Crime & Courts

Richmond Co. | Columbia Co. | Aiken Co. |

Man said he fired gun to scare attackers

  • Follow Crime & courts

Authorities were called to the 2300 block of Turkey Trail Drive in Hephzibah after a man fired three shots in the air about 3 p.m. Sunday.

Olando Kensha Brown, 25, told officers he fired to scare off two women who had attacked his mother in his yard.

Brown was charged with aggravated assault.

Comments (59) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
1CowboyFan
0
Points
1CowboyFan 10/05/10 - 04:28 am
0
0
How can shots fired in the

How can shots fired in the air be a aggravated assault charge?

Georgialina
7441
Points
Georgialina 10/05/10 - 05:00 am
0
0
Cowboy, that was the question

Cowboy, that was the question I had as soon as I read this. If this is the TRUE and Full account then this is absolutely the wrong charge.

slickrayder
33
Points
slickrayder 10/05/10 - 05:10 am
0
0
hey guys,,,well i may sound

hey guys,,,well i may sound crazy,but aggravated assault is ,if u scare someone to the point that they feel like there life is indanger,that is aggravated assault. may not be right but thats what the law states....but u go dude , better be glad it wasnt me ,attack my mom,,,,it would have been murder....

nofrillls13
0
Points
nofrillls13 10/05/10 - 05:21 am
0
0
I dont understand that law.

I dont understand that law. So if somebody comes to my house and bothers my mom, I am not allowed to pull my gun and fire a warning shot? Okay, I can live with that. I'll just shoot the suspect in the head because I sure dont want him to live and be able to sue me for shooting him. It's laws like this that makes it hard to protect our property or loved one's.

johnston.cliff
2
Points
johnston.cliff 10/05/10 - 05:31 am
0
0
You've got it, nofrills 13,

You've got it, nofrills 13, you do understand the law. The other law you need to understand is that if you shoot someone in the head, a body laying around to be found will lead to worse problems than a suit. These are like tandem laws.
And then, there's the problem of potential witnesses. Well...you can see the cascading difficulties.
The moral to this story is to not use a "fired gun" warning as your first level of home defense.

fatboyhog
2104
Points
fatboyhog 10/05/10 - 05:45 am
0
0
There has to be more to this

There has to be more to this story. To get warrant for Aggravated Assault, one must have to attempt to rob, rape, or murder, or fire from a moving vehicle. I suspect that something has been omitted from this story.

fatboyhog
2104
Points
fatboyhog 10/05/10 - 05:45 am
0
0
There has to be more to this

There has to be more to this story. To get warrant for Aggravated Assault, one must have to attempt to rob, rape, or murder, or fire from a moving vehicle. I suspect that something has been omitted from this story.

fatboyhog
2104
Points
fatboyhog 10/05/10 - 05:47 am
0
0
No frills, you should never

No frills, you should never fire a warning shot. Plain and simple. If you are justified in presenting the weapon, then make the shot count. Real life is not like TV. That warning shot has to go somewhere.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 10/05/10 - 06:33 am
0
0
No, in THIS case the warning

No, in THIS case the warning shot was called for and law be damned. The son appears to have done the RIGHT thing as far as putting human life before law and due to the fact he could have hit his own Mother. The only reason to fire at the female attackers would be if they did not stop/move away, or presented weapons (yes I know many cases where I would fire to kill ) The absurd, stupid law (if is one) of not being able to fire warning shot of course needs to be changed, which is unlikely because police and most D/R politicians want citizens disarmed. Put me on this kids jury!

RAWR
0
Points
RAWR 10/05/10 - 07:08 am
0
0
There is no situation that

There is no situation that warrants warning shots. Those bullets have to come down somewhere. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there. Firearms are not to be used to scare people, especially with warning shots. TK3 I hope you never serve on a jury with a situation like this. You are also incorrect about police and politicians.

PUPPYMOMMA
1367
Points
PUPPYMOMMA 10/05/10 - 07:22 am
0
0
I want TK3 on my jury if I

I want TK3 on my jury if I ever had one(hopefully never). I guess this man was suppose to call 911 and wait for response while his mother suffered a beating by two women. If the man had jumped in to pull them off he probably would have had to wrestle with one or two of them. Sometimes women can be just as brutal and blood thirsty as some men. He would probably have scratches on his face in his mugshot. They would have arrested him for simple assault or battery. Can't win for losing. I hope his mom is okay.

Little Lamb
49247
Points
Little Lamb 10/05/10 - 07:28 am
0
0
RAWR wrote: There is no

RAWR wrote:

There is no situation that warrants warning shots.

It is usually wrong to use absolutes like “always,” “never,” and “no situation” when describing human behavior.

RAWR
0
Points
RAWR 10/05/10 - 07:38 am
0
0
It is not wrong to use that

It is not wrong to use that absolute. If the situation warrants firing a gun then it needs to be at the person or thing that escalated it to deadly force.

You people who think its justifiable to fire a warning shot please let me know where you reside so I can stay far away from you.

WW1949
19
Points
WW1949 10/05/10 - 07:47 am
0
0
RAWR, who says a warning shot

RAWR, who says a warning shot has to be fired in the air. In the dirt would send the same message. The sound is what scares. Do you think that would change the charges. Put me on that mans jury and I would never convict him for trying to protect his family no matter what the law says.

usafvet
3
Points
usafvet 10/05/10 - 07:56 am
0
0
Don't state that you can only

Don't state that you can only issue an aggravated assault if..........
That warrant can (and has been) be issued if you point your FINGER at some one and say, "if that happens again, I will call the law". I agree that a weapon should not be fired in the air. The projectile will return to earth. Further, do not pull/brandish a weapon if you are not ready to use it. Think now, before anything presents itself, can you shoot someone? If not, leave the weapon elsewhere. It could be taken from you and used to kill you, your mom, or anyone else once lead begins flying. Too often the weapon is just like the person's brain, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO USE EITHER.

RAWR
0
Points
RAWR 10/05/10 - 07:55 am
0
0
Warning shots into the dirt

Warning shots into the dirt are dangerous as well. Ricochets and ground debris comes to mind when thinking of that.

usafvet
3
Points
usafvet 10/05/10 - 07:59 am
0
0
WW1949 is right, IF a shot is

WW1949 is right, IF a shot is fired, it should be in the ground and at least further out than your toes.

PUPPYMOMMA
1367
Points
PUPPYMOMMA 10/05/10 - 08:03 am
0
0
He probably should have

He probably should have pulled out the water hose. It's good for breaking up dog fights, probably good for cat fights, too!

TK3
562
Points
TK3 10/05/10 - 08:12 am
0
0
Dear usafvet/RAWR; If either

Dear usafvet/RAWR; If either of you guys decide the situation calls for shooting-to-kill (in this case the women) instead of warning them, fine, just don't support a law, in effect, requiring, shoot to kill first. If in such a situation you are more afraid of possible dangers of firing into the air or ground than shooting at three unarmed women fighting, one being your Mother, you best not even have a weapon.

justus4
113
Points
justus4 10/05/10 - 08:27 am
0
0
Ya see how so-called laws are
Unpublished

Ya see how so-called laws are enforced...it dates back to the 1800s and exits until this day. A minority citizens acting to protect his family or property will be deemed "violent" while others will be portrayed "all Americans" acting EXACTLY in the same manner. That's the history and that's the obvious pattern, which is extremely clear in this case.

TeamLoser
1
Points
TeamLoser 10/05/10 - 08:27 am
0
0
RAWR is correct about

RAWR is correct about ricochets, to see the true effect you need to shoot at night.

So he can attempt to disperse the people using a firearm in a manner where no one was injured, and he got charged for that. Aggravated assault is a serious charge, I expect they will offer to plea it down to something minor so they still get their conviction.

He can shoot someone, if he was charged for just firing a gun into the air I am sure RCSO would have charged him if he shot them even in defense.

He could do nothing, call the police and wait for them to show up, hopefully they can find the address, I have had to flag them down before so they could find my house. Maybe when the police arrive he will be lucky and no harm will have occurred while waiting on them, or maybe someone will be injured or worse.

usafvet
3
Points
usafvet 10/05/10 - 08:46 am
0
0
TK3, please reread and this

TK3, please reread and this time read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote. At no time did I suggest that this instance dictated shooting at all, much less shoot to kill. Personally, I would never fire warning shots. Chances are slim that one of my shots will be errant and strike an innocent person. Reading and comprehension is a lost art.

blakkone
72
Points
blakkone 10/05/10 - 08:47 am
0
0
Judge Overstreeet fires his

Judge Overstreeet fires his weapon to protect his property = HERO. Man less important to society fires his weapon to protect his property (or in this case, loved one) = ARRESTED. I dont get that difference.

I dont think this man was worried about the correct interpretation of the law during the heat of the moment. If he had not done what he did, the next storyline would read...MOTHER ATTACKED AND MURDERED BY TWO WOMEN. SUSPECTS STILL AT LARGE.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 10/05/10 - 08:49 am
0
0
Dear RAWR; Please note I said

Dear RAWR; Please note I said MOST, not all, and that mainly applies to police whereas I can count on one hand sitting Congressional politicians who have not tried to disarm citizens in one way or another, despite their political rhetoric in public! "You are also incorrect about police and politicians."

pommom38
1496
Points
pommom38 10/05/10 - 09:02 am
0
0
The difference is that in the

The difference is that in the Judge's case, the one shot was inside the home and armed. These women were outdoors fighting. With some of the opinions here, the body count in RC is fixing to sky rocket! Oh yes, people fighting so shoot!! Wrong! We definately don't have all the details here, I don't understand the serious charge, but also don't understand half the gun laws nowadays.
If someone is in my yard and fighting, then yes, I wait for the law to come. If they come in my home and start crap, I would think I could lawfully shoot. However with this article, I am led to believe I can not!

flipa
35
Points
flipa 10/05/10 - 09:12 am
0
0
Call 821-1080 first, get your

Call 821-1080 first, get your co2 gun and have your firearm ready. If the ladies attack your mom pop them a couple of times in soft parts below the neck with a bb to back them up and give the cop something to laugh about when he arrives. But PLEASE do not ever fire into the air. If you MUST, fire into the SOFT DIRT away from your own foot then call U.S.

dani
13
Points
dani 10/05/10 - 09:10 am
0
0
I always thought that what

I always thought that what goes up, must come down. When you fire into the air, where does the bullet go?

KingJames
11
Points
KingJames 10/05/10 - 09:12 am
0
0
That has to be the stupidest

That has to be the stupidest arrest I've ever heard of! How about get some descriptions of the attackers and start looking for them instead of arresting someone for protecting his mother.

burninater
9943
Points
burninater 10/05/10 - 09:37 am
0
0
dani -- I always thought that

dani -- I always thought that what goes up, must come down. When you fire into the air, where does the bullet go?
---
You're right, dani. I lived in Mesa, AZ for a couple of years and a girl was killed in her yard by a stray bullet someone had shot in the air during a party a couple of miles away (if I remember correctly -- I'm pretty sure they were able to trace it back to the firearm based on witness reports of the original shots). They have a separate law for that now as a result (Shannon's law) which makes it a felony to randomly shoot into the air. Glendale PD actually has equipment that can locate shots being fired in the open ...

libertarianvoter
0
Points
libertarianvoter 10/05/10 - 09:50 am
0
0
I don't blame the guy for

I don't blame the guy for doing what he thought was the right thing, but it really wasn't the right thing to do, unfortunately. It seems he was just trying to protect him mom. Who knows what would've happened if he would have sat by and waited on the law to come. I know I wouldn't be able to watch my mom get beat up for even 2 seconds.

I just hope the girls/women get what's coming to them and I hope the charges of aggravated assault are dropped from him due to the circumstances.

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

City inspectors look to demolish Goodale House

Rob Sherman, director of Augusta's License and Inspection Department, said his staff plans to ask a State Court judge in early 2015 to order the endangered property, which was built in 1799 and is ...
Search Augusta jobs