For what it's worth, a friend of mine was successfully prosecuted for firing a warning shot - more specifically, for discharging a firearm in an area where shooting is prohibited. He had no prior criminal record.
There were a couple of meth heads in his front yard - the father of his wife's daughter and the father's girlfriend. They had come onto his property to argue their custody case. They tore up his front yard with their car, cursing and threatening him and his wife all the while. Then the woman advanced on him, still cursing, with her right arm behind her back (it turned out she was holding a Jack Daniels bottle behind her back though my friend did not know at the time what if anything she was holding), even though my friend held his pistol in plain view at his side. At one point, my friend yelled, "That's far enough, damn it!" and fired a single round into the turf to the right of his feet. That put an end to the physical confrontation, but resulted in his prosecution. I'm sure most will agree with me that he ought not to have been even charged, much less prosecuted. I'm equally sure you can all think of instances in which the police and prosecutor did not exercise appropriate discretion and/or an innocent was convicted. Were I his priest, I would commend him for having put an end to a dangerous confrontation without harming a hair on his antagonist's head, much less exacting retribution. Were I his lawyer, I would suggest that his warning shot might be construed as an admission that he did not think himself in danger, and that it would be more prudent to wait just a little longer then shoot his antagonist to the ground. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
