Just a couple of thoughts from another two tour (two and one half years actually-August 1965-February 1967 and November 1967-November 1968) Vietnam veteran.
The amount of time I spent over there has nothing to do with, no impact upon, my experience or ability to expound on the problems one will face after using deadly force forty+ years later here in what we called "The Land of the Big PX".
Ten years and eight months (I often round up to eleven years) as a patrolman, detective and sergeant on a police department PROBABLY does not, either. That I have used deadly force as a police officer (I never discuss that) MAY give me more insight than others, but not necessarily.
Twenty-six years and three months as a Prosecutor in itself MAY or MAY NOT impact my ability to do so, dependent on what my role as a prosecutor was. I know prosecutors who spent their time in traffic (i.e. DUIs), consumer fraud, white collar crimes, etc.
From December of 1984 until I retired in September of 2007, I was in and then in charge of, our Special Prosecution Unit aka Major Crimes and additionally supervised a regular felony division (which handled every felony from Felony Suspended Driver's License cases to Murder in the First Degree), our Career Prosecution Division, which prosecuted, under Florida's Habitual Offender Statutes, recidivists, and Drug Court (which worked with other agencies to get relatively minor felony offenders out of substance abuse with the goal of returning the offender to society not ot offend again (actually, it worked more often than one might think-though there were failures, some of them spectacular). I have tried a LOT of jury trials, and five civil cases under our Jimmy Ryce Act.
I investigated fatal shootings by law enforcement officers and more than a few by civilians (yeah, I know, many don't like to distinguish between cops and civilians-but there is a difference IMO).
I have taught at our Police Academy since 1981(mostly search and seizure and use of force) and continued to do so after I retired. I thought I was done with that because of the State's money crunch, but have recently been asked to meet next week to discuss more classes scheduled this next year, again, much to my surprise since I didn't think there'd be any money for new classes.
I have taught CCW classes since 1993 for two different FFLs and my classes are very heavily structured towards Florida's laws governing the use and carry of firearms including deadly force.
So, is it fair to say I am qualified to tell you what the aftermath of what you claim to be a self-defense shooting will be like?
NO! I don't know doodly about the laws regarding self defense in your state. I am licensed to practice law in Florida and a couple of Federal Courts. I know, and have read in some of the excerpts of statutes from other states here and elsewhere, that different states have different takes on self-defense.
Even in Florida there are twenty different Judicial Circuits with twenty different elected State Attorney answerable to no other person or entity, save the electorate. I have seen people charged in other circuits that I truly believe would never have been charged on the same facts in my circuit. (If you want to believe I am talking about Miami, you are, at least, partially correct).
So my expertise, if any I have, is limited to Florida law and what I say about the aftermath of a self-defense shooting is limited to my knowledge and interaction with other State Attorney's Offices and law enforcement agencies (I have prosecuted in other circuits based on what we call "Governors' Appointments), and my experience here in TampaBay.
To say that you WILL receive a visit from a process server and be called upon to answer civilly for your actions in shooting someone is ridiculous. I know of only a very few cases where the shooter, cleared by law enforcement and our State Attorney, was sued. I know of only five police officers and their departments and cities or counties that were sued after a self defense shooting. One is still pending I believe and, IMO, that one is unlikely to result in a verdict for the plaintiff.
In one, in Tampa, the city settled for $35,000.00 in what was clearly a good shoot by a police officer because the city claimed it would cost more than that to defend the suit. Two others did not even get to the point of a trial and the remaining one (where the police officer had been indicted for manslaughter and acquitted) resulted in a verdict for the City.
But I can't speak to other places in Florida or to other states.
As to the prosecutor making some "big deal" out of the weapon or ammuntion used or carried, as one poster already correctly, IMO, pointed out, once the shooter is a defendant, the prosecutor should use every "weapon" at his disposal within the bounds of the Rules that govern a lawyer's conduct (yes, there are actually rules that do that) and within the admonition that a prosecutor must seek justice, not merely a conviction. At that stage, he is no longer in the investigative stage of the matter, but has become an advocate for the prosecution of that defendant.
As to "lawyering up" it sounds good, but, IME, this is what will happen:
Shooter, " I will be happy to discuss this when my lawyer is present!"
Cop, "OK, here's the phone, go ahead and call him."
Shooter, "Uhhhhhh, I don't have one yet."
Cop, " OK, here's the Yellow Pages, go ahead and look through the Attorney pages and call one."
Shooter, "Uhhhhhh, ...."
Cop, "What's wrong?
Shooter, " I can't really afford to hire..., can I get a Public Defender?
Cop, "Well, no. The way it works (in Florida) is that you don't get a court-appointed lawyer unless you are in custody or charged and a court determines you can't afford to hire a lawyer, and we haven't done either of those things to you."
Shooter, "Does that mean I am free to go?"
Cop, "Not right now. Florida's law (Chapter 901.151) lets us hold you, temporarily, to determine the circumstances of this situation."
I think Mas Ayoob has it just about right. Make sure the cops know you are not denying you were the shooter, that you only shot because the guy assuming room temperature over there was trying to kill you with that gun lying next to him, that, for example, the door over there was broken open by him before you shot and, again, for example, that those folks standing over there with the crowd were witnesses. Make sure the cop knows you WILL talk to him, but only need time to calm down and call someone to be with you when you talk to him.
The cop will understand if you (and you may have to actually say this) remind him that, in police shootings, cops have their lawyer present when they give a statement.
And, for goodness sake, follow through. If you told the cop you'd talk, do so as soon as you can get a lawyer. IMO, failure to do so is the best way to plant the seed in the officer's mind that "maybe this isn't what is seems, did I miss something"?
Hiring a "put-bull?" You know, better than anyone else, whether the shooting was justified. If you know it wasn't and the cops are likely to agree, then the "pit-bull" may be a viable choice in lawyers. But, make sure the "pit-bull" is not all mouth. I will bet Cajunlawyer and HoustonRick and others here could tell you stories about those lawyers who talk tough, even promise results, yet are, simply, all mouth. I know I could. I have seen prosecutors win weak cases because the defendant's lawyer was such a jerk that he turned the jury against the defendant.
Consider engaging a lawyer respected by the police and state. One who can be tough when called for yet having credibility with both the police and prosecutors. Word of mouth, not Yellow Page ads are, IMO, the best way to find a lawyer.
It would be smarter, but most will never do this, to spend a few bucks, meet with the above-type lawyer, and explain that, if you ever need one, you'd like him to represent you and you'd like to put his cell in your speed dial. But I don't personally know anyone who has ever done this.
Your "errant shot" hit an innocent bystander? Why would you not expect that you are responsible for every single round you discharge? Maybe not criminally, in fact, at least here, probably not criminally, but civilly, almost certainly.
Again, this is just my opinion based on my admittedly limited experiences in this little corner of Florida.
I am not trying to put down other posters or their opinions (except that I disagree with some statements) but want to suggest you think about the best course of action and conduct IF you find yourself in the position of explaining why you shot someone.
One afterthought. The police are not your friend. True! But, they are not your enemy, either. They are just men and women who have the job of figuring out what happened at a time in the past.
The finest times of my career, bar none, were those when I was able to figure out that someone, accused or suspected of a crime, did not, in fact, commit a crime and stop the system from proceeding against the person. I know many think there is no benefit to the cop or prosecutor in that event, but, respectfully, you are really wrong. Setting aside the obvious benefit of the lack of a nagging conscience when you do the right thing, the respect you earn from your fellow prosecutors, bosses and leos is, to steal the words of a commercial, priceless.
Bob
