Published on March 10, 2024, 2:38 am

In a landmark decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that firing a warning shot can be classified as an act of self-defense. This ruling has sent seismic waves through the American legal system where such actions are rarely classified as self-defense. The court handed down this fractional verdict in favor of Tyler Wilson, who faced charges of felonious assault with a firearm while found not guilty of attempted murder.

This verdict reverses previous rulings by lower courts which stated that one cannot claim self-defense without shooting to injure or kill. However, the Supreme Court held that Wilson’s actions intended to fend off his aggressor are protected under Ohio’s self-defense laws. This ruling is seen as a win for gun rights, surprising many given its endorsement by three liberal judges and one conservative judge.

The case revolved around an incident at a gas station in 2021 where Tyler Wilson fired a warning shot at Billy Reffett’s car, asserting he did so in self-defense after Reffett threatened him and pulled out a weapon. Despite these allegations, a Clark County judge maintained that Wilson should have aimed at Reffett if he were indeed defending himself against a genuine threat.

Despite being exonerated of an attempted murder charge, Wilson was convicted for felonious assault and handed down more than ten years’ imprisonment. This initial judgment drew criticism from Rob Sexton of the Buckeye Firearms Association who argued it went against constitutional law.

In their 4-3 decision, the court concurred with Sexton’s assertion which he believes strengthens future claims for self-defense. This sentiment was expressed even though some justices traditionally skew away from active support for Second Amendment rights.

The opinion was authored by Liberal Justices Melody Stewart, Michael P. Donnelly and Jennifer Brunner with supportive concurrence from conservative Justice Pat Fischer who agreed but abstained from penning his own commentary.

Jonathan Entin, Law Professor at Case Western Reserve University speculated that the decision focuses less on gun rights and more on simplifying assertion of self-defense. He clarified that while the court has not officially ruled Wilson’s actions as self-defense, the jury should have been permitted to make that determination.

Contrarily, in a dissenting opinion Justice Joseph T. Deters voiced his belief that Wilson’s narrative did not indicate self-defense. This was because Wilson did not physically harm Reffett, which is key for felonious assault charges where the offender attempts to cause physical harm to another using a deadly weapon.

Entin agreed with Deter’s stand yet conceded that lethal violence is far from the ideal requirement for asserting self-defense. He admitted that should one aim to deter an assailant instead of resorting to killing or maiming them, it should still qualify as an act of self-defense.

This ruling marks a significant step forward in how we navigate personal defense in an ever-evolving America where predictability seems increasingly elusive. It brings us one step closer towards evolving our understanding and laws around what constitutes real and trusted acts of self-defense from a Christian worldview perspective.