Jury Finds Ramirez Guilty On Three Charges In Warsaw Shooting Incident
By Liz Shepherd
InkFreeNews
Michael Raul Ramirez
WARSAW — After just over two hours of deliberation, a 12-peron jury found Michael Raul Ramirez guilty on three charges after he shot a person in Warsaw in April 2023.
Ramirez, 19, Warsaw, was found guilty of aggravated battery, a level 3 felony; and two counts of pointing a firearm, both level 6 felonies.
Ramirez’s sentencing is set for 10 a.m. April 18. Following the jury’s dismissal, Ramirez’s bond was revoked and he was remanded into the custody of the Kosciusko County sheriff.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Sobek continued the state’s case on Tuesday, March 12, by calling the shooting victim for testimony. The victim recalled two prior negative interactions he had with Ramirez, including one instance where Ramirez allegedly made hand gestures and cursed at the victim while at a Fort Wayne mall.
Hours before the shooting, the victim said his friend discussed speaking with Ramirez after receiving messages from him on social media. The victim testified that his friend appeared annoyed by the messages. In terms of weapons, the victim said he had nothing on him but that his friend had brass knuckles in the vehicle they drove in to Ramirez’s location. He also noted that no conversation took place on creating a game plan to fight Ramirez about the messages.
Upon arrival at Ramirez’s location, the victim said he saw Ramirez grab a knife and brandish a firearm. Ramirez kept repeating “I’m a loose screw” and said he would “shoot all you motherf*******.” At some point, the victim said he took off his sweatshirt because he got overheated and angry.
The victim said he was walking back toward the group’s vehicle when he felt a push and was shot while he was facing away from Ramirez. He said Ramirez kept punching him and that he attempted to tackle him.
He could not recall having a conversation with Warsaw Police Department Officer Ryan Piper while at the hospital. He described feeling very weak and being unable to breathe after being shot.
“I thought I was going to die,” said the victim.
Due to the shooting, the victim said his back ribs were fractured and bullet shards were left in his right lung. While hospitalized, the victim underwent a thoracotomy. He said he was hospitalized for a little under a full month and left the hospital against doctors’ recommendations. The victim showed the jury a scar near his right shoulder from the bullet.
Duane Whitman, a Lutheran EMS paramedic, said the shooting victim’s blood pressure and heart rate were both low when EMS arrived at the scene. The shooting victim was taken to Lutheran Kosciusko Hospital to get stabilized for transport to a hospital in Fort Wayne for trauma care. Whitman said the victim faced a substantial risk of death due to his injury causing his blood pressure and heart rate to drop.
In cross-examination, Defense Attorney Jay Rigdon asked the shooting victim if the group had permission to be at the Baker Street property where the shooting occurred. The victim said they did not and that Ramirez never told the group to leave.
He also said his friend never informed him prior to the shooting about going to the Baker Street property to physically confront Ramirez. The victim also denied going to his friend’s sister’s residence to look for Ramirez. He admitted to having a pair of brass knuckles on his person, but said he left them in the vehicle because he wasn’t planning on fighting anybody.
The friend, identified at trial as the brother of Ramirez’s girlfriend, testified that he had been good friends with Ramirez. When asked about a prior physical incident involving himself and Ramirez, the friend said he punched Ramirez because he thought Ramirez was going to “put hands” on his sister.
Hours before the shooting, the friend said he messaged his sister because he was told about a drug deal at the residence where the sister was at. After messaging his sister, the friend said he received messages from Ramirez that he deemed threatening in nature. He decided to go speak with Ramirez to resolve the situation.
He admitted to having 3D printed plastic knuckles on his person and to owning firearms, but said he always had the knuckles on his person. The friend testified that he did not bring any firearms to the scene.
He recalled seeing a purple laser flying around and said the shooting victim did not exit the vehicle until they saw Ramirez holding a firearm. The friend also said Ramirez was right next to the victim when he shot him. After the shooting, the friend took the firearm from Ramirez, unloaded it, and hid it in the vehicle. He admitted to hitting Ramirez with his plastic knuckles when Ramirez allegedly continued battering the shooting victim.
In cross-examination, the friend said Ramirez told them to leave and that Ramirez stayed on the Baker Street property the entire time. He said he and Ramirez socialized enough that Ramirez would be aware he owned a firearm. When asked about a message he sent to his sister about he and Ramirez “going outside in the backyard” and “promising it will not end well,” the friend said he did not tell anyone in the vehicle about the messages he sent.
The state’s final witness was WPD Detective Sergeant Jeff Ticknor, the case’s lead detective. Ticknor said he received a call from WPD Corporal Ryan Connors about the shooting and went to go take pictures of the scene.
Ticknor found a red stain on the house’s siding and assumed it was the shooting victim’s blood. A green sweatshirt with no bullet holes was collected from the scene. Pictures of scrapes on the friend’s arms, as well as an injury on Ramirez’s scalp, were submitted as evidence.
Ticknor also said he completed interviews with Ramirez, the friend’s girlfriend, and the friend’s sister. He spoke with the shooting victim about the incident a few days after it happened.
After Ticknor’s testimony, Sobek rested the state’s case.
Rigdon called one witness, the friend’s sister, for testimony. The sister said she and Ramirez had been dating for close to two years. She testified that she gave Ramirez money to buy a vape cartridge for her and that someone witnessed this and told her brother.
She and her brother then texted each other, with the brother telling his sister to tell Ramirez to “go outside in the backyard.” She told Ramirez about the message and took it as her brother wanting to fight Ramirez.
While at her residence, the sister said her brother and the shooting victim came to her home wearing masks and possessing brass knuckles, looking for Ramirez. They did not say anything to the sister while they were there. After they left the residence, the sister contacted Ramirez via Facetime and told him what happened.
During their Facetime conversation, the sister overheard the group arriving at Ramirez’s location and recalled Ramirez telling them to leave multiple times, describing them as “talking crap back and forth.” Through the call, she said she saw Ramirez point a beam at them.
She said her brother was okay with Ramirez being with her that day until he was informed about the vape cartridge deal. In cross-examination, Sobek told the sister she did not mention anything about the mask incident or being able to physically see the fight in her interview with Ticknor.
The sister also said she tried telling Ramirez to not respond to her brother’s messages, but gave up on doing so.
Ramirez did not testify.
Prior to closing arguments, a juror was excused due to a clerical error in which the juror was mistaken for someone else. The jury’s sole alternate took that juror’s place.
In his closing argument, Sobek said Ramirez wanted to shoot someone that night and relished the opportunity to do so. He also argued Instagram messages Ramirez sent to his girlfriend’s brother showed Ramirez was not over being punched by him, even though the brother thought otherwise.
Sobek also questioned how the case could be ruled as self-defense when the victim was shot in the back. He argued forensic evidence supported the shooting victim being able to get to the residence’s garage with one last push of strength to tackle Ramirez. Sobek further questioned how it was possible a fight was going to start because the shooting victim’s injury was a straight line through the back of his body.
Rigdon argued Ramirez was threatened by his girlfriend’s brother to start a fight, also noting inconsistencies in the brother and the shooting victim’s testimonies. These inconsistencies focused on which individuals were at certain locations before and during the incident.
He also focused on Ramirez’s perspective, noting that Ramirez knew the brother owned a firearm and had fought him before, and that he knew the shooting victim was an MMA fighter.
“While they were all standing out there at midnight?” asked Rigdon. “Isn’t it possible for him to believe they were there to do him some harm?”
He said the state’s policy on self-defense applied to Ramirez, stating he used reasonable force to protect himself.
Rigdon also reminded the jury of the two women’s testimonies about not watching the physical fight when it occurred, saying they didn’t want to lie on the stand but did because they saw the shooting victim go for Ramirez first.
“Michael Ramirez was exercising his right to stand his ground,” said Rigdon. “If Michael is not allowed to do this, then nobody is.”
Sobek concluded that Ramirez may not have started the altercation, but entered into it willingly.
Related Article