Stan Geiger

Victim of the State

I take potshots at media types from time to time. But there is a lady in our local TV media that consistently impresses. That lady is Lori Fullbright of KOTV. She published an excellent story last night---a story that calls for much scratching of heads.

The story was about a fellow named Mark Abshire. A jury just found Abshire not guilty of the charge of shooting with intent to kill which stemmed from an incident that occurred some time ago.

The incident came about in September 2007. Abshire and his wife were at their home. A bunch of drunken dudes were speeding around the neighborhood in cars. They were yelled at, and told to slow down. Apparently, the drunken dudes didn’t appreciate the attention. Three cars containing six men showed up at Abshire’s house. They threatened to burn the house down and kill everyone inside. Then two of the men jumped Abshire and began beating him. Abshire managed to pull a pistol and shot one of his assailants.

Abshire, apparently, tried to handle the matter correctly. He told the men to leave as his wife called the sheriff. He didn’t fire a shot until he was attacked---on his own property.

According to Lori, Abshire was arrested and held in jail for 18 days before being hit with the charge of shooting with intent to kill. Two and a half years later, a trial was held.

Let’s run down the list of problems.

I guess I can start with an infamous Oklahoma case that recently went national. An admitted child molester got a deal. He was to spend one year in lockup, then he was off to some neighborhood so he could search for his next victim. That was the deal offered by prosecutors; that was the deal a judge signed.

But a fellow that posed no threat to society in general, a fellow that shot a man in defense of himself, his wife and his property, well, that fellow, it seems, deserved hell. Prosecutors figured it was worth two and a half years of taxpayer time and taxpayer money to take this fellow all the way to a jury trial. No doubt, the defense filed at least one motion to dismiss. A judge, therefore, denied at least that one motion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would swear there is an Oklahoma statute on the books that says a citizen is allowed to shoot any threatening invader that shows up on said citizen’s property. What happened to that?

Sure, facts need to be checked. But the facts in this case don’t seem to be in question.

I’m no con law professor, but I would swear holding an American citizen in jail for 18 days without charge violates a right. Now, maybe they were jacking with the guy. I mean maybe they were filing some lesser charge and dropping it then filing another lesser charge and dropping it on their way to ultimately filing the big charge. Whatever. It was wrong. The man deserved an opportunity to face arraignment and seek bail---inside of 18 days.

And to think there is a grand liberal voice in this nation that speaks up for the phantom rights of noncitizens that would blow up airliners. Dude, Nigerians, Afghans or whatever foreigners of choice, have no rights under the U.S. Constitution. End of argument.

U.S. citizens, however, do have rights under the Constitution. Again I’ll state I’m no con law professor, but I’m pretty sure a citizen has the right to a speedy trial. It didn’t take long for Abshire, once things got started, to hear what he wanted to hear. The trial ran only 6 days; the jury was out only 2 hours. But it took two and a half years to get there. Would you call that “speedy?”

Abshire now plans a civil action---and I don’t blame him. He has been bankrupted. He had a good job---a six-figure job. He lost that job. He lost his house. He lost his retirement funds.

The state can’t restore Abshire’s last two and a half years. The state can’t wave a magic wand and do away with the grief or the stress endured. The state can make the man whole financially, however. It should stand willing to do so without hesitation.

---