Ohio Supreme Court Says 'Warning Shots' Count as Self-Defense

[Flynn]

This ruling was based on Ohio law, but I would suggest that Heller/Bruen's "history and tradition" would mandate the same even for brandishing...

 

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/03/08/ohio-supreme-court-says-warning-shots-count-as-self-defense-n1224127

 

 

[soundguy]

Whether or not a warning shot is legal, I paste below what I think to be the most important thought in the article...

 

Quote

From a practical standpoint, warning shots still aren't a great idea. If your life is truly being threatened, then firing a shot meant to scare but not harm your attacker only allows your assailant to respond with lethal force of their own.

 

Avoiding conflict, if at all possible, still seems good. Perhaps a warning shot could be a useful tool in some circumstances, where it is allowed - if you are not later being second guessed in your choice of not using a warning shot.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Quiet Observer]

I agree with the court's logic. Of course, it just applies to Ohio. 

 

The article says that he fired a warning shot at the aggressor. So, if he had claimed that he was trying hit the person, the state of Ohio might not have charged him? What is the point of a warning shot to frighten, if a gun is already pointed at you? The next shot will probably from the other person with intent to kill or injure. What is the difference between a warning shot at and poor marksmanship?

[John Q Public]

Sometimes a shot maybe fired to gain cover.  I'm not sure I would call it a warning shot, but many of shots have been made for distraction, or to get someone else to stop shooting while leaving critical time for the primary, and or, others to get to cover etc.

[Euler]

Firing a "warning shot" means discharging a weapon without having a target. Since a firearm is a deadly weapon, not knowing where the bullet is going to go is engaging in a deadly activity without regard for the safety of others, i.e., recklessness.

Firing an aimed shot and missing can be the same. That's why it's important to know your backstop. "Know your target and what's beyond it." You're responsible for every bullet that leaves your muzzle, whether you hit your target or not.

This case is pretty much just parsing the words of Ohio statutes, concluding the that intent to harm the attacker is not a required element to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense, since that was the basis of his (allegedly) ineffective counsel's decision to drop the argument for self-defense.

Personally, I think it's a dangerous precedent. It provides an argument to anti-2A advocates that "just shoot him in the leg" is all anyone needs, except it goes even farther. It makes Uncle Brandon's "shoot both barrels in the air and watch them scatter" sound like good sense.

[John Q Public]

You are right, but it doesn't matter, they will take anything that, way or make stuff up. Big picture, all guns and people who have them are bad and no matter what is done, those entities will use it for their means. The time for playing defense is done, it hasn't worked. We still ring are hands over what may be made of anything we do or say, when it doesn't matter, no matter what we do or say or not, is the same result. We need a shift in the paradigm.

 

You will not fix insanity with logic, or signs. 

 

"Maybe it's time to let the old ways die." 

 

JQ 

[Flynn]

On 3/9/2024 at 3:03 PM, Euler said:

Firing a "warning shot" means discharging a weapon without having a target. Since a firearm is a deadly weapon, not knowing where the bullet is going to go is engaging in a deadly activity without regard for the safety of others, i.e., recklessness.

.

.

.

Personally, I think it's a dangerous precedent. It provides an argument to anti-2A advocates that "just shoot him in the leg" is all anyone needs, except it goes even farther. It makes Uncle Brandon's "shoot both barrels in the air and watch them scatter" sound like good sense.

 

Just for conversation's sake, doesn't that all boil down to a means-end argument that Heller/Bruen has mooted as justification to infringe upon the 2nd's right to self-defense?

[Euler]

Just so everyone understands the words, "means-end" means that the end justifies the means, i.e., utilitarianism. The ethical value of an action is determined by the ethical value of the result.

Examples:

• The world would be better if there were no bad people, so it's good to round up all the bad people and kill them.
• Guilty people should be convicted, so it's good to provide false testimony that insures a conviction.
• And of course, everyone needs money, so it's good to take it from people who have it and to redistribute it to people who don't.

The argument against warning shots is that they are dangerous to innocent people. A defender's right to self-defense does not extend to a right to injure (or kill) an innocent person in order to scare off an attacker. That isn't utilitarian.

The opposite argument isn't necessarily utilitarian, either. It would be based simply on the premise that the death of the attacker isn't required to stop the attack. If incapacitating the attacker would be enough, then killing him would be murder, and murder is always wrong. The error of that argument is that, even if the death of the attacker is not required, it's the attacker that chose to make the attack deadly. The defender is not culpable if the attacker is the one who dies as a direct consequence of the deadly situation he created.

It may be a fine point, but the court didn't really rule that warning shots are justified as self-defense (despite the article title). It only ruled that warning shots do not preclude a claim of self-defense.

Opinion said:

...
The requisite state of mind or intent that a defendant must have had to be entitled to a self-defense jury instruction is an intent to use force to repel or escape force. The trial court and Second District erred in holding that Wilson needed to show a different state of mind or intent -- that is, an intent to harm or kill another person. Under the evidence presented in this case, Wilson was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction; thus, his counsel was prejudicially ineffective by failing to request that instruction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals, vacate Wilson's conviction, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Because he was denied the opportunity to provide a self-defense argument (by his own counsel, no less), Wilson was convicted of felonious assault on his attacker. IMO he was innocent of that charge, but guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm, although he wasn't even charged with reckless discharge. In any case, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Wilson gets another trial where a jury can consider self-defense, assuming the prosecutor wants to try him again.