Should people ever be allowed to take the law into their own hands?

[msc545]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/04/us/aaron-spencer-murder-charges-dismissed

Updates

1 d

I don't think people should be allowed to do this in almost any circumstance. We have laws for a reason, and those reasons are important and complex.

[goaded]

I think he would have had a very good chance of getting off at trial, if it's true that "he spotted her in Fosler’s truck" / "after midnight despite a no-contact order". On the other hand, there's no mention of Fosler being armed or a danger to anyone after his truck had been stopped, so shooting him to death at that point was unjustified.

The daughter's side of the story is completely missing from the reporting. It doesn't sound like she was taken by force.

No, I think there should have been a trial, and that dismissing the case because of missing evidence was the wrong thing to do.

The content of the missing evidence could have been testified to, under oath, by the people who had viewed it. It was more likely to go missing if it had hurt the killer's case than exonerated him, I think.

It smells to me like a cover-up.

[msc545]

Additionally, it was simply and accused child molester, not a convicted child molester. At the time he was killed. Accusations are not convictions. Although when someone is accused of something like molesting, a child or raping a woman, there isn't almost an instant jump guilty by social media and by individuals. I think that's what happened here with the guy who shot him. He just decided that he didn't like him then that he was guilty of doing something to his daughter and therefore killed him. There definitely should have been a trial. That said, I think it would have been very hard to convict the shooter because of the missing evidence, and I further believe that that evidence was destroyed by the police detective. Specifically, in order to protect the father from prosecution, and it worked unfortunately.

[msc545]

That should say there is an almost instant jump to guilty. I hate that I can't edit things on this site.

[goaded]

With great power comes great responsibility. Can you imagine what the trolls would do with the ability to edit their own posts? It's bad enough when they delete a conversation so they can lie about what happened in it.

[msc545]

Your Points are well taken, but every time I make a mistake in posting something, I find it annoying that I have to put something underneath it to fix it.

[slatyb]

I wouldn't say that "he took the law into his own hands". He went looking for his daughter and found her with Fosler. We don't know exactly what happened then because the SD card is missing, but in the end Fosler was dead. Was the killing justified? Without the video, it's impossible to say, but it could have been.

[msc545]

The only way that shooting was justified is if he attacked Spencer or attacked his daughter directly. Otherwise, it was completely unjustified.

[slatyb]

I agree, but we'll never know.

[msc545]

We will not know, but I expect that the cops probably know. He also shot that guy in front of his daughter, so she was subjected to even more trauma than she was already experiencing, if she was experiencing any. The condition of her room, with her hoodie and a teddy bear stuffed into it under her covers, suggests that she left voluntarily.

[lightbulb27]

Can't read.

When the law is not enforcing the law, then yes. And that has to be decided in an instant, which can create death.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/general/ct-teen-ran-stolen-dirt-bike-off-the-road-while-officers-were-pursuing-it-police-say/ar-AA2fX0uY

This happens at other times as well...

multiple examples of groups of people doing crimes, no enforcement until life threat. That... is the anti-law group. The laws are in place to prevent accidents... speed limits, turn signals, etc.. What we have is directionally towards "Road Warrior" at times with the lack of training in some large groups, and they are in various areas in the East USA.

It's dangerous taking law into hands... but do you have a right to defend yourself? In my state, you have an obligation to back away from a criminal. Only if they pursue you can you defend. That differs from Florida "Stand your ground" which has it's own risks. I tend to agree with Florida but may be fewer deaths under the other "back away", since the criminals can get what they want.

[NathanDavis]

- the law FAILED to protect the minor children after the crimes were committed

- the law FAILED to serve justice after far worse crimes were committed because of the first failure by the law

- the law failed and refused to serve justice twice

That father did what the LAW refused, repeatedly, to serve... JUSTICE and protection of the minor children

at the end of the day... justice was served, and the children in that town are now in less danger, good riddance I do think

[msc545]

There was no evidence that any crimes were committed at all against Spencer's daughter. Spencer simply assumed that Fosler had done something wrong and killed him. If you think I'm wrong about this, show me the evidence that I'm wrong.

[NathanDavis]

the article you just linked clearly said that the authorities themselves

ELIMINATED THE EVIDENCE so... don't you think that's why there's a lack of evidence?

when the authorities themselves tell you "oh we discarded this because we feel it is not important evidence and then we don't know what happened to it"

that's why the judge dismissed the charges

justice should not be there to protect the pedophile over the minors

[msc545]

I think the authorities (specifically the sheriff's department) discarded the video evidence to protect Spencer. It doesn't follow that the sheriff's department would discard evidence that exonerated Spencer.

[msc545]

Whatever it is that Spencer thought Fosler did, that did not give him the right to kill him.

[NathanDavis]

killing is not a right...

protecting your own children is the right... big difference there

and the Judge very clearly stated that the authorities ELIMINATED evidence that would help the pedophile's case

which is why the Judge dismissed the case

"the Court finds that conduct by law enforcement was so egregious that dismissal of this case is warranted,”

and not only that... those in law enforcement who eliminated the evidence that would protect the pedophile were also fired on the spot, because of it

[msc545]

The judge didn't say that at all. What the judge said was that the fact that the police had eliminated evidence and that made it impossible to know what that evidence showed. Nobody really knows, or if they do know, they're not talking about it. It was only fair that the judge made the ruling he made, but it was not right that he released this guy. There was no doubt that Spencer killed this guy aand this case should have gone to trial.

You are imputing words and meaning to the judge that the judge's words did not signify. Read it again.

[msc545]

It's not clear that Spencer was protecting his daughter from anything. Nothing had been done to her till Spencer shot Fosler, presumably within sight or hearing, or both, of his young daughter. In this particular case, that was the real damage and the only damage to her.

[NathanDavis]

it seems like you didn't even read the article...

the law refused to to proceed

the law eliminated evidence

now the pedophile is gone... and the children are safer

GOOD RIDDANCE

[msc545]

Where does it say that the law refused to proceed? Where does it say that the law eliminated evidence? All it says is that a detective supposedly misplaced or lost evidence.

The law does not exist to satisfy your need for vengeance.

[NathanDavis]

in the article you provided

he was out on a bond... and that means, the law did not proceed as it should have, with the charges when they already had the evidence

and this is not about me...

and if you want to make it about "my need for vengeance"

then you better start to explain why you have had a need to side and defend pedophiles this badly?

[msc545]

Well, they had the evidence. You're right, but the thing about it is that they probably didn't have enough evidence to proceed. Typically, they don't proceed instantly because of the backlog in the courts. They had to let him out on bond because he had a constitutional right to bail. I am not defending him at all.

The only thing I am saying here is that Spencer had absolutely no right to kill him, and Spencer should have been prosecuted.

[purplepoppy]

The article doesn't say how he got her in the vehicle or her age or even if she went willingly. But regardless of circumstances the father could have easily told his daughter to get out or just held them at gun point and called the police.

But that's easily said from the comfort of my soffa. Someone in that position is going to be highly emotional. He's angry, upset, perhaps confused. People don't think rationally in high emotive states.

It's why I believe guns for self defence are a dumb idea.

[832loverboy73]

And lynch folk? Ah, no, since you know who'd be the first lynching victims.(See:U. S. History until roughly 1970.)

[Pterodon]

Sometimes yes especially when the system fails you. You do everything the legal way and still get fucked over? What am I then supposed to do? Shrug my shoulders and say oh well can’t win em all? That doesn’t work for me.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely solves more problems than the legal route

[msc545]

Mob rule, which is what you are advocating, also frequently results in unjust and unfortunate conclusions. This has a lot to do with why we don't do it. It creates more problems than the legal method does.

[Opinion Owner]

The legal route lets paedophiles off because they're all at it as well

[msc545]

No, the legal route does not get pedophiles off. If you think it does, prove it.

[Opinion Owner]

The Epstein files for a start

[msc545]

Well, first of all, Epstein didn't get off. In fact, he got thrown in prison, where he was presumptively murdered, and I say that because I don't believe he committed suicide. The only reason the government has not released the Epstein files and probably never will has to do with the amount of money that Trump has gotten away with stealing. None of these things involved letting a pedophile off.

[Opinion Owner]

Epstein indeed got caught but Trump, the Andrew formally known as Prince, the Bills (Clinton and Gates) and possibly thousands of others

[Opinion Owner]

Gary Plauche is a hero for doing it right

[msc545]

Well, no, actually, all those people have been caught too, but they've not been prosecuted. Have been caught in the sense that people, including you and I, know exactly what they did. Opinions that they are very powerful and therefore above the law. The law cannot afford to prosecute them because they have too much money and they know too much. The most the law can do is to hire people to murder them speaking a lot is quite reluctant, for obvious reasons, to do that.

[Opinion Owner]

Exactly taking them out is the only way or as the young folks say 'Luigi'

[msc545]

You can convict them. You just lock them up. No Need to kill anybody.

[Opinion Owner]

World is chronically overpopulated, the elite are putting 5 billion in the ground and it won't be their pedophilic ranks, parents so they can own their children

[msc545]

I have no idea what you tried to say there. Please clarify that.

[Opinion Owner]

The elite will wipe out 5 billion people probably using Ai

They won't take themselves out but will take out parents so they can keep the children

[msc545]

I doubt that I think that's a little bit of an excessive reaction. AI is not all that much of a problem.

[Opinion Owner]

Then you don't know anything about it, it's the biggest evil since the Nazis

[msc545]

What exactly are you talking about?

[Opinion Owner]

Ai will wipe out most if not all of the world's population within 10 years

[msc545]

And you know all this in what way?

[Opinion Owner]

Just listen to how Altman and Zuckerberg talk

It's auto hacks because it feels like it

[msc545]

Yeah, I don't know what sort of conspiracy theories you're into, but I'm not. Let's just stop the conversation, please. Not interested in hearing it.