Warning shots get ‘self-defense’ protections too, high court rules

COLUMBUS — 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 con- victed on charges of feloni- ous assault with a firearm but not guilty of attempted murder. Four of the jus- tices 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 per- son,” the majority opinion, written by Justice Melody Stewart, wrote.

The court’s three liberals were joined in judgment (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 reflec- tive 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.

The justices vacated Wilson’s conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court.

The opinion stems from an altercation on the morn- ing of June 8, 2021, at a gas station in Springfield. It started with Wilson yelling at a man named Billy Ref- fet, 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.