They don't square. The author (whoever it was) and I disagree. It does not make sense to me to say a warning shot is never okay because it is deadly force.John, how does your interpretation square with this article from about a year ago? It was written by one of those gun owner self-defense insurance firms.
First, one of the things I said earlier in this thread is that if you fire a warning shot, it should be clear to everyone that it is a warning shot. That's a major problem with the "warning shot" that is the subject of this thread. If it really was intended to be a warning shot, how did it kill someone?
But I digress. If it's not clear that it is a warning shot, then it is instead an attempt to shoot someone (there aren't really matters of degree here). An attempt to shoot someone is not categorically wrong, obviously. That's what self defense is about. So, if you use self defense under circumstances where deadly force is authorized, what is the issue?
If it really is clearly a warning shot, then you have not really used deadly force. You have just threatened to use deadly force. If you do that under circumstances where threats of deadly force are authorized, again, what is the issue.
Mind you I am not recommending warning shots, and I think they are too often used under circumstances where they are ill-advised. But I cannot say categorically that they are illegal.