Regardless of this case, warning shots are idiotic. When you draw the weapon, you meant it to kill somebody. If you do not mean to kill, don’t draw.
Can we say "Gentle Giant and officer Darren Wilson"?
Fortunately, I don’t happen to live in the People’s Republic of Merryland.
“He was a big guy, over 6-feet tall and weighing about 300 pounds.”
A “Gentle Giant”, per chance?
One better BE READY TO USE A GUN, if one has a gun in his possession. The time to think out scenarios is BEFORE anything happens.
In this case, the guy is REALLY LUCKY, for a number of reasons, and really needs to be BETTER PREPARED for next time.
This is legally tricky. It is much better that “warning shots” be both judgmental and based on that particular event, than if they try to legislate its rules.
Typically, an iron clad defense for shooting is that “I was in fear for my life.” If someone testifies to just that, without wavering, rephrasing, dealing with hypotheticals, or other lawyer tricks in which they change their testimony, they are extremely hard to convict.
But if you fire a warning shot, it shows that you had at least two frames of mind, not just fear. And that can be a legal minefield.
Instead of saying you fired a warning shot, it would be far better to say you accidentally discharged your first shot, “because I was in fear for my life.”
I’d give a warning shot after I have emptied my clip into the thug. Dead punks are a great warning to other enterprising punks in the area.