I think that there is no "intermediate step". Brandishing and warning shots are use of deadly force and are legally justified only in the same circumstances where firing to stop the attack is justified.
I have heard of a jurisdiction which is considering treating warning shots as less than deadly force but it hasn't happened yet.
Do you disagree with the laws concerning use of deadly force? Would you be seeking a conviction against Reeves if he brandished a gun rather than firing it?
My understanding of the law is that, if Reeves was wrong to shoot, then he would be wrong to display the firearm. Is that not the way the law is written?
You are hiding behind narrow legal distinctions.
I've seen statistics that well over 90 percent of defensive uses of firearms involve either letting the perp know you are armed or showing the perp you are armed - i.e., brandishment.
The one time I used a firearm for self-defense, this was the case.
This counters the anti-gunner propaganda that the only way to defend with a firearm is to kill someone.
The level of assault had not risen to the level where the shooter could reasonably feel his safety was in danger. You instead postulate about what the victim might have done - which is utterly immaterial in ANY context, legal or logical. If the shooter was reasonably worried for his safety, the next logical step is brandishment. That resolves the vast majority of such confrontations without bloodshed, and if the CCW carrier is wrong, the legal penalties are vastly less and no one has died for the wrong reason.
That is why you are being so absurd. But I am sure the gun-grabbers are thanking you for bolstering their case that CCW holders will shoot you for assault with salty food.
Your argument is with the state Attorney and police. They are who charged him.