Aiming a gun toward the sky

Maybe it’s because the current president, one Joe Biden, has advocated “taking the ol’ double barrel out and firing it in the air to scare away” intruders or maybe it’s because they simply don’t fully grasp the ramifications of sending unaimed shots into the air or other directions, but the liberal judges sitting on the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a gun owner, saying “firing warning shots can be considered ‘self-defense.’”

WEWS News reported on last week’s ruling that was made possible by the liberal justices on the state’s Supreme Court and provides what is technically a win, albeit a little bit of a confusing one, for gun rights advocates. The ruling was actually decided by three liberal justices and one conservative one on the court.

Here’s the background on the case from WEWS:

During an altercation at a gas station in 2021, Tyler Wilson fired a warning shot at Billy Reffett’s car, claiming he was acting in self-defense. Wilson claims Reffertt threatened him and pulled a gun on him.

But a Clark County judge said Wilson wasn’t protecting himself because he didn’t aim the gun at the supposed assailant, so the judge didn’t allow him to argue self-defense in court, seemingly saying that if Wilson was really scared for his life, he should have shot Reffertt. His defense attorney didn’t fight back for him.

Wilson was acquitted of attempted murder but was found guilty of felonious assault. He was sentenced to more than a decade in prison.

In an appeal by the Second District Court of Appeals, the justices agreed with the lower court ruling 2-1.

The Second District Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court 2-1, denying his request to overturn. He argued that his attorney was ineffective.

“If you’re in fear for your life or trying to protect yourself or other loved ones from harm, that a warning shot can be an element of self-defense,” Rob Sexton with the Buckeye Firearm’s Association told WEWS.

Warning shots have traditionally been looked upon by the law in virtually every state as a no-no, the reasoning being several-fold. First, to fire your gun in self-defense as the result of any attack, altercation or potentially violent event, both state and federal law have traditionally said a person must be in fear of imminent harm or death, in which case, the shots fired should be directly at stopping that imminent harm or death by shooting that threat. If the level of imminent harm or death are not met, then shots shouldn’t be fired goes the legal reasoning.

Tactically, warning shots are also a bad idea on a couple of fronts. Shooting in a direction away from the threat, such as in the air, to the left or the right or even toward the ground, can lead to bullets ricocheting or flying in directions that can harm innocent people, which will also put you in sometimes major legal jeopardy. They can also escalate a situation by creating the sound of shots that lead to other people shooting, because they are not sure exactly who the shots are aimed at or why. And, quite simply, warning shots can use up precious ammo a person has loaded in their gun and available to defend themselves should the warning shots fail and the attack continue or escalate.

That’s a lot to consider.

The surprising aspect of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, which was split 4-3, is that it was the liberal judges who pushed that one across the goal line.

Sexton told WEWS he was “surprised” at the ruling, not so much because of the ruling itself, but because of who supported it in the court.

“Knowing that the high court has agreed with that, even those that you would typically assume would not be necessarily pro-Second Amendment, makes a stronger case for future self-defense claims,” he told the station. The court itself is reported to be a conservative-leaning court, but most of the conservatives on the court, except for one, went with the traditional legal view of warning shots.

Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin, who was interviewed for the story told WEWS the case is not so much about guns as it is “more a question of how easily should it be to assert self-defense.” He explained the court didn’t technically say this particular defendant “acted in self-defense” only that “the jury should have been allowed to consider” if he had acted in self-defense.

From that view then, the case doesn’t necessarily expand gun rights in Ohio nor should be construed to imply others acting in a similar manner in the Buckeye state or elsewhere will be treated in any other than the traditional way should they be charged with firing warning shots.

The opinion of the dissenting judges in the case was that the trail court was correct in denying a self-defense jury instruction because “Wilson’s testimony didn’t prove self-defense” thus his actions could not be considered “an act of defense.”

For more on this story, visit WEWS News 5 Cleveland.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH TTAG: Tell us what you think about warning shots. Share your thoughts on whether they are a good or bad idea in the comments section below.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

54 COMMENTS

  1. the guy was stupid by saying he fired a warning shot. ok, lets get this straight…you don’t say you fired a warning shot, you say you fired at the threat and missed and because the threat ran away (or stopped their acts) due to that you did not fire again.

    😃

    • +1
      You beat me to it.

      You’d think any LE or DA would *prefer* an outcome in which a criminal action was halted without injury or loss of life, but tyrants gonna tyrant…

    • “you say you fired at the threat“

      I’m not sure I agree with your position.

      Admitting you fired at what you claimed to be a threat could be seen as attempted murder by the authorities or jury.

      Most would agree a warning shot is not an assault, much less attempted murder.

      In any case, aren’t you thrilled three liberal justices on the Ohio Supreme Court came down on the right side…

      • Miner49er, its hilarious you don’t agree with your own ignorant intentionally out of context cherry picking.

      • “Admitting you fired at what you claimed to be a threat could be seen as attempted murder…”

        Wut?

        Firing at what you claim to be a threat is generally the very definition of self-defense.

        • I found it strange this is so confusing for you folks, it’s rather simple.

          There is a gentleman in New York State who admitted he fired in self-defense at what he thought was a threat and now he’s off to prison for murder.

          If he had fired a warning shot into the ground by his deck, he would still be a free man.

          And a young woman would not be dead.

        • its not confusing to us at all. unlike you, we are adults that don’t have the childish need to state the obvious of what we already knew.

        • (looking for my comment I just wrote…)

          TTAG has returned to ghosting comments without notice, again?

      • MajorIdiot,

        Boy, are you retarded???? Firing a firearm in the GENERAL DIRECTION of another person is LITERALLY the legal definition of “assault” (you could look it up, if you weren’t illiterate).

        No RESPONSIBLE gun owner would “fire a warning shot”, period. “Firing a warning shot” breaks AT LEAST three (arguably all four) of Jeff Cooper’s “Four Rules”.

        Anyone can assert “self-defense” as a DEFENSE to a claim of (inter alia) wrongful death, murder, manslaughter, BATTERY (go look up the difference between “assault” and “battery”, you drooling quarter-wit), etc. Whether it is a relevant/admissible defense to such a claim is up to the court. There are rules for what an admissible “self-defense” argument is.

        The GENERAL rule for lawful use of deadly force in self-defense is that you must be in “reasonable fear of immediate death or bodily harm”. Another rule, frequently ALSO required, is that you can ONLY use deadly force to end the threat – once the threat is ended, you are no longer permitted to use deadly force. Shooting a “warning shot” is both (i) unsafe gun handling, and (ii) not REASONABLY designed to “end the threat”.

        Only a stuttering moron, like you or Senile Joe, would actually support “firing a warning shot”.

        You remain too stupid to insult.

  3. If there is reason for a warning shot generally there is reason to shoot a perp. However let’s say there is a night prowler, strong arm robbery or a fox in the hen house, etc. a warning shot in a safe direction can be used as a scare off. To say outright you cannot fire a warning shot as a means of defense would be ridiculous.

    • Newsflash!

      Some citizens have viewpoints other citizens don’t agree with.

      Pictures at 11.

      • Are you trying to minimize the content present or redirect the conversation? Either way needs some work.

      • Newsflash!!! Miner49er agrees with our country being a communist dictatorship because that’s exactly what happens in communist dictatorships when they start, rights are removed and courts are stacked and the government is given the power over the people by use of force.

  5. Hmmm… Maybe I’m being a bit cynical but I can foresee some smart prosecuting attorney trying to use this ruling against a defensive shooter. After all, a warning shot could have/should have been used, or at least in their twisted legalist mind.

    • Just grand poobah morons in black robes doin what poobahs do.
      Next ruling,warning shots only legal for 45 colt and 44.40 calibers fired from a revolver and you must be wearing a microstamped stetson.

    • I was thinking same. can hear it now , you could have fired a warning shot or at most shot him in the leg.

  6. If your gun jams, youve lost all that leverage if they were not armed. Another reason not to fire a warning shot? I might get flamed but seems like it could make sense

  7. Warning shots should be legal. Unless they ricochet off and hit someone. Or hit and damaged private property. But anyone who shoots a warning shot into the air should be prosecuted.

    • Ammo is still to expensive to waste on warning shots. Besides, if you fear for your safety or the safety of loved ones enough to pull a firearm on an attacker. Use it. Otherwise maybe you didn’t need to pull it in the first place. Something I was taught 50+ years ago by my father.

      • Gee, my father taught me to fire warning shots into center mass, and as many as necessary.

      • Pulling your gun out and using the trigger. Or you don’t use the trigger is problematic regardless.

        You’ve elevated the situation. And you’ve got a lot of paperwork to fill out as well. As well as lawyer fees if you actually shoot somebody.

        That’s why I think warning shots done properly. Is much less expensive and might actually work to detour the aggressor.

        You can always follow up with 3 to the chest and 1 the head. Yes I know I got the number wrong. But I like using extra shot.

      • And what has been much of the legal recommendation for that same amount of time. In many states, a person firing a warning shot can be charged with negligent discharge and yes, even attempted murder (because they fired) but are not able to claim self-defense because they didn’t feel threatened enough to aim toward the attacker.

        • “In many states, a person firing a warning shot can be charged with negligent discharge and yes, even attempted murder”

          I would certainly be interested in hearing the details about these prosecutions.

        • minor wit your father should have been charged with negligent discharge and your mother……..well ……planned parenthood

  8. I’m not saying that warning shots can’t be a form of self-defense. But if you tell me a guy pulled a gun on you and you, fearing for your life, elected to shoot away from him, I’m going to have a hard time believing you.

    • Is brandishing equivalent to a “warning shot”? I used the mere threat of a gat and the miscreant fled(but I had a gat). I think it’s fairly dumb to fire a warning shot like Slow Joe advises. I wonder if he used that on Cornpop?!?😀

      • I used the warning click clack of an automatic knife a couple nights ago.
        It worked but I got a severe cussing out as the bad guy walked away.
        Somthing about a mutha F’ing G damn possum with a knife, highways, and sht splattered.

      • “Is brandishing equivalent to a ‘warning shot’?”

        It depends, context matters.

        “brandishing” a firearm is considered an application of deadly force as a ‘warning shot’ could be.

        But “brandishing” is not a projection of deadly force beyond the firearm as a ‘warning shot’ could be. And in some cases “brandishing” can be legal where firing a ‘warning shot’ is usually considered illegal.

        Generally, if “brandishing” was necessary (as a means of valid defense) to stop a persons ‘enacted’ or ‘imminent’ threat of great bodily harm or death upon you or another (or in some states to stop a felony being committed upon you or another) then its legal where a ‘warning shot’ would not be legal.

        The devil is in the details of the law of the state you are in. But in reality, brandishing is not equivalent to a ‘warning shot’, however, in a ‘deadly force’ law concept it may be equivalent in that aspect.

        • Note for clarification: ‘enacted’ vs ‘imminent’

          Although both could be the same..for example, basically; A bad guy 40 feet from you pulls out a knife and starts towards you would be ‘enacted’ where ‘imminent’ would be the bad guy is right there at you trying to stab you to death. In this example case “brandishing” would have been legal as a ‘means of defense less than applying projection of deadly force’, basically equal to means of warning the threat to stop, if the law says the threat must be imminent before you can fire.

          There have been lots of would be active/mass-shooters and would be active/mass-stabbers stopped this way before they could fire a shot or start stabbing, stopped by ordinary law abiding armed citizens. The ordinary law abiding armed citizen sees the threat ‘enacted’ by the would-be shooter or stabber actions as they enter the area and the citizen brandishes (without firing) and the would be active/mass-shooter-or-stabber runs off or goes someplace to commit suicide or sometimes simply surrenders without ever becoming ‘imminent’ to would be victims. These would be bad guys that for their action in this context would generally get charged with ‘garden variety’ crimes like some type of possession or attempt charges, maybe something else, and you never hear about them because the media doesn’t cover them because they did not become an actual ‘shooter or stabber’ thanks to the ordinary law abiding armed citizen ‘brandishing’.

        • But also remember, ‘brandishing’ – in some states you can go to jail for it no matter the circumstances.

      • The act of brandishing is using your gun in an act self-defense. You’re not shooting anyone. You’re not pointing it at anyone. But you still go to jail for it in some states.

  9. I just want to buy that 3 1/2″ S&W model 27. I had one when I was a young man and traded it against a Beretta model 62. Wish I had both back.

    • I immediately noticed that revolver in the article photo and thought, “Wow, that is a mighty FINE looking revolver that I would love to have.”

  10. So far all of the comments here appear to have missed one meritorious aspect of warning shots: when the defender is legally justified to use deadly force and the defender’s mindset does not allow him/her to potentially kill a human being–even when that human being is an attacker.

  12. When my sons grew up and took off out into the cold cruel world I told them this(among other things), ” Your gunm is like your dick, don’t pull it out unless your going to use it.”

  13. “…maybe it’s because they simply don’t fully grasp the ramifications of sending unaimed shots into the air or other directions, but the liberal judges sitting on the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a gun owner, saying “firing warning shots can be considered ‘self-defense.’””

    Just because it is a warning shot does not mean it is unaimed. It is just aimed at something other than the human you are warning.

  14. A warning shot is a form of non-lethal self-defense. The warning shot is no more dangerous or provocative than a shot fired right at the threat. It is a last-ditch attempt to not take a human life.

    “Tactically, warning shots are also a bad idea on a couple of fronts. Shooting in a direction away from the threat, such as in the air, to the left or the right or even toward the ground, can lead to bullets ricocheting or flying in directions that can harm innocent people, which will also put you in sometimes major legal jeopardy. They can also escalate a situation by creating the sound of shots that lead to other people shooting, because they are not sure exactly who the shots are aimed at or why. And, quite simply, warning shots can use up precious ammo a person has loaded in their gun and available to defend themselves should the warning shots fail and the attack continue or escalate.”

    Every single one of those objections is just as true of a shot fired at the threat, because those shots may well miss or over-penetrate. A moving human body is not the ideal bullet trap. It may “escalate” the situation by leading to the sound of a shot that leads to other people shooting, and as for the ammo question, that’s simply a fair judgment call for the shooter. If you’re carrying a semiauto with 15+1 or 17+1, you may fairly decide you can afford a warning shot.

  15. Warning shots should be on the table as an option. I don’t need the government or armchair self defense “experts” speculating on what happened at a given moment. Freedom!

Comments are closed.