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.
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.
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.
Well, he stopped the thieves from doing it again. Next time they may have brought a gun and killed some innocent.
Try reading the second sentence.
He was shot in the chest.
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.
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.