https://www.wkbn.com/news/ohio/ohio-high-court-rules-on-firing-a-warning-shot/



If you want to nerd out on the court ruling:

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-Ohio-776.pdf

https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0307/221482.asp



more at the link

Interesting.....

Warning shots are dumb. Not saying it should be a crime if no one's hurt but it's still stupid.


If it's time to shoot people then shoot them, don't just waste ammo. Throwing around random rounds carries with it a huge liability.

The bullet never misses.

You're absolutely still accountable for every bullet fired.  It'll be very situation specific that lets you be successful with this argument.

Let me preface by saying I don’t think a warning shot is generally a good idea.

But, there are certain people who aren’t nearly as prepared or confident in defending themselves with lethal force who may turn to a ‘warning shot’ as a reasonable means of escalation on the defense continuum, with noble intentions, and I don’t think that they should be penalized for it.

For example there are multiple men on this site who have had to use lethal force in real world situations - let’s say a weaker individual with less resolve, or less confidence in their ability to use lethal force had been in that situation and fired a warning shot into the dirt. If said shot stopped the bad guy/threat why on earth would anyone argue that the shooter should be somehow punished?

Maybe I’m wrong but I tend to side with, and give a lot of grace to, anyone who is legitimately defending themselves.

If you intend to shoot someone, but miss, is that then a warning shot?

No, but it could be hard to prove otherwise.

Agreed. I think this is a good ruling.

According to the Ohio Supreme Court. A shot into a dudes car door frame he’s sitting in is not a warning shot. Good argument though.

Reasonable.

Not everyone is willing to prevent attacks with lethal force and saying that using a firearm by sending a warning shot to prevent escalation is not protected but shooting a mother fucker DRT, is? That sounds as dumb as it did the first time I heard it.

Yep

Jay

All of this.
Let's add to it the ones who've had to take a life and can't live with it. Would it not be fair to let them use a warning shot?

And yes, you're responsible for every bullet you free.

Imho, there are levels of escalation beyond zero and shot dead, because in our society, you can very easily be totally justified in shooting a very bad armed man DRT,  who admits he’s there to rape / murder you, but still lose everything in your life, home, car, retirement , job, saving, friends, family, wife, and serve life in prison simply if your on the wrong side of race, current politics, if you get the wrong prosecutor and a sympathetic jury who liked the dead guy more than you. If you can avoid killing someone, generally that’s a huge plus on every angle of this scenario because you won’t have legal protections and government money and lawyers backing you like a soldier killing a enemy soldier, cop shooting a armed felon, nuke security guard shooting a armed trespasser, etc, which is something you had best consider carefully before going weapons free in various situations. Because even if you’re 100% right in the situation, you can still lose everything.

Scenerio begins.

Verbal orders…. ……………………..FUCK OFF !  GET AWAY !  We called the cops !
Brandishing / showing your armed….im armed and will shoot you !
Warning shots
Wounding
Shot dead.

Obviously every encounters different, every bad guy, every bad guys intent, and location of incident.  Middle of New York City at a thanksgiving parade far different than only the two of you in the middle of Everglades national park on an isolated hammock. Many encounters you will be forced to immediately draw and shoot to kill and be lucky if you survive, others the confrontation drags out for hours because the bad guy isn’t actually attacking, just menacing you, making threats, etc , your inside and them outside, across a river, in a closet together, and everything in between.

Iv personally avoided three dangerous scenarios simply by showing I was armed, hostile aggressive behavior by others instantly turned into, nope, nope, nope, “ we’re good man, sorry, peace out ! “ some for sure could probably have legally gotten away with shooting them, due to the situation, had things gone ok in court, which isn’t ever guaranteed, but luckily never had to find out.

It’ll be great when that warning shot strays and hits some innocent person and kills them.

Agreed, But so does killing/seriously injuring someone.

In a perfect world the defender would be shielded from having their lives ruined from civil and malicious criminal prosecution if they actually used their gun in self defense.

Alas, if one can accomplish the same goal by a warning shot (in an intelligent direction) then all the good.

Good ruling.

If I have to bring a gun into a conversation, there won't be any warning shots. It's not coming out unless I need to use it.

Well said.

This. Most people really don't want to shoot and possibly kill another human even if that person poses a legitimate threat. They just want the threat to go away. If a warning shot ends the threat then that's fine. Court ruling is good. Punishing someone for defending themselves effectively while using restraint should be praised, not punished.

ETA: Above is assuming scenario allows the luxury of a warning shot and any subsequent shots, if needed,  are on target.

Cool, wonder if people will run with this?

Could this hypothetical happen?  Suppose you do shoot and kill someone in legitimate self-defense, then you get sued by surviving family for failing to use a warning shot first "because that would've been enough", you didn't need to kill him, blah blah blah.  I wouldn't be surprised if some ambulance chasing attorney looking for a big payout makes this argument.

This

I’ve fired a lot of warning shots in my life, what’s so dumb about them?

I agree. I don't generally think it's good tactics, but if shooting is justified that a warning shot shouldn't be penalized.

You have a fired lots of warning shots? Are you referring to using them against animals or people?

A bullet hitting your sternum at 1,000fps is a pretty good warning that your actions aren't appreciated.

It's really no different than the tards who see a body cam video and say "they could have just shot him in the leg!" because they watch too much TV.

This case exemplifies this since they were originally charged with attempted murder despite just firing a warning shot.

Mostly geese, quail (shouldn’t be distracted by the “easier” shot that pops up in the periphery as you are starting to fire) an occasional crossing shot on a pheasant, and most infuriating, a pheasant that was coming straight at me at high speed. Shot both barrels at him, the last I knew I was behind him, my back was arched, knees bent and shooting as far behind me as I could contort my body to be. After the miss I turned around and watched as a really easy going away shot on a rooster flew away.

LOL!

I have a cousin who has fired a shitload of warning shots at deer and doves.

Warning shots are a retards gamble

Guys like us know better, sure, but the average person who might own a gun and finds themselves in a self defense situation might fire a warning shot first, for all the reasons I listed above.

Is it a good idea? Probably not, but I’d never penalize someone who did that in a legitimate situation

A warning shot is called a miss~

The idea that a warning shot is somehow less legal and reasonable or more dangerous than actually shooting someone is completely asinine.

It may not be the best tactical move in all situations, but it's idiotic to say that they aren't reasonable self-defense actions.

Definite maybe