This story shows loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force

[ISHOOTHST'S]

Man Who Shot, Killed Thief Charged - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

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.

"If you feel like your life is threatened, or serious bodily injury is a possibility, you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your family or your property," said Sgt. Matt Mount.

Neighbors said Ingram, who has no criminal history, is a good person who went to work and minded his own business.

"My first instinct probably would have been the same," said 81-year old Flinora Frazier, who lives across the street from where Lucas was found dead. "I believe in protecting your property."

Others said the incident is troubling, no matter who was right or wrong.

"You have somebody who lost their life. Then again, someone was stealing," said neighbor Kenneth Strader.

"I just hate it so much that two lives are messed up," said Brenda McAtee, president of the Norwood Place Neighborhood Association. "It's just so sad."

Ingram was being held Friday night in the Marion County Jail.


Video in the link. Now if this guy was in my house I could see shooting him...in this stuation restraint from shooting would have been the best thing, especially since the guy ran. Sorry if already posted.

 

[Steeler]

Doesn`t look good for Mr Ingram.

 

[Dawall]

Places in Europe I have visited One has the right to shoot someone for car theft or vandalism. A life is not worth it, I will just replace it.

 

[buffalo-springfield40]

its ashame....nothing in that car was worth going to jail for.....nothing in that car worth losing your life for.....2 ppl making bad decisions

 

[Integraholic]

If he's on your property actively stealing your stuff, you could justify it. If he's running down the street and you shoot him in the back, you can't.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This isn't Texas, this isn't some places in Europe. You can only use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

Not because someone is stealing your favourite Lady Gaga CD or your pine tree air freshner from your car.

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Your house, your property is not a free fire zone.

If you don't have to shoot, DON'T. Problem #2 is long, multi-headed, expensive and dangerous.

 

[ryknoll3]

This isn't Texas, this isn't some places in Europe. You can only use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

Not because someone is stealing your favourite Lady Gaga CD or your pine tree air freshner from your car.

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Your house, your property is not a free fire zone.

If you don't have to shoot, DON'T. Problem #2 is long, multi-headed, expensive and dangerous.

If you look at the IC, you ARE legally justified in using deadly force to stop an "attack upon or unlawful entry into" your house or OCCUPIED vehicle. They don't have to have a weapon or threaten you, per se.

 

[techno.m3]

The man was not was not protecting himself, he had no reason to shot the kid even though he was stealing.

If the kid had a weapon and was attempting to break into the car while occupied, it may have been justified.

 

[Eddie]

If you look at the IC, you ARE legally justified in using deadly force to stop an "attack upon or unlawful entry into" your house or OCCUPIED vehicle. They don't have to have a weapon or threaten you, per se.

There is a separate part of that statute for an unoccupied vehicle:

"With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

Once they stop stealing and run away the option to use force is gone.

 

[kingnereli]

Yes. The problem was that he shot him when he was running away not that he shot him to prevent the other guy's "trespass on or criminal interference."

To the OP:
You should have checked the IC before you titled this thread? If you had you would have seen that protecting property is specifically listed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They don't have to have a weapon or threaten you, per se.

The kid was running away.

Again, your house, your property is not a free fire zone. You don't get to shoot people just because they are on your property, in your house, running across your property.

 

[38special]

It's a sad situation and a shame it turned out this way.

Nothing in my vehicle/house is worth anyone's life - except of course for the people in my life.

I will not shoot someone if someone isn't in danger. "stuff" is just that - stuff.

 

[EdC]

There is a separate part of that statute for an unoccupied vehicle:

"With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

Once they stop stealing and run away the option to use force is gone.

Just wanted to emphasize that the statute says "reasonable force" for those situations.

 

[lovemachine]

The kid was running away.

Again, your house, your property is not a free fire zone. You don't get to shoot people just because they are on your property, in your house, running across your property.

Agreed. But if someone broke into my house, I'm shooting him. Then I'll check to see if they had a weapon. Now, if they were running out of my house before I could shoot him, then no, nobody has the right to shoot him then.

Now if I see someone breaking into my car, I think I would pull my weapon out on him. Would I shoot? No, because my life isn't in danger. I would keep him there til the cops show up. If he took off? I wouldn't shoot. I may chase him down, but it depends if I had just ate a large meal or not...

 

[IndyMonkey]

The man was not was not protecting himself, he had no reason to shot the kid even though he was stealing.

If the kid had a weapon and was attempting to break into the car while occupied, it may have been justified.

Change the kid in your post to POS please.

I had two of these "kids" steal my truck out of my driveway 6 months ago. Im waiting to see what the courts do to them, if I dont get my loss of property back I will figure out a way to get even in my eyes.

So far I have came up with me and a sandwich board picketing in front of there house telling the neighbors that they are truck thief's living there.

Second thing I will do is sue them and there guardians in civil court.

There has to be a consequence for depriving a person of there property, even for these "Kids".

 

[gohard43]

He made a big oops. Anyone ever check out The Armed Citizen ?

 

[IndyMonkey]

The biggest problem I saw was he lied to the police in the beginning. Its not over, just because he has been charged. He still has to be convicted.

 

[Eddie]

Change the kid in your post to POS please.

I had two of these "kids" steal my truck out of my driveway 6 months ago. Im waiting to see what the courts do to them, if I dont get my loss of property back I will figure out a way to get even in my eyes.

So far I have came up with me and a sandwich board picketing in front of there house telling the neighbors that they are truck thief's living there.

Second thing I will do is sue them and there guardians in civil court.

There has to be a consequence for depriving a person of there property, even for these "Kids".

This would make a good OC event.

 

[moischmoe]

Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

"If you feel like your life is threatened, or serious bodily injury is a possibility, you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your family or your property," said Sgt. Matt Mount.

I understand the first sentence, "Police said that legally, loss of property is not enough to justify the use of deadly force."

I understand the first part of the second sentence, "If you feel like your life is threatened, or serious bodily injury is a possibility, you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, your family..."

I DO NOT understand this part, "...or your property," said Sgt. Matt Mount."

First he says you can't use deadly force to protect your property, then in the next sentence he says you can. Do you think he 'mis-spoke', or could there be a legitimate reason to use deadly force to protect your property.

 

[Jay]

Loss of property alone, has NEVER been just cause for the use of deadly force.