Warning shots from a double barrel shotgun is sufficient.
Brandon said so.
Case closed.
While I don’t know if Wilson is a good guy or not—The Warning Shot as a self defense “tool” makes sense—especially if it works. If the warning shot averts injury or worse, then it served its purpose.
Granted there are those that will argue that a warning shot should never be fired, and perhaps Mr. Wilson intended to do damage but failed to do so—hence his warning shot argument.
Another court ruling on self-defense below. This one didn’t turn out as well for Second Amendment supports.
For instance, this makes little sense:
“Ocean State Tactical, along with four individual gun owners, promptly challenged the law in federal court, but a U.S. District judge turned down their request for an injunction, and on Thursday the First Circuit Court of Appeals did the same. In its ruling the three-judge panel concluded that while the banned magazines might be commonly owned, they’re not commonly “used” in self-defense.”
“First Circuit Denies Injunction Request for Rhode Island Mag Ban”
“I responded by firing a warning shot through his liver, sir.”
Interesting.
This may be one of those Court decisions that creates more questions than answers.
It’s late and I’m not up to sourcing it right now, but I was under the impression that in Ohio it was not legal to shoot to kill or shoot to wound or shoot to warn, but only legal to shoot to stop...to stop an aggressor from doing deadly harm or great bodily damage.
On another note, whether one intends to shoot to stop, shoot to kill, shoot to wound, or shoot to warn, the four rules still apply.