Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man Who Shot, Killed Thief Charged
theindychannel.com ^ | 04/16/2010 | Staff

Posted on 04/16/2010 5:35:48 PM PDT by Abathar

INDIANAPOLIS -- A man who shot and killed a teenager who broke into his car was charged Friday with voluntary manslaughter.

Virgil Lucas, 17, was found dead of a gunshot wound to the chest on the front porch of a home in the 3500 block of East Morris Street early on April 9.

James Ingram, 30, who lives nearby, told police he returned home from work to find the teen breaking into his car, and confronted him with a gun.

Ingram's attorney said his client was merely attempting to hold Lucas for the police, but when the teen ran, Ingram fired several shots after him.

Ingram told police he didn't think he'd hit the teen until he was found dead in the neighborhood.

Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last
Too bad he didn't live in Texas.

Having had my stuff stolen on a number of occasions I really can't work up a tear for the perp.

1 posted on 04/16/2010 5:35:49 PM PDT by Abathar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Be glad you don’t live in Europe. I recently had a friend in Scotland who had her home broken into by a complete stranger. The police couldn’t arrest the man because she ‘had an unlocked front door’ I kid you not.


2 posted on 04/16/2010 5:39:42 PM PDT by Shaun_MD (Goldwater Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

What kind of idiocy is this? This is practically an incentive to steal stuff. I'd give this guy a medal. Had he not been persecuted, he would have saved the taxpayers tons of money.

Hopefully the jury will act with more sanity than law enforcement.

3 posted on 04/16/2010 5:40:15 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
James Ingram will have to let a jury decide.

He should insist on a jury of his peers, burglary victims.

4 posted on 04/16/2010 5:41:49 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

“What kind of idiocy is this?”

***

You can thank the liberals for it.


5 posted on 04/16/2010 5:41:59 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Ingram's attorney said his client was merely attempting to hold Lucas for the police, but when the teen ran, Ingram fired several shots after him.

The correct statement would have been: "Ingram's attorney said his client was merely attempting to hold Lucas for the police, but when the career criminal launched an apparent attack, Ingram felt a justifiable fear for his life and fired several shots in self-defense, but the attacker turned away just as Ingram pulled the trigger the last time, and that shot hit the career criminal in the back," assuming that's what happened, of course.

6 posted on 04/16/2010 5:42:16 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Speaking of Texas..(I'm assuming you live there) a few months ago there was a man,from TX, who witnessed some thieves trying to break in to his neighbors house and he called 911 and then proceeded to tell the operator he was going to have to shoot them and she was trying to convince him not to. But he did anyway...can't remember if he killed one or just wounded them. Did you hear about that or what happened to the guy?
7 posted on 04/16/2010 5:42:44 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Another golden opportunity to keep one’s mouth shut missed .


8 posted on 04/16/2010 5:43:21 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

Criminals know this.

9 posted on 04/16/2010 5:44:32 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
...and THAT is the problem with living in densely populated areas: no room to quietly SOS.
10 posted on 04/16/2010 5:44:43 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (If Liberalism doesn't kill me, I'll live 'till I die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

I believe he was not charged with any crime.


11 posted on 04/16/2010 5:47:09 PM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: "..now begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Property is money.

Money is labor.

Labor, stolen from the laborer, is slavery.

Therefore, property IS enough to justify deadly force, because to take someone’s property is to make them a slave for the benefit of the criminal.


12 posted on 04/16/2010 5:47:28 PM PDT by FLAMING DEATH (Are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

That’s good to hear. ty.


13 posted on 04/16/2010 5:49:08 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

That happened right up the road from my house. He killed them both and the police didn’t wanna charge him, but under pressure from latino groups and the black panthers, they caved...but when it came before a grand jury the didn’t indict(IIRC)...I’m sure the police & prosecutor did a piss poor job presenting the evidence b/c none of them wanted him convicted....oh and the 2 guys he shot were illegals...


14 posted on 04/16/2010 5:50:20 PM PDT by DrewsMum (Am I the only one that forgets I'm not on FB & tries to "like" freeper comments?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

The detail that makes me think twice about this case is that the perp appears to have been unarmed and running away when shot.

Shooting him to stop him breaking in, stealing, or harming someone - yes, absolutely, but shooting him in the back while he’s unarmed and running away without having harmed anyone or actually stolen anything.... I don’t know, just doesn’t sit right with me.


15 posted on 04/16/2010 5:52:51 PM PDT by AussieJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH; fatnotlazy

And here’s the kicker... if law enforcement was doing its job the perp might have had a few less holes in him.


16 posted on 04/16/2010 5:53:53 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

God’s idiocy....even in the Bible God didn’t justify the killing of a thief breaking in your home....unless it was at night b/c u couldn’t be clear of their motives....to God, life is more valuable than property...

Your thoughts??

Don’t flame me, I’m as pro-death penalty as they get....


17 posted on 04/16/2010 5:54:05 PM PDT by DrewsMum (Am I the only one that forgets I'm not on FB & tries to "like" freeper comments?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

well fact is he shot him in the back (he was running away)
So as long as you don´t live in texas he shot an unarmed person who was running away and this is a crime.


18 posted on 04/16/2010 5:55:34 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum
God also said "thou shalt not steal." And how did the victim know that the perp was only intending to steal from him? Of course it is very easy to assume that after the fact the perp wasn't going to attack the victim, but how is the victim to know?

Throughout the Old and New Testaments, both God and Jesus tell us that we must be prepared to defend ourselves against those who would attack us.

There should be no reason to NOT use maximum force against a perp if you feel your life is in danger.

19 posted on 04/16/2010 6:00:46 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum

O no kidding? Thanks for the extra information. Very interesting. Were you home at the time?


20 posted on 04/16/2010 6:03:37 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum

I agree ,
and with Abathar,

Message Sent to Perps, though ,is The Bum is Still Dead


21 posted on 04/16/2010 6:04:42 PM PDT by bravotu (Have a Nice Day !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum

Since money and the things it can buy represent something precious and irreplaceable, there is good reason to use deadly force to keep control of something you own. That something that is irreplaceable, is your time. You are born with only so much of it, you traded some of it, or maybe a lot of it, for money to buy goods. By stealing your goods, they are actually taking a part of your life energy. Damn right deadly force is justified. For a sack of marbles no, but for a car or a wallet or purse, yes.


22 posted on 04/16/2010 6:06:59 PM PDT by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AussieJoe
The detail that makes me think twice about this case is that the perp appears to have been unarmed and running away when shot.

That's what I keyed in on as well.

"Ingram's attorney said his client was merely attempting to hold Lucas for the police, but when the teen ran, Ingram fired several shots after him."

No justificiation for lethal force if he was RUNNING AWAY.

23 posted on 04/16/2010 6:07:35 PM PDT by wvguy (Montani semper liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AussieJoe
I don’t know, just doesn’t sit right with me.

Don't worry, after your use of harsh language while he's running away, he'll reform and never steal again. He won't learn to pick a weaker more helpless victim, either, like a 90 year old lady who will die from being knocked to the ground trying to hold on to her wedding ring.

All will be well.

24 posted on 04/16/2010 6:08:25 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

There should be no reason to NOT use maximum force against a perp if you feel your life is in danger.


True but if someone is running away you can´t claim that your life is in danger. i mean come on! ok it would be differnet if someone shoots at you and then run away because he/she has no bullets left.


25 posted on 04/16/2010 6:10:30 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

“Speaking of Texas..(I’m assuming you live there) a few months ago there was a man,from TX, who witnessed some thieves trying to break in to his neighbors house and he called 911 and then proceeded to tell the operator he was going to have to shoot them and she was trying to convince him not to. But he did anyway...can’t remember if he killed one or just wounded them. Did you hear about that or what happened to the guy?”

The perp was a black illegal alien. He was attempting to leave the scene of a felony with stolen goods and was killed by the home owner next door. The shooter was not charged with anything because the killing was legal under Texas law.


26 posted on 04/16/2010 6:12:37 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AussieJoe

Well, he stopped the thieves from doing it again. Next time they may have brought a gun and killed some innocent.


27 posted on 04/16/2010 6:14:11 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH

That has always been my take on it as well. When you steal something from me, you are taking a part of my life. I only have so much life to go around...


28 posted on 04/16/2010 6:16:57 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I would think a gunshot wound to the chest would be sufficient to justify self-defense.


29 posted on 04/16/2010 6:17:53 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Alfred E. Neuman for President! Oh, wait a minute ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wvguy

Does that go the same for cops? IF you run they shouldn’t shot you?


30 posted on 04/16/2010 6:18:32 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Ingram's attorney said his client was merely attempting to hold Lucas for the police, but when the teen ran, Ingram fired several shots after him.

Sorry, I'm as second amendment as one can get, but this is wrong.

You don't shoot a teenager running away from you. Your life was not in peril, your property was actually not taken based on the article.

There are several better options than opening fire. You can hit a house, a stray car.

You are responsible for every bullet fired from your weapon.

Plus this type of senseless killing give the gun grabbers plenty of ammo to make their ignorant points

31 posted on 04/16/2010 6:19:32 PM PDT by Popman (Balsa wood: Obama Presidential timber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
Ok, Just let him steal all he wants, just as long as he runs away after he steals it. Do not worry that the next time he will probably come back with a gun, that he may have just stolen.
32 posted on 04/16/2010 6:20:37 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
Very interesting. Post 14 from Drewsmum gives a slightly varied account. She lives close by. Maybe it's 2 separate incidents?
33 posted on 04/16/2010 6:24:44 PM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Control the American people? Herding cats would be easier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Does that go the same for cops? IF you run they shouldn’t shot you?

Which police dept. has a policy of shooting perps running away?

Granted, I'm sure some jack booted roided out thug LEO's do it, but it isn't policy

34 posted on 04/16/2010 6:25:42 PM PDT by Popman (Balsa wood: Obama Presidential timber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

"Oficer, I shot the thief because he violated the sanctity of my home / car / boat / whatever. I have insurance to cover the loss of the property".

35 posted on 04/16/2010 6:30:14 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Does that go the same for cops? IF you run they shouldn’t shot you?

I know how much you hate law enforocement (from several prior posts) but where would we be without any rule of law.
If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Now if you are stealing something you are, and SHOULD have something to worry about.
36 posted on 04/16/2010 6:30:27 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: John D

Hey if you break into my home i will definitely point a gun at “your” head. But then again would i really fire in your back if you just run away? i guess not!
As long you are no danger to me or my family i´m not willing to kill you because i don´t care if law allows me or if it doesn´t. At the end i´m a human beeing and i don´t kill people just because some law might say that i have been correct under the current state of law.


37 posted on 04/16/2010 6:34:23 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Does that go the same for cops? IF you run they shouldn’t shot you?

I don't know. Ask a cop. ;-)

What I wish to do differs from what I can legally do. In Virginia, one can NOT use LETHAL force on someone who is fleeing.

38 posted on 04/16/2010 6:37:17 PM PDT by wvguy (Montani semper liberi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Popman

Just remember that next time he WILL bring a gun and some of his friends who have guns WILL bring theirs and they just won’t rob you, they will kill you.

Here is a NY Slimes report to corroborate the above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/nyregion/family-of-thief-say-the-police-had-no-cause-to-kill-him.html?pagewanted=1


39 posted on 04/16/2010 6:40:13 PM PDT by dominic flandry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
So, you are just like obeyme. He tells terrorists, “If you do something to America I will hold a gun to your head, but I will not do anything because I do not have the courage to do anything with it.
40 posted on 04/16/2010 6:40:24 PM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Castle Doctrine needs to be nationwide whereever someone is.

Property needs to be included as well nationwide.

The deck needs to be stacked with the victim not the criminal.


41 posted on 04/16/2010 6:43:12 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dominic flandry
Just remember that next time he WILL bring a gun and some of his friends who have guns WILL bring theirs and they just won’t rob you, they will kill you.

Common criminals are cowards, they already know I am armed, so I doubt they would come back for a second chance at robbing an armed man.

Sorry, but most teenagers aren't hard core criminals who would come back for a revenge killing.

That's the chance I'd take before shooting an unarmed teenage running away from me

42 posted on 04/16/2010 6:49:46 PM PDT by Popman (Balsa wood: Obama Presidential timber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

Yes, it is legal here in Texas, as you say, to use deadly force to protect your property, if you catch the perps actually committing the crime.(can’t go find ‘em later, shoot ‘em and get stuff back) and I don’t know about shooting them in the back. Seems like I read it has to be at night before you can do that?


43 posted on 04/16/2010 6:51:09 PM PDT by Quickgun (As a former fetus, I'm opposed to abortion. Mamas don't let your cowboys grow up to be babies..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
What kind of idiocy is this? This is practically an incentive to steal stuff. I'd give this guy a medal. Had he not been persecuted, he would have saved the taxpayers tons of money.

Hopefully the jury will act with more sanity than law enforcement.

The jury in most states, I suppose, would have no choice. I suspect most states hold that one can only use deadly force if being attacked and feared for his life and/or grievous bodily harm.

44 posted on 04/16/2010 6:55:45 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I am of mixed minds about this.

It is never a good idea to think that a gun gives you control over a situation, because it does not. In fact, it reduces your control to just four things: put your gun back in your holster, pistol whip someone, fire a warning shot, or shoot them.

For a lot of situations, these are not enough options, which is why police really like Tasers.

In this case, the gun owner felt he had control, which in his mind reduced his choice to shoot or don’t shoot. When the thief darted away, it was an almost instinctual response to fire at him.

If at all possible, it is good to suggest to yourself that if you draw your gun, try to get a long blunt object in your other hand. Doing so gives you *more* control, because you have more options at close quarters.

And this last bit is critical. If you have a gun, you should avoid getting too close to an opponent. It is best if you stay 10-15 feet away, which is still “point blank range”, but any closer, and he might be inclined to try and rush you.

If you need to approach him, do so with the blunt object ahead and the gun back, well away from him.


45 posted on 04/16/2010 6:57:44 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John D

Sorry but a terrorist wants to kill me. So does someone who has a weapon who enters my home. But if someone is unarmed
he is still a criminal if he enters my home but then again
i´m, not willing to kill someone as long he/she is no treath to my live. And fact is when i point a gun to your head and you are running away then you are no danger to my life. Full stop! Does this mean that i don´t care? Well definitely no. But does this mean that i´m not willing to kill for this then yes. Just a question have you killed someone? I have and it haunts me. (but this was even my opinnion before this did happen) so nothing changed. I would never kill someone as long as my life is not in danger only because the law says i might be legal able to do this. (btw. before you get me wrong the people i have killed have been in afghanistan and i thought my life would have been in danger).


46 posted on 04/16/2010 7:00:13 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AussieJoe

Try reading the second sentence.
He was shot in the chest.


47 posted on 04/16/2010 7:02:03 PM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

Glad I don't live in that state.

It is in Texas.

48 posted on 04/16/2010 7:07:54 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
...and THAT is the problem with living in densely populated areas: no room to quietly SOS.

SSS: Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.

49 posted on 04/16/2010 7:08:08 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Dissent is Racism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw Woman

No, I didn’t hear about it until that night...didn’t realize anything had happened...and even then I wasn’t sure where it had happened...but then a few days after there were protests and marches over by his house...then HIS neighbors complained and got something or some law passed to keep the protestors out of their neighborhood....it was a win for gun owners, anti-illegal immigration, and a stab at the race baiters all in one....


50 posted on 04/16/2010 7:10:29 PM PDT by DrewsMum (Am I the only one that forgets I'm not on FB & tries to "like" freeper comments?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson