Ohio supreme court said warning shots can be considered in a self defense claim

[M-Quigley]

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2024/03/ ... rules.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Firing a warning shot in lieu of shooting a person can still be considered by courts as an act of self-defense, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

In a split decision, the court ruled in favor of Tyler Wilson, who was convicted on charges of felonious assault with a firearm but not guilty of attempted murder. Four of the justices reversed lower court rulings that found a claim of self-defense isn’t viable from a person who didn’t shoot to wound or kill. But the Supreme Court held that Wilson’s shooting with a stated intent to “back [an aggressor] off” is protected by Ohio’s self-defense laws.

“The only additional ‘intent’ required is the intent to repel or escape force, not an intent to use force to harm or kill another person,” the majority opinion, written by Justice Melody Stewart, wrote.

The court’s three liberals were joined in judgement (not the full opinion) by conservative Justice Pat Fischer to form the coalition in favor of Wilson. The three other conservative justices dissented. The case is reflective of Ohio’s loosened gun laws, amended over the past several years to build new legal protections for those who shoot others in purported self-defense.

What I don't understand is the part below that I bolded.

The opinion stems from an altercation on the morning of June 8, 2021, at a gas station in Springfield, east of Dayton. It started with Wilson yelling at a man named Billy Reffet, accusing him of nearly swiping his car while driving. Reffet backed his truck up, aligning window-to-window with Wilson’s. The two men began yelling at one another. According to Wilson, Reffet said he was going to “smoke” Wilson and then pointed a gun at him. Reffet denies this. A security camera nearby didn’t capture exactly what happened.

Wilson then grabbed a gun and shot above Reffet’s car.

“All I wanted to do was make noise to get him out of my face,” he said at trial. “That man had a gun to me, and I don’t even know how. I got one shot out of the vehicle, and it did its job for real.”

Whether it's legal or not, from a strictly common sense or tactical standpoint, why would you fire a warning shot at someone who had a gun pointed at you?

[schmieg]

I do find it interesting that Joe Deters was in the dissent in this case and the other one you posted. When Joe was a prosecutor here in Hamilton County, he was very pro gun. He was the prosecutor who made the famous statement that when you attempt to rob a store, you forfeit the right not to be shot and, if I recall correctly, that was in a case where the store owner chased the scumbag out of the store before nailing him.

[M-Quigley]

I do find it interesting that Joe Deters was in the dissent in this case and the other one you posted. When Joe was a prosecutor here in Hamilton County, he was very pro gun. He was the prosecutor who made the famous statement that when you attempt to rob a store, you forfeit the right not to be shot and, if I recall correctly, that was in a case where the store owner chased the scumbag out of the store before nailing him.

I was surprised as well. Take a look at the case I posted about the taxi driver who got his conviction overturned (i posted an additional link in case the 1st one doesn't work) Deters was part of the dissent on that one as well, if I read it correctly. . It almost makes me want to vote for his opponent in November, but his opponent will probably be even more anti self defense as he seems to be now.

[schmieg]

I don't think that he's anti-self defense and I know he is a stickler for the law and sometimes the law takes us places we would rather not go, but, as judges and attorneys, we are forced to.

[Chuck]

It sounds like a negligent discharge while trying to get the gun out the window to shoot
And as he said "it did its job for real.”

If simply pointing a gun, or just showing one can be considered using a gun for self defense, why can't a round in the ground if a few BG are approaching in a bad time and place?

[M-Quigley]

I don't think that he's anti-self defense and I know he is a stickler for the law and sometimes the law takes us places we would rather not go, but, as judges and attorneys, we are forced to.

If that is in fact what he is doing then I can understand. Unfortunately I've seen too many cases of judges and justices merely trying to come up with a rationale to apply to their own pre formed opinion or politics about a subject in general instead of a dispassionate interpretation of the law.

[schmieg]

I don't think that he's anti-self defense and I know he is a stickler for the law and sometimes the law takes us places we would rather not go, but, as judges and attorneys, we are forced to.

If that is in fact what he is doing then I can understand. Unfortunately I've seen too many cases of judges and justices merely trying to come up with a rationale to apply to their own pre formed opinion or politics about a subject in general instead of a dispassionate interpretation of the law.

That is what we call judicial legislation and what judges (and attorneys in evaluating cases) should make an effort to avoid.