Man Who Shot, Killed Thief Charged

theindychannel.com ^ | 04/16/2010 | Staff

[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.

[Dayman]

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.

[Navy Patriot]

A four year old steals your son's trike and you see him pedaling away. Do you shoot him?

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.

[GOPJ]

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

LOL - good one!

[Navy Patriot]

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.

It depends, this is an excellent resource to put juries in the drivers seat:

Fully Informed Jury Association

[ColdWater]

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.

[Abathar]

"Another golden opportunity to keep one's mouth shut missed ."

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!

[Abathar]

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. :)

[Abathar]

"I might shoot the bull with him about Tonka trucks, but that's about all."

LOL, nice...

[Lancey Howard]

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.

[bert]

He should have said he feared attack and death

[Abathar]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

>>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
happiness.

[Dead Corpse]

My Dad was a LEO. I have nothing but respect for those who wear the badge and uphold their oath to the law and the Constitution on which that authority is based.

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?

[Dead Corpse]

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson

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.

[Dead Corpse]

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

[spodefly]

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.

[caww]

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).

[kbennkc]

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.

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 .

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

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...

[rocket002]

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.