Sorry. But whatever you were trying to say makes no sense to me.
I am saying the felon is probably glad that the victim fired a warning shot looking back on the situation now because the felon is still alive. I’m not saying it is right or a good thing however
Can you still argue qualified immunity at your war crimes tribunal for treating lady liberty like an underage prostitute? Just following orders didn’t work for the nazis, but maybe they didn’t try the qualified immunity angle.
An ND in AZ within city limits is a felony?
We aren’t talking about an ND or an AD. We are talking about the firing of warning shots. This is what it states under ARS 13-3107.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
There are numerous exemptions, but yes if someone reported it and if it was pressed it is entirely possible.
We had a police captain fail to clear an AR, shot a water pipe in the local station on accident, flooded it.
You know what happened to him?
Nothing.
… besides probably the shame, hazing and inability to make critical remarks against anyone without being reminded of “the incident”.
YMMV
Criminal negligence is a mental state where the person should have been aware of the risk but was unaware. Not sure an accidental ND would fall into that. I know it would not stick here. But it depends on the circumstances.
Pat
You are probably right. The warning shot scenario is anyones guess. Next week when I am in Alaska I will touch one off accidentally and see what kind of response I get. 
IIRC, the law is the same here as in AZ regarding discharges.
I think they should drop the charge, but a warning shot is a felony in Oregon. I actually think you’d get charged with endangerment or something, but I don’t really know.
However, it wouldn’t/won’t even make it to trial here. They’d drop it “in the interest of justice”.
My take:
Give him a lecture on the law and fine him $40.
“One man with courage makes a majority.”
And they are intentionally missing your target which has a whole set of possible negative ramifications.
That supports my earlier point about warning shots not being defined in most places. Warning shots aren’t specifically mentioned or defined in your ARS 13-3107. A DA would have to make the case that under the specific circumstances, the firing of a warning shot(s) constituted some form of criminal negligence or endangerment.
Under what statute? I looked and didn’t find anything. I’m not being argumentative, I’m genuinely interested in knowing.
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Laws like that are almost always cancelled out by further laws that speak to the defense of one’s person or property. In fact they have to be or you couldn’t even shoot inside your home.
Also I don’t see hoe this guy was criminally negligent. He did no harm and he intended to do no harm. In fact 100% of his actions were to do no harm while preserving his person and property.
I think at least one of those LEOs simply has an agenda saying the AR is too high pressure and dangerous, so he would of course push that criminal negligence point to support his ridiculous conclusion.
This is not the same as shooting a stop sign on a Friday night.