Having had my stuff stolen on a number of occasions I really can't work up a tear for the perp.
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.
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.
He should insist on a jury of his peers, burglary victims.
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.
Another golden opportunity to keep one’s mouth shut missed .
Criminals know this.
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.
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.
I would think a gunshot wound to the chest would be sufficient to justify self-defense.
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
"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".
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.
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.
That nice, the story indicated 17 year old was running away. That would seem to indicate he was possibly shot in the back.
“
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.
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
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?
Hell yes.