Warning Shots and Felonious Assault

[Kleanbore]

Today, Atty Andrew Branca tells of an Ohio case in which a man shot and killed another man. He was charged with the unlawful use of deadly force. He claimed self defense. The jury agreed, and the defendant was acquitted--of that charge.

BUT--the defendant also fired what he described as "warning shots" at his fleeing attacker, who had not yet died, and at two other people. Those people did not pose an imminent threat at the time; the defendant was charged with felonious assault; he was convicted; and he received a prison sentence of twelve years.

It is important to remember that, as I recently said in another thread, the conditions that would justify the threat or use of deadly force can cease to exist as quickly as they materialized.

 

[Hasaf]

Even when it comes to Mountain Lions, there is no such thing as warning shots. There are just shots that hit the intended target, and those that don't. That shot can only be fired when deadly force is justified. It really isn't hard to figure out (even if it was Fish and Game explaining it)

 

[scaatylobo]

Today, Atty Andrew Branca tells of an Ohio case in which a man shot and killed another man. He was charged with the unlawful use of deadly force. He claimed self defense. The jury agreed, and the defendant was acquitted--of that charge.

BUT--the defendant also fired what he described as "warning shots" at his fleeing attacker, who had not yet died, and at two other people. Those people did not pose an imminent threat at the time; the defendant was charged with felonious assault; he was convicted; and he received a prison sentence of twelve years.

It is important to remember that, as I recently said in another thread, the conditions that would justify the threat or use of deadly force can cease to exist as quickly as they materialized.

THIS is THE reason I am often at odds with so many who CCW.

The reason is,they will 'tell you' they know the laws and yet cannot quote the law.

If you do not OWN IT,and are able to explain it to me.

Then you will not OWN that moment that you think to use D/F.

Many will either disagree with me,or not even bother to think about what I am putting down here.

That is on you,and your house,job,family,children and the 10 THOUSAND you will spend to start with a good attorney.

NOTE = you will NOT be defended by the state,unless you are indigent and cannot afford an attorney.

Then you fall under the Public Defender,who ever got stuck with that job at that moment.

 

[jmorris]

So, a man shoots and mortally wounds another, then, afterwards, fires “warning shots”?

Smells fishy to me.

 

[aaaaa]

.

NOTE = you will NOT be defended by the state,unless you are indigent and cannot afford an attorney.

Then you fall under the Public Defender,who ever got stuck with that job at that moment.

And that public defender is not likely to have the time or motivation to properly handle the case.

 

[Kleanbore]

And that public defender is not likely to have the time or motivation to properly handle the case.

He or she may or may not, but consider the cost of expert witnesses and appeals. Yer on yer own.

 

[edwardware]

12 years for an assault following a justified shooting. . . Sum Sing Wong.

But the point stands as surely as ever: there's no such an thing as a legal warning shot (before or after). Shoot to stop, or don't; if you really feel the need to warn him, yell.

Better, let the first hit be a complete surprise, and stop making hits once the threat stops being one.

 

[Zerodefect]

He shot one guy legally, but then turned on others?

Sounds like a prideful urban yute. With a decent lawyer. He's likely really guilty of all the events.

 

[Kleanbore]

He shot one guy legally, but then turned on others?

He shot a man who attacked him. The man and apparently the man's accomplices turned and ran.

It is not uncommon for defenders to fail to stop shooting immediately in the heat of the encounter. Often, the additional shots are aimed at the attacker. Evidence that leads to conviction can inlcude the timiing of the shots--such as a delay before the last shot.

In this case, the defender described the additional shots as "warning shots" when mounting his defense..

 

[starnbar]

He shot at two additional people who had nothing to do with the incident like you are driving down the street and someone is shooting down from you you exit your car and get shot at

 

[upptick]

THIS is THE reason I am often at odds with so many who CCW.

The reason is,they will 'tell you' they know the laws and yet cannot quote the law.

If you do not OWN IT,and are able to explain it to me.

Then you will not OWN that moment that you think to use D/F.

Many will either disagree with me,or not even bother to think about what I am putting down here.

That is on you,and your house,job,family,children and the 10 THOUSAND you will spend to start with a good attorney.

NOTE = you will NOT be defended by the state,unless you are indigent and cannot afford an attorney.

Then you fall under the Public Defender,who ever got stuck with that job at that moment.

Indeed. In many ways, most people would be better served with just carrying pepper spray....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So, a man shoots and mortally wounds another, then, afterwards, fires “warning shots”?

Smells fishy to me.

Indeed, wrong order of events. I have to wonder if sometimes people describe things in terms to make the situation sound better, though it still sounds bad. Were the warning shots actually an attempt to kill the others that simply failed?

 

[shafter]

So, a man shoots and mortally wounds another, then, afterwards, fires “warning shots”?

Smells fishy to me.

So many of these cases are criminal on criminal and the full details are never known.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

BUT--the defendant also fired what he described as "warning shots" at his fleeing attacker, who had not yet died, and at two other people. Those people did not pose an imminent threat at the time;

It reads like he was shooting and missing at the fleeing attacker. Definitely not a good look.

Not to mention the random folks that he allegedly shot at.

 

[citizenconn]

Indeed. In many ways, most people would be better served with just carrying pepper spray....

Respectfully I can't agree with that. A timid gun user or a timid pepper spray user is likely to get killed (at least here in Houston) if they are hesitant in defending themselves with either. Either do or do not. My simple opinion.

 

[Kleanbore]

12 years for an assault following a justified shooting. . . Sum Sing Wong.

Nope.

What a person does after a justified shooting is completely unrelated to that shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Indeed. In many ways, most people would be better served with just carrying pepper spray....

How often will it suffice for self defense?

 

[upptick]

How often will it suffice for self defense?

Given that most people won't or can't put in the time and training to be proficient with firearms, pepper spray for them is "sufficient" by default (although I think you might have meant effective?). I did read about some research on using pepper spray against bears and it apparently is very effective but I guess that begs the question about whether you'd get similar results on a demented human or one hopped up on drugs....

 

[citizenconn]

Given that most people won't or can't put in the time and training to be proficient with firearms, pepper spray for them is "sufficient" by default (although I think you might have meant effective?). I did read about some research on using pepper spray against bears and it apparently is very effective but I guess that begs the question about whether you'd get similar results on a demented human or one hopped up on drugs....

Bear spray and pepper spray are chemically similar but different. Regulations allow one in some areas and not the other one and vice versa.

 

[Kleanbore]

Given that most people won't or can't put in the time and training to be proficient with firearms, pepper spray for them is "sufficient" by default (although I think you might have meant effective?). ....

Sufficient obviously means effective. Pepper spray may or may not stop a violent attacker.

It is a good thing to have ,if a less lethal tool is called for, but in a real SD incident, it would not b e prudent to rely on it.

I carry pepper--and I carry a firearm.

In the incident at hand, a jury found unanimously that the state had not proven beyond reasonable doubt defender had had a reasonable basis for believing that deadly force had been immediately nesceesary--that nothing else would have been adequate--and that the use of deadly forcehad been lawful.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Even when it comes to Mountain Lions, there is no such thing as warning shots. There are just shots that hit the intended target, and those that don't. That shot can only be fired when deadly force is justified. It really isn't hard to figure out (even if it was Fish and Game explaining it)

Maybe in Kansas, but warning shots/non-lethals (like rubber buckshot) are encouraged to haze or stop aggressive wildlife here in Colorado. My family has used them as such, including specifically preventing a mountain lion attack with the blast/flash/bullet impact of a .357 Mag.

In a human scenario, I concur it's a bad decision in probably 99% of situations. My father's use of a warning shot in our oddball remote wilderness situation fell into the 1%- where individuals thought the grove of trees with our hidden-from-view occupied camper would make a great midnight target for AK mag dumps. The shot was a single 20 ga birdshot round fired into the air 90 degrees from the shooters vector, served simply the fastest way to alert them to our presence, and it worked- I challenge any "expert" to pontificate otherwise.

 

[Hasaf]

Maybe in Kansas, but warning shots/non-lethals (like rubber buckshot) are encouraged to haze or stop aggressive wildlife here in Colorado. My family has used them as such, including specificly preventing a mountain lion attack with the blast/flash/bullet impact of a .357 Mag.

To clarify, that was Fish and Game in California.

 

[Kleanbore]

One is not going to face credible assault charges for firing a warning shot at an attacking animal.

Aside from the obvious issues of discharging a firearm where that would be prohibited, and the possibility of a necessity defense, there is a risk of the projectile striking a person. The shooter is expected to exercise due caution in doing anything with a firearm. Bullets come back down, come up from the ground, a d ricochet.

I would much rather try to dissuade a mountain lion or a bear with a warning shot than by shooting the animal.

 

[tark]

The only warning shot I would consider is one fired into soft ground ( like a lawn) at a steep angle so as to preclude any ricochets.

 

[aaaaa]

Back about 30 years ago a guy I knew (buddy's brother and my sister dated him), was telling how he was hitting up on a woman at a bar when three guys came after him and he high tailed it out the door with them hard on his heels, so he says he put one in the ceiling on the way out and nobody followed him. This would have been maybe the early 1980s so not sure if legal to carry and regardless not sure he was legally carrying. Same guy fired his revolver in the suburbs on New Year's Eve, hopefully into the ground not the air.