Skip to comments.Man Who Shot, Killed Thief Charged
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 ...
If you mean the guy in Houston who did cleanup with a shotgun, while an unmarked police car sat right out on the street?
The grand jury returned a "no bill". Meaning that they found no crime had been committed. Just lawful use of deadly force.
Local race baiter tried to make something of it, until he found out the perps were not Blacks, but rather illegal aliens from central America. ;)
So, Joe kid, age 11 comes onto your yard (obviously to steal your son's bike), you chase after him and shoot him in the back two blocks from your home?
That nice, the story indicated 17 year old was running away. That would seem to indicate he was possibly shot in the back.
I believe I agree with you. I don’t see theft as a death penalty offense.
I understand the anger of the victim, believe me, but there are degrees of crime.
Save the death penalty for murderers and violent rapists and child rapists, IMO.
Actually, no. Cops are very restricted in the occasions when they can use deadly force. A non violent crime and an suspect who runs does not justify deadly force.
You didn’t answer the question?
Of course it does. Jury nullification is always an option.
Shooting some stupid punk in the back for steeling CD's or something out of my car? No way I'd do that. I'd like to, but there is no way would I shoot someone in the back for this type of crime.
To be honest, without perceived or direct physical threat to me or someone else, I'm not shooting. Now catching someone that has entered or are attempting entry to my home is an entirely different story.
I commented about a perp that was 17 and was shot in the chest directly in front of the victims property if not on it.
Manipulation of facts to demonize a statement won't work here as well as showing your lack of research.
11 year olds have in fact committed murder. You should have changed the age down to about four to be safe in your pathetic attempt to play gotcha.
I feared for my life repeated every second sentence.
Exactly. People talk so big about shootin mere theives (I understand some can be more dangerous)...but there is always a price to pay for taking a human life...no matter how justified...it’s easy to say I’d shoot so and so, but for anyone that’s ever had to do it, there’s a psychological aspect that sometimes we gunhawks don’t take the time to consider....I would know in my heart if I thought I was self defending or just thinking I could give some thief his “due” and get away with it....and I would have to stand before God who knows my heart and foolishly attempt to defend my sin....there is no justification....
If the story is true and the thief was running away unarmed, then shame on the guy for shootin him. He will have to live with that....
He feared for his life repeated over and over would get him off in most cities.
Juries ALWAYS have choice. They may not excise it, but they do have choice.
I didn’t manipulate the facts. I asked you a question. A question that you don’t have the integrity to answer.
If you wish. A four year old steals your son's trike and you see him pedaling away. Do you shoot him?
In the state of Washington the rule is you can use deadly force “to prevent a felony”. But, one might spend more money on the legal costs than what the item is worth. Shame to have to think that way, but....
Chase him/her down...Break both their legs...Save a life...
Drag him/her back to yard...Make him/her ride bike back home...
Yeah...Gets a little old reading about how some of these folks would be so quick to kill. They’ve clearly never had to do that....Never seen a dead guy, or never spent 5 years in and out of courts trying to defend themselves.
OTOH, some people think I misprinted the "posted" signs when I put "...trespassers will be persecuted to the fullest extent possible".
No, it was actually two perps. Both were shot and killed.
I think that this is what you’re thinking of. It’s hard to believe that it happened in 2007.
On June 30, 2008 a Harris County grand jury cleared Mr. Horn by issuing a no-bill after two weeks of testimony
Joe Horn shooting controversy
Try reading the second sentence.
He was shot in the chest.”
You’re right, my mistake, but it does not change my point at all. I’m still unable to justify shooting someone running away after failing to steal from me, i.e. no actual property loss.
For those that can justify this shooting, what’s the practical difference between shooting someone as they try to run away, and shooting someone who has given up but has not tried to run away? i.e. just summarily executing them? could you justify that? if not, why not? after all, the point that “they can come back later with a gun” still applies once they’re out on bail or whatever, so why not summarily execute the perp in your custody to prevent that possibility?
How do we know the perp wasn't running away to go get a weapon?
I’ll give you some free advice,DON”T TRY ME!
If you don’t want to get yourself shot, don’t steal.
I have no compassion for thieves.
As you rightly point out, the jury could be the best hope for Justice.
I’m shocked that my calender is so far out of wack. Has to be the same case though. Thank you for the link.
That's not correct. If the jury ignores the express language of the law, their decision would be easily overturned on appeal. They MUST follow the law.
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.
So much for the concept of “citizen arrest”.
In a sane world, a thief, rapist, thug, attempting to flee
“the scene of the crime” would be subject to even mortal threat...
BUT... now the deceased thug passes on a “wrongful death” lawsuit
for his surviving thug family members.
It’s a beautiful world (for the criminal demographic).
Time for the “shallow grave” many miles from the scene of the crime...
to lessen the possibility of lawsuits.
Against the innocent party.
I agree whole heartedly. This guy’s attorney is sinking his clients case. He should have said he was in fear for his life... the perp rushed him... etc., or nothing at all. No good can come from a lawyer admiting his client shot a perp who was running away. He should know better.
Well, let's see.
He can't outrun me, and he's even slower on the trike.
He hasn't the physical ability to harm me or successfully use a weapon against me, so I can safely reclaim my property.
In addition, he does not fully understand property rights and the concept of theft, so he is not aware of, and therefore, not committing, a crime.
He is, however, a victim because he is unsupervised, so it would be necessary to take him into custody for his own safety, and immediately notify the police and CPS.
I might shoot the bull with him about Tonka trucks, but that's about all.
Sorry to disappoint.
He should insist on a jury of his peers, burglary victims.
LOL - good one!
It depends, this is an excellent resource to put juries in the drivers seat:
About what I expected. Even though he might grow up to kill someone later, you have your limits. It apparently is somewhere between four and eleven years old for the thief in order for you to shoot them.
My lawyer explained it to me in the simplest of terms, if you start talking your going to regret it the rest of your life, you have the right to remain silent - USE IT!
My driveway is 3/4 of a mile long and all me neighbors are family. If I miss a quick phone call is all it takes for another crack at ‘em. :)
You have to be smart about this kind of thing. You don’t hold these animals for the police. Plus, you ALWAYS say you were scared to death and thought you saw a gun.
He should have said he feared attack and death
How sad is it that no matter what happens anymore the guy who is honest and tells the truth seems to be the one who takes it in the rear?
My layer told me once while sitting around BS’ing that I never say a word to anyone besides asking to talk to me even if I just draw my weapon. Just shut the hell up and use your right to remain silent and let him do the talking.
>>Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.
>Criminals know this.
I would argue the case that it is, using my State’s Constitution:
Art 2, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and
have certain natural, inherent and inalienable
rights, among which are the rights of
enjoying and defending life and liberty, of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property,
and of seeking and obtaining safety and
I have nothing but utter contempt for jack-boot wanna-be's playing "my penis is bigger than yours" who never question bad orders or fail to follow legal procedure.
If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
So you'd be ok with them putting cameras in your house to monitor your activities? After all... if you aren't going anything wrong... what are you worried about?
What you can "legally" do is often obfuscated by those we've entrusted to write the laws within the boundaries "We the People" set. Acting outside those limits, law-writers have done a lot to ensure that real justice is denied to the victims of a crime.
While I do not condone the more extreme examples of vigilantism, the victim gunning down the criminal at the point of the offense is the cheapest and most accurate form of Justice ever devised.
Don't want to be gunned down by your intended victim? Don't be a criminal.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Let’s say I work as an electrician, a job that has dangers, some potentially deadly.
Now someone comes along to steal the tools I use in my job, or the items I have bought risking my life doing that job ... which means a.) that my job just got more dangerous because of the loss of the proper tools, and/or b.) that I have to now risk my life doing the job for additional hours to replace what the scumbag stole.
So, should I be able to use lethal force to prevent the loss of property?
What really bothers me is how people expect people to keep their heads straight in any given situation....you really can’t be certain what you would do if faced with the same.
My friend had a guy trying to get in her home at 3:oo in the morning...twisting and turning her door handle...she is 60 yrs old and lives alone. When she shared what happened I’m not so sure I would have just waited for him to go away...which he did eventually because she flipped on her deck light thinking it would scare him away..it did.. She had no weapons or mace to deter him.
I spoke to a police officer about that and he said if you shoot or knife someone you have to make certain they are inside your house....drag them in if you have to. But then they would know you did that i would think.
My point is she had no clue how to handle the situation...the noise and his clamoring to open the door shook her so much she said she dropped her phone and went and just grabbed a knife. Said she was afraid she might hurt him if he got in.
How it ended was she told her landlord who got the police....ended up it was some guy drunk at the wrong door...her landlord spoke to the guy and put the fear of God in him....(landlord big guy).
I too have heard this off and on all my life and I have been told before it came from a LEO . I respectfully disagree . I think this is a terrible idea . I would never alter a scene you know will be investigated for the very same reasons as I would never lie to an officer . Professionals understand you asserting your right to remain silent . A liar is a cops enemy until one of you dies .
I know of at least two storekeepers who shot perps from
behind back in the 90’s,,,
One had already hit the perp inside the store and chased
him outside killing him,,,
A black mob burned his store and some homes in the area,,,
The cops just ran away,,,
This is called the Lakeside Riot,,,
I lived about a mile away at that time,,,(long night),,,
The other was an old vet that shot the perps at near
point blank as they tried to run away,,,
They both crap in bags nowdays,,,
There is a “Heat of Battle” rule here...
The article doesn’t say, but if he was not fleeing with property, this would not have been a legal shoot in Texas either (see 2B below). 3A also leaves a lot to be interpreted for a shooter if it goes to a jury.
Every gun owner should study all of the use of force/deadly force statutes in their state. It amazed me in my CHL class how many people had no idea what the laws in Texas said about the use of force. Several people made the old comment about shooting someone and dragging them inside your home etc, etc.....
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.