A Clark County man was entitled to argue self-defense when he intentionally shot toward a person, and was not required to show he intended to kill or harm the man who threatened him, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today. [More]
While I don’t recommend warning shots, there’s no one-size-fits-all, it worked, and no one was hurt or killed. If history, text, and tradition are the new standards, there’s gotta be a place for “shot across the bow.”
Inducing someone you don’t know to “back off” seems a perfectly legitimate reason for self defense, especially considering what could have happened.
It’s interesting that the three judges against the self-defense claim were Republicans, with three Democrats and one Republican ruling in the citizen’s favor.
[Via JG]
