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 ...
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....
Nope!
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.
From Wikipedia-
Grand jury
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
omg.......2007??
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.
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.