In a practical sense, that’s true. However, if you claim that it was a “warning shot”, then you are telling the cops that in fact they weren’t close enough to be a threat. An anti-gun prosecutor would have no problem claiming that your recklessness lead to the “victim’s” death.
If you shoot at someone in self defense, you always tell the cops that you were shooting to kill because you were in fear for your own life. You never fire a “warning shot”. You never shoot to wound. “Honestly officer, it was him or me. I tried my best to kill him.”
As a practical matter, I agree.
I'm a CCW permit holder from way back. The only reason for the firearm to see the light of day is to use it. No piddling, no TV/movie games--if it comes out it is for one reaason only, to stop the perp before they stop me--and that means to shoot to kill.
They'd do the same to me.
But this fellow is in the legal position he is in, so I was just offering a thought on his defense.
I wonder if it is possible if he has offered the warning shot statement because he has not been counseled otherwise, truly meant to fire a warning shot, or is trying to avoid allegations of 'hate' because the shot was effective.