Originally Posted by
joshrunkle35
I don't know if I would suggest that at all. The laws governing a private citizen shooting and an officer shooting are vastly different. There's usually a tiny bit more goodwill assumed of the officer at face value, but officer shooting can be much more closely scrutinized than civilian shootings, especially when it comes to which tactics were used and if those were appropriate. Often, most states have "use of force" regulations that regulate what tactics can and cannot be used in certain situations. These can be based on a study from 1950 of finely and poorly trained officers, based on "what they would do in a similar incident."
For example: A very, very large, crazy unarmed man punching people as hard as possible, knocking people down with a single punch...For an officer he might be required to have first attempted to use a baton or cs or something silly before he can use a taser, which he might be required to try using before he uses his firearm. A civilian, on the other hand, might actually recognize that deadly scenario for what it is: deadly. He might go straight to his firearm, to prevent himself from being knocked out or killed by that first punch. What if, in the aftermath, the civilian was discovered to also have a taser on him?
Well, (obviously laws are different in every state) assuming he didn't start it, couldn't get away, wasn't at fault, the assaulter was in the act of committing a felony, etc... He might be completely justified in accurately reading the scenario, and making a last-ditch effort to save himself and go straight to his gun to end a fight.
The civilian might go free in this scenario, whereas an officer might not, assuming he hadn't first attempted a more "appropriate" (for him) "use of force" response.
I would definitely not recommend using someone who a union contract to represent officers, unless that person has a large amount of OTHER trial experience, etc. It would be bad for you if that lawyer is used to only practicing a certain type of law and "assumed" that ANYTHING in your case is at all similar to the types he's already practiced. He'd be over-confident and under-prepared.
I would be absolutely positive that a lawyer has 0% chance of ever mixing the two. If that's the case and he's good to go, then it doesn't matter who else he defends.