An Arkansas man is to stand trial after killing the man who, after already being charged for abusing his daughter, apparently kidnapped her and did so again.
According to records obtained by the Arkansas Times, Spencer initially called 911 just after 1 a.m. on October 8, 2024, to report his 13-year-old daughter missing. Spencer told police he’d been awakened by his dog barking, went to his daughter’s room to check on her and saw she was missing. He said he suspected she was with Fosler, 67, who had been arrested in July and charged with 43 counts, including sexual assault of a minor and internet stalking of a child, related to Fosler’s pursuit of Spencer’s then-13-year-old daughter.
The arrest affidavit for Spencer says he went to look for his daughter and Fosler after calling 911 the first time. The Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office contacted Cabot police to ask them to check a specific address. Prior to hearing back from Cabot police, however, 911 dispatch got a second call from Spencer, who said he had located the “man who kidnapped his daughter” and his daughter, but that Fosler was “dead on the side of the road” and that “he had no choice.”
. . .
On November 27, prosecutors charged Spencer with second-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. That same day, Spencer’s attorneys, Erin Cassinelli and Michael Kaiser, issued a statement calling Spencer “a decorated war hero who protected his country and a loving father whose heroic actions protected his family.” They said Fosler “repeatedly violated his child” and “kidnapped her in the dark of night to continue his assaults on her.”
The statement criticized prosecutors for bringing charges against Spencer at all, accused prosecutors of “perpetuating these horrors instead of protecting legitimate victims and punishing true criminal offenders,” and thanked those who had “voiced their outrage over the treatment Aaron, his child, and the rest of his family had suffered.”
There's more at the link.
Based on the evidence available so far, if I were a member of the jury at Mr. Spencer's trial, I'd be voting him "not guilty" before the trial began! Sure, he did it, and he admits he did it, but there appears to have been more than enough moral and ethical reason for his actions. Sometimes jury nullification is the only appropriate response to a letter-of-the-law "crime".
The organization Gun Owners of Arkansas has a legal defense fund that's contributing to Mr. Spencer's case, and they've arranged for his legal representation. I'll be contributing to it, and I hope my readers will consider doing the same. At the link, you can read more about the case from Mr. Spencer's wife, Heather.
Peter
23 comments:
That DA and judge both need to be recalled and horsewhipped. The DA for laying the charges so quickly and the judge for trying to seal the case files sua sponte. I will bet the deceased was well connected to the local powers, the report implies he was an ex-cop of some flavor.
A quick search found Arkansas Code Title 5. Criminal Offenses § 5-2-607 titled 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;
Looks like a slam dunk justified use of force.
Well done Dad, you've saved your county and state millions of dollars housing that scumbag.
My father was a county attorney (Iowan for district attorney) for our area for a long time, and he wouldn't have even brought charges. Instead, he'd have bought that father a beer.
I am old enough yo remember when pickup had rifle racks in them and no one thought anything about it. back then if something like this did happen. those guys took the rifles off their racks and used them. this would have never been brought to trial by those guys.
so, yeah. Dad did good and right this time.
SOB really should have been set on fire by the side of the road instead of just getting shot.
so, yeah. buy the Dad a beer or three.
Sounds like a perfect case for a "he needed killin'" verdict.
The court documents are from last year for the predator. Why was he issued a bond for release after his arrest? The amount of charges showed he shouldn't be allowed in public.
Jury Nullification is a thing.
I'm in! Can't send much but if everyone sent something.....
I heard that knife in the hand of the corpse is proof of self defense.
Maybe I'm wrong...
I think jury nullification is the main reason I have never been selected for jury duty. I think they read my comments on blogger.
That sounds far to close to 'tampering with a crime scene' to be comfortable or safe to assume.
You cannot say you favor the Rule Of Law while also saying you'd find him guilty a priori.
I agree, the pedophile should be banished. But tell me how is a pronouncement of, He's guilty!, prior to a trial any different than vigilante justice?
A priori, at least to the extent that all you know of this is what you've read written by paid journalists.
I've made it to voir dire several times. On each instance, the judge said if he even hears of nullification being discussed, those speaking of it will be held in contempt of court. In one instance, a potential juror did ask about jury nullification. The judge issued a severe tongue lashing towards her.
That doesn't dissuade me except to be more careful.
I made the mistake of asking the judge about jury nullification (Collin co, TX)….. and immediately set off a firestorm. BANG! “There ain’t no such thing in Texas.”
Needless to say, I was dismissed and haven’t been summoned back. This happened about 15 yrs ago.
She was with the pedo, without her parent's knowledge. The pedo had previously been convicted of sexually assaulting her. (Not accused. CONVICTED).
Father shot said pedo. If you need more proof than "convicted pedophile *caught in the act of transporting child he was previously convicted of sexually assaulting*" then I don't know what to tell you.
If your first reaction to (to use an equivalent analogy) hearing "convicted rapist shot while absconding with woman he previously was convicted of raping" is to say (paraphrased and exaggerated for effect)
"how dare you assume he's guilty!?!"
Then I think your priorities and discernment are questionable, at minimum
My perspective:
Convicted pedo took a victim he was convicted of victimizing in the past.
Convicted pedo was shot while transporting said victim.
Deus vult. A shame he couldn't have been impaled instead. Or millstoned.
-WR
Agreed on the 'he needed killin'...
I believe a family member should get get 15 minutes of "alone time" with perverts that target your family. Anything goes, so what if he bleeds out because his nut sack was removed with a rusty serrated knife.
Not guilty.
Only charge this man should face may be "Discharging a firearm within City Limits", if any at all... his response to the situation was Biblical, AND covered by the Torah...'nuff said
I didn't say he's not guilty. You said that.
I noticed that you, or no one, answered my question of how this is different than vigilante justice. Rule of Law, bah!
Buy the man some ammo and maybe some range time for the therapeutic value. Seriously they therapy.
Seems to me that the potential for nullification is the primary reason for a jury in the first place - an opportunity for the people to resist government excesses.
Charge him with Hunting Without A License.
Fine him $1, and set him free.
Then award him for Getting Rid Of A Public Nuisance, and give a $10 reward.
Next case.
Post a Comment