MD: Warning Shot Cited as Evidence of Restraint in Self Defense Shooting

Gun Watch ^ | 15 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Many posters on the Internets have stated that "warning shots" would be taken as evidence that the shooter did not consider the threat to be deadly, or they would have shot center mass instead of firing the warning shot or shots.  In this case from Maryland, the prosecutor came to the opposite conclusion.

From cecildaily.com:

“He did everything he could have done. Maryland law says the person must first retreat if possible. He retreated as far as he could. He was backed up into a corner of his deck. He had nowhere else to go,” Rollins said.

The rival kept advancing, even after the warning shot, prosecutors said. Even so, prosecutors added, the homeowner still exercised some restraint.

The case also illustrates the principle of "disparity of force".  Disparity of force is the principle that even if your opponents are not armed, if there is sufficient difference in the level of force available to the participants that a reasonable person would fear for their life, that can be considered a deadly threat.   Large differences in size and age are common factors, as are multiple assailants.  Rollins is the prosecutor:

Rollins also pointed out that the homeowner was “outnumbered three-to-one” during the incident.

“One of the men who had come to the house with the woman was much bigger than (the homeowner). He was a big guy, over 6-feet tall and weighing about 300 pounds.”

The prosecutor called the case "...a classic case of self-defense,”.  An important point in the case was that even the three aggressors agreed on what essentially happened:

For the most part, even the versions given by the three who had showed up at the shooter’s home matched the account given by the shooter.

No prosecutor is bound by any other prosecutor's judgements.   But in this case, at least, this prosecutor found the firing of a warning shot to be evidence of restraint.

One last observation.  In spite of the clear explanation of the prosecutor, the headline writer felt compelled to put self defense in quotes: 

State's Attorney rules 'self-defense' in Elkton-area shooting

 ©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.    Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Just consider that this man armed himself for a possible confrontation, then had a confrontation, fired a warning shot, then fired to wound, and was found justified in liberal Maryland.

[sagar]

Regardless of this case, warning shots are idiotic. When you draw the weapon, you meant it to kill somebody. If you do not mean to kill, don’t draw.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"Disparity of force is the principle that even if your opponents are not armed, if there is sufficient difference in the level of force available to the participants that a reasonable person would fear for their life, that can be considered a deadly threat."

Can we say "Gentle Giant and officer Darren Wilson"?

[Riley]

Indeed. What’s next, you’ll get dragged into court and some idiot attorney will ask why you didn’t shoot the gun out of the perp’s hand?

[smokingfrog]

Fortunately, I don’t happen to live in the People’s Republic of Merryland.

[marktwain]

“Can we say “Gentle Giant and officer Darren Wilson”?

Yes. Very clear, with both physical evidence and eyewitness reports confirming the Officer’s account.

The left never let facts get in the way of an agenda.

[ThunderSleeps]

That's the way I was taught. You don't draw unless you feel your life or someone else's life is in grave danger. If that is the case, why would you fire a warning shot? Why are you not immediately ending the threat? Why are you endangering others with stray rounds? You are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon - no matter what the intent is, you are responsible for the result.

If it isn't life threatening, don't bring deadly force into play. (draw) If it is life threatening, end the {expletive} threat right now. What if your weapon jams after that spurious warning shot? While you're trying to clear it you or some other innocent ends up gravely injured or dead. When it is life or death, you take no chances, period.

[BobL]

“He was a big guy, over 6-feet tall and weighing about 300 pounds.”

A “Gentle Giant”, per chance?

[BobL]

One better BE READY TO USE A GUN, if one has a gun in his possession. The time to think out scenarios is BEFORE anything happens.

In this case, the guy is REALLY LUCKY, for a number of reasons, and really needs to be BETTER PREPARED for next time.

[DesertRhino]

Samurai talk aside, warning shots are not always idiotic. The drawn gun must not taste blood. That’s moronic. Warning shots are rare, but there is a time and place for everything.
In uncommon circumstances, it is a final communication to someone that you are indeed armed, and are switched on to their behavior.

Keyboard commando talk aside, it has resolved issues before. I know of an armed robber being pursued by a cop. After a winding chase through farm fields at night, the cop found it impossible to describe where he was. The bad guy bailed from the car and ran. Alone in the middle of nowhere, the cop fired a shot into the plowed earth. The crook dropped his gun and surrendered.
The US Coast Guard does it quite often too.
Fighters on intercept have used it to signal final intent.

In most circumstances, no, but its idiotic to say its always idiotic.

[DesertRhino]

We also draw to be ready. We also draw to be ahead of the curve. When we draw many things can happen. The bad guy can burst into prayer and surrender. They can decide to try to continue their action. They can flee. They can simply freeze and not comply, but not continue the action.
They can do almost anything. And yes Virginia, there are circumstances where you can not reasonably fire an accurate shot, but that you can signal your presence.

Say you see a feral attack on a loved one from a distance. Down by the river bank. You want the action to stop before they take one more kick to the head, but you cannot risk hitting the innocent one. That warning shot might be the thing that lets them know they had better flee or face you, rather than continue the attack. Because you are closing in.

And ever hear of SOP for prison fights on the yard? More than one of those has been stopped by a few warning rifle
shots from the tower indicating that the next shots will be lethal.
Warning shots have been used at roadblocks in the Middle East wars.

They are sometimes a terrible idea, and other times, just the ticket. Don’t be so linear, everything is on the table in bad situations.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This is legally tricky. It is much better that “warning shots” be both judgmental and based on that particular event, than if they try to legislate its rules.

Typically, an iron clad defense for shooting is that “I was in fear for my life.” If someone testifies to just that, without wavering, rephrasing, dealing with hypotheticals, or other lawyer tricks in which they change their testimony, they are extremely hard to convict.

But if you fire a warning shot, it shows that you had at least two frames of mind, not just fear. And that can be a legal minefield.

Instead of saying you fired a warning shot, it would be far better to say you accidentally discharged your first shot, “because I was in fear for my life.”

[Salamander]

My dad taught me to shoot based on the truth that a dead man can’t testify against me.

No warnings.

[Yo-Yo]

Instead of saying you fired a warning shot, it would be far better to say you accidentally discharged your first shot, “because I was in fear for my life.”

Uh, no.

[JAKraig]

When it is life or death, you take no chances, period. . . .

________________________________________________________

There are plenty of reasons to fire a warning shot. Showing a gun will usually stop the attacker if he is sane. The only time my weapon was uses it was only revealed in my belt, not even pulled out.

I have no desire to kill anyone who does not intend to kill or hurt me or can’t be persuaded to walk away instead of killing me or mine. While I practice two to center mass and one to the head if an aggressor stops after the first shot so will I. The truth is I believe that not only do I have to answer to the local law, I have to answer to my maker. I need to know I was more than legally justified, I need to be justified.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Warning shots are still legally nebulous around the US, so unless you are familiar with your state law, be very hesitant to claim one.

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/why-brandishing-shooting-wound-and-warning-shots-are-bad-ideas

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-theres-thing-warning-shot/

[festusbanjo]

I’d give a warning shot after I have emptied my clip into the thug. Dead punks are a great warning to other enterprising punks in the area.

[Yo-Yo]

Be even more hesitant to claim that you accidentially discharged your weapon without meaning to do so.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The reason being? That is, comparatively to the risks of claiming a warning shot.

[Yo-Yo]

Prosecutor: “So, Mr. Yefragetuwrabrumuy, you admit that you didn’t mean to fire your first shot but you did so accidentally. That is negligent discharge of a firearm, and you will be so charged. I believe your second shot that killed poor Detrauyn Smith (he was such a gentle giant who was turning his life around) was also an accident, which is criminal negligent homicide. You will also be charge with that, and we shall let a jury decide.”