If a private citizen uses their weapon and it's determined that it was justified by the local authorities then no criminal charges will be filed but you are correct that the shooter can still be sued by the shooting victim if they survive or by their family if they do not. But don't forget just because the State declines to prosecute, the federal government can still investigate and charge the shooter if they feel that a violation of the victim's civil rights occurred.
If a police officer uses their weapon to kill someone, tradition has been that NOTHING happens to them personally, not financially nor criminally ( being prosecuted) even when their employer pays out millions to the shooting victims family in an wrongful death lawsuit (think Breonna Taylor). I don't know why you think this is comparable to CCW holders. More importantly, maybe you never go anywhere but I'm licensed to carry in more than half of the states in the U.S. and the laws are different in the individual states. It wasn't until I read about the Zimmerman case that I ever heard of using Stand Your Ground as an affirmative defense that allows you to just go on your merry way after having just killed someone but the state of Florida has some REALLY bad case law and precedents, it's also one of the states that I'm licensed in.
The Zimmerman defense never used the Stand Your Ground law. It was a simple case of a person being attacked that feared for his well being and possibly his life. Before he shot, he suffered two black eyes, a lacerated skull, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries. Under Florida law (like many states) he had the right to use deadly force. The Stand Your Ground nonsense was media hype.
Cities pay out these millions due to politics even if the officers decision was justified. In my city the Tamir Rice case proved that. The city paid this fat pig mother of this kid 7 million taxpayer dollars before the case was even heard. After a Grand Jury heard the arguments, they concluded (rightfully so) that the officer broke no laws. A suspect pulled out a realistic looking firearm when the police exited their car and one of the officers shot and killed him. So why the payout? Because most of our city is black, and the Mayor is black and wanted to be reelected.
Now, if this played out the exact same way with the removal of immunity, in spite of the city payoff, in spite of being ruled innocent by a Grand Jury, the fat pig mother could have still sued the officer, and with 7 million taxpayer dollars, she could hire the best lawyers unlike the then unemployed officer.
That statement is not even close to being true. There was a time when the state of Florida had posted on their website "A permit to carry a concealed weapon is NOT a permit to USE it. You must know the applicable laws regarding ......" I have tried to find that text many times but cannot. I can't remember if it was a part of the same quote or a different segment but they went on further to state that being issued a concealed carry permit does not confer police power upon the holder.
Nobody ever said it did. But a licensed shooter still has the legal right to use deadly force on behalf of himself or others.
Whether or not that is "perfectly legal" is debatable but it's stupid as hell. One of my mentors is also the firearm instructor and trainer who certifies me for my annual firearm re-qualifications and he has on more than one occasion stressed upon us that you don't risk your life over money/property. The businesses if they're operating properly are insured for whatever is being taken and your attempt to intervene could put the employees at even greater risk.
My scenario had nothing to do with money or property. Anytime a lowlife pulls out a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that he's prepared to use it.
About five years ago some scum robbed a gas station around the corner from me. When the lowlife showed his gun, the middle-east attendant backed off, put his arms up in the air, and the lowlife still killed him for the $50.00 in the cash register drawer. Same thing with my mailman. He was a hard working guy living with his mother to take care of her. Approached by a piece of shit with a firearm, he totally complied with his demands. He shot and killed my mailman in spite of that. The murderer got five dollars off of him.
Given the history that compliance does not guarantee safety or life, if I was in a store and shot an armed robber, I had (by law) every reason to believe that the clerk was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death, giving me complete legal authority to use deadly force to save the clerk.
And although the police and CCW holders DO NOT operate under identical standards and laws, I will concede that when talking a lawful self-defense claim the criteria is universal however do you honestly think you can shoot a fleeing criminal in the back and not be charged? Yet the police get away with that time and time again.
The immunity needs to go.
It's very rare that you hear of police shooting somebody in the back while the suspect is fleeing. The do have the right to do that if they know that the suspect is a threat to the general public. I can't because I am not privy to the information that officers have unless I have a police scanner with me.
The similarity however is that neither I nor the officer can use deadly force unless we believe there is a reasonable threat of serious bodily harm or death to ourselves or others. We both live by that law. The only exception that police have is they are legally allowed to address such a situation whereas I'm not by law; it's their job.
www.ocregister.com
