Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Guard convicted of murder in Va. Beach in bench trial. I smell injustice.

  1. #1
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Guard convicted of murder in Va. Beach in bench trial. I smell injustice.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/va-b...omment-1447248


    That's when, Belmar (defendant) testified, he swiveled around to see Spencer leveling a shotgun over the hood of a vehicle toward the parkway, over the heads of several of his guards, who were lying on the ground or scurrying to hide behind street lamps and gas pumps.


    Belmar fired twice, with one bullet killing Spencer and going on to wound his friend sitting in the driver's seat.


    Spencer, too, had fired, damaging an uninvolved vehicle and injuring its driver, Bryant (prosecutor) said.

    "After hearing this for the last couple of days, I feel like I've been transported to the O.K. Corral," Shockley (Judge) said in court.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I can't get enough details from the story to know with certainty that it was a righteous shoot. This is perhaps deliberate on the part of the journalist? I wouldn't be surprised.

    I tend to analyze these things on the classic principles of AOJ/I--Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy/Intent. For new readers, these are hyper-important principles of legally justified self-defense. If you haven't come across them, you must learn them. They are far too important to leave unknown.

    I have a problem with the prosecutor's argument that no one was in immediate enough danger to justify lethal force by the guard. Danger is either immediate or not. There is no "immediate enough". Sounds like a fishy way of making something vague so that a door can be opened to acceptance. If the danger is not "immediate enough," then it is not immediate at all, and should be susceptible to being demonstrated as such.

    For some reason the judge is saying the security guard didn't have to shoot. And, thought it more likely the decedant was getting into his vehicle, not getting out. Maybe the judge, hearing fully both defense and CA presentations, had access to more data.

    I can see a fella getting a gun and shooting in response to the first shot. Maybe even unrighteously firing at their moving vehicle. Maybe even following that vehicle with his muzzle. If these are what happened, I think the security guard shot too soon. I notice that the shotgun was not alleged to be pointed at anybody in the parking lot. The article clearly says it was pointed over the heads...

    So, its hard for me to say whether the scecurity guard was justified. It doesn't entirely sound like it, but I cannot say for sure.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I can't get enough details from the story to know with certainty that it was a righteous shoot. This is perhaps deliberate on the part of the journalist? I wouldn't be surprised.

    I tend to analyze these things on the classic principles of AOJ/I--Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy/Intent. For new readers, these are hyper-important principles of legally justified self-defense. If you haven't come across them, you must learn them. They are far too important to leave unknown.

    I have a problem with the prosecutor's argument that no one was in immediate enough danger to justify lethal force by the guard. Danger is either immediate or not. There is no "immediate enough". Sounds like a fishy way of making something vague so that a door can be opened to acceptance. If the danger is not "immediate enough," then it is not immediate at all, and should be susceptible to being demonstrated as such.

    For some reason the judge is saying the security guard didn't have to shoot. And, thought it more likely the decedant was getting into his vehicle, not getting out. Maybe the judge, hearing fully both defense and CA presentations, had access to more data.

    I can see a fella getting a gun and shooting in response to the first shot. Maybe even unrighteously firing at their moving vehicle. Maybe even following that vehicle with his muzzle. If these are what happened, I think the security guard shot too soon. I notice that the shotgun was not alleged to be pointed at anybody in the parking lot. The article clearly says it was pointed over the heads...

    So, its hard for me to say whether the scecurity guard was justified. It doesn't entirely sound like it, but I cannot say for sure.
    True. Media/press reports seldom if ever provide enough definitive information.

    We'll just have to wait and see how this shakes out.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •