it makes me stop and give thought to my own situation.

IMO, this is the type of incident that should be part of CCW class lectures.
madmag is offline  
Old January 4, 2010, 03:28 PM   #25
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmag
I carry all the time and I have even told my wife that I will do more to go out of the way to avoid trouble when I carry than when I am un-armed.
That is a wise, wise decision, sir.

He who is armed has a GREATER responsibility to avoid trouble than he who is not armed.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14038 seconds with 7 queries