AtticusMatlock said:
IMO prosecutors will try to argue that dad instigated the interaction by ramming the truck off the road, which could make any further claim of then using the gun in self defense or defense of others invalid. They will try to argue dad is the initial aggressor in the interaction and should have waited on police.
AtticusMatlock said:
IMO prosecutors will try to argue that dad instigated the interaction by ramming the truck off the road, which could make any further claim of then using the gun in self defense or defense of others invalid. They will try to argue dad is the initial aggressor in the interaction and should have waited on police.
VegasAg86 said:Quote:
Arkansas Code of 1987 (2024)
Title 5 - CRIMINAL OFFENSES ( 5-1-101 5-79-101)
Subtitle 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS ( 5-1-101 5-5-501)
Chapter 2 - PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ( 5-2-201 5-2-622)
Subchapter 6 - JUSTIFICATION ( 5-2-601 5-2-622)
Section 5-2-607 - Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
- (a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
- (1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving physical force or violence;
- (2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
- (3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.
- (b) A person is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force if the person:
- (1) Is lawfully present at the location where deadly physical force is used;
- (2) Has a reasonable belief that the person against whom the deadly physical force is used is imminently threatening to cause death or serious physical injury to the person or another person;
- (3) Except as provided under 5-2-606(b)(2)(B), is not the initial aggressor and has not provoked the person against whom the deadly physical force is used;
- (4) Is not committing a felony offense of possession of a firearm by certain persons, 5-73-103, with the firearm used to employ the deadly physical force, unless the person is in or at the person's dwelling or in the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling;
- (5) Is not engaged in criminal activity that gives rise to the need for the use of deadly physical force at the time the deadly physical force is used; and
- (6) Is not engaged in any activity in furtherance of a criminal gang, organization, or enterprise as defined in 5-74-103.
- (c) As used in this section:
- (1) "Curtilage" means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for residential purposes and habitually used for residential purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling; and
- (2) "Domestic abuse" means:
- (A) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members; or
- (B) Any sexual conduct between family or household members, whether minors or adults, that constitutes a crime under the laws of this state.
AR Code 5-2-607 (2024) (emphasis added)
Sure looks like (a)(1) covers this.
LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
eric76 said:
The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the 13 year old was the victim, not the 67 year old.
Quote:
Today's opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court are clear and unequivocal the circuit court in this case was wrong in every facet of its entry of a gag order in this case. The opinions also make clear what should be obvious to anyone the circuit court has demonstrated a pattern of efforts to shield the proceedings, and its role in them, from the public. The question that must be asked is why? At least three Justices found it obvious self-preservation, not justice. From the prosecutor's request for a sweeping gag order to the circuit court's sealing the entire case "in barely enough time to make a pot of coffee"- it is clear that the prosecutor and circuit court intended to stifle exactly what the First Amendment protects criticism of elected officials. Indeed, the motion for the gag order was made in response to criticisms of the prosecutor and circuit court rightful criticisms of their actions that "set off a chain of events that led to the fatal confrontation that's the subject of this case. " In fact, there remains no record of a public court proceeding that explains how or why the circuit court imposed a wholly ineffective bond on Michael Fosler that served to protect nobody. As the Court expressed, it is imperative in our system that the public be permitted to see the operations of justice, and that is especially important in a case like this one - where the public has a strong interest in a justice system that treats Aaron Spencer and others fairly and justly but also in a justice system that acts prudently to protect the public when necessary. When the light of transparency shines through, it is clear that neither the prosecutor nor the circuit court have operated to fulfill these important public interests as it relates to Michael Fosler or the Spencer family. It is no routine matter that three Justices on our highest court felt it important enough to formalize their belief that the circuit court's actions in this case were so entrenched and troubling that another judge should take over in the case. It's important to remember, too, that these unacceptable and unconstitutional efforts to stifle speech and foreclose criticism are not just the circuit court's efforts but the prosecuting attorney's as well. We hope that both officials take care to remove themselves from this case so as to indicate to the public that they understand and appreciate that fairness, transparency, and maintaining the appearance of impropriety are critical to our justice system. Thankfully, this State's highest Court took great care in its analysis and made it very clear that this behavior is unconstitutional and intolerable. The Court has given clear guidelines for gag orders that will help the public, litigants, and courts across the state appropriately assess case-related speech as balanced with the strong First Amendment protections that are a bedrock of our society. No longer will state courts be permitted to allow a prosecutor to release alarming and potentially misleading information while a circuit court blanketly restricts a citizen's public explanation of his innocence. "Gag orders are a last resort, not a first impulse. " We appreciate the Arkansas Supreme Court turning the lights back on in Lonoke County.
Quote:
We appreciate the Arkansas Supreme Court turning the lights back on in Lonoke County.
malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
TexasAGGIEinAR said:
This happened in the good ol boy part of Arkansas. Yes, most all of my state is that way but Lonoke County is basically just farm country. There's nobody in the state that is cool with this not being over with already. If it drags on much longer, they'll just take it to the state Supreme Court and he'll walk. He's also getting plenty of financial support from donors to beat this. The judge is gonna need to go into witness protection after this. It's pathetic.
BrazosDog02 said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
You're seeing the same thing I am. It doesn't look right. Probably not much commentary available since it's an ongoing case. I do enjoy speculating and from my end after reading 22 articles on it, it feels like an opportunity killing with a a fabricated context.
I'm going to follow it and I hope it's televised somehow because these fascinate the **** out of me.
techno-ag said:AtticusMatlock said:
IMO prosecutors will try to argue that dad instigated the interaction by ramming the truck off the road, which could make any further claim of then using the gun in self defense or defense of others invalid. They will try to argue dad is the initial aggressor in the interaction and should have waited on police.
To which the defense will reply, the guy had the father's 13 year old daughter in the truck.
BadMoonRisin said:
He didnt just dump the mag he pistol whipped the **** out of the POS. Crime of passion. No bill.
BadMoonRisin said:
He didnt just dump the mag he pistol whipped the **** out of the POS. Crime of passion. No bill.
If you were charged with stalking my 13 year old daughter, got caught, sent to jail, let out on low bail, and I woke up at 1am and found my daughter missing with your POS ass, you're gonna find the **** out what the hell I will do to protect my daughter, just like this low rent ******.
Jack Squat 83 said:BadMoonRisin said:
He didnt just dump the mag he pistol whipped the **** out of the POS. Crime of passion. No bill.
If you were charged with stalking my 13 year old daughter, got caught, sent to jail, let out on low bail, and I woke up at 1am and found my daughter missing with your POS ass, you're gonna find the **** out what the hell I will do to protect my daughter, just like this low rent ******.
I didn't know he pistol-whipped him first. That's awesome.
Quote:
Spencer then stated that he exited his vehicle with his firearm in hand and ordered Fosler out of his vehicle and to lay down in the ditch. Spencer stated that he observed his daughter trying to exit the passenger side of the vehicle, but it appeared that Fosler had grabbed her and stopped her from getting out. Spencer then stated that Fosler exited his vehicle and had something in his hand, but [Spencer] did not know what it was. Spencer stated that Fosler then lunged towards him, saying "**** you." Spencer stated that he then opened fire on Fosler, emptying his weapon before jumping on top of [Fosler] and pistol whipping him. Spencer then stated that he got his daughter out of the vehicle and returned to his truck where he reloaded his weapon and called 911.
Jack Squat 83 said:BadMoonRisin said:
He didnt just dump the mag he pistol whipped the **** out of the POS. Crime of passion. No bill.
If you were charged with stalking my 13 year old daughter, got caught, sent to jail, let out on low bail, and I woke up at 1am and found my daughter missing with your POS ass, you're gonna find the **** out what the hell I will do to protect my daughter, just like this low rent ******.
I didn't know he pistol-whipped him first. That's awesome.
malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
Juan Lee Pettimore said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
No, there really are not.
eric76 said:Juan Lee Pettimore said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
No, there really are not.
When his daughter's kidnapper is lunging at him in the dark with something in his hand, it is not threatening?
Apparently, a lot more details have come out since I made my original post.
eric76 said:Juan Lee Pettimore said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
No, there really are not.
When his daughter's kidnapper is lunging at him in the dark with something in his hand, it is not threatening?
HalifaxAg said:
How is the judge being held accountable? ...this crap won't stop until we start holding them accountable.
ProgN said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
67 year old pedo, 13 year old daughter, father emptied mag into perp and shouldn't spend 1 night in jail. I'd set him free.
malibucharles said:eric76 said:Juan Lee Pettimore said:malibucharles said:LOYAL AG said:
This will be an interesting story to follow. It's Arkansas so we aren't dealing with an anti-gun state. I would have assumed he's within his rights to use deadly force to defend his daughter.
What am I not getting?
Was Foster a threat to Spencer's life at the time of the shooting? If not, then it is not self defense. Was Foster resisting a citizen's arrest? Did the daughter go with Foster willingly? In Texas it would be rape because she is a minor. Legally, minors in Texas are not considered mature enough to give consent. There are a lot of unknowns.
No, there really are not.
When his daughter's kidnapper is lunging at him in the dark with something in his hand, it is not threatening?
Apparently, a lot more details have come out since I made my original post.
Captain Pablo said:Stmichael said:
The degree to which the circuit judge abused his authority to favor the (now dead) pedophile casts a great deal of suspicion on him. First by releasing a man with 43 counts of various charges of being a sexual predator on low bond, and then by issuing an egregiously illegal gag order on a father who defended his teenage daughter.
This strikes me as someone who has either familial ties to the perp, or was somehow connected to what he was doing. And if that's the case, this judge should be drawn and quartered.
Judge Barbara Elmore is a "she"
And the Supreme Court called her decisions a "gross abuse of discretion"
The low bond, going after the dad so aggressively, the gag order, the sealing
Something weird with this case
Street Fighter said:Captain Pablo said:Stmichael said:
The degree to which the circuit judge abused his authority to favor the (now dead) pedophile casts a great deal of suspicion on him. First by releasing a man with 43 counts of various charges of being a sexual predator on low bond, and then by issuing an egregiously illegal gag order on a father who defended his teenage daughter.
This strikes me as someone who has either familial ties to the perp, or was somehow connected to what he was doing. And if that's the case, this judge should be drawn and quartered.
Judge Barbara Elmore is a "she"
And the Supreme Court called her decisions a "gross abuse of discretion"
The low bond, going after the dad so aggressively, the gag order, the sealing
Something weird with this case
Pedo was friends with the local LEOs too. Lots of videos (or there were) on this one, it's nuts.
