Not really. Solicitors are people too as imperfect as anyone, and many get caught up in the 'everyone else is a criminal, we just have to catch them' mentality. Also, convictions get promotions and some measure of job security. It is, essentially, their job to be dicks to people.
BUT.
The following is just commentary, not legal advice. Some of it is sarcastic; much is nonetheless true.
SC's (and most other states that have it) Castle Doctrine and the extension provided by Stand Your Ground laws provide that if it is a defensive shooting under those laws, there is no criminal or civil liability. So the family cannot sue you for wrongful death unless they can prove you did something so totally egregious as to be tatamount to intentional reckless homicide. Like, the BG has a gun and you shoot him with an RPG. In your living room. From 10 feet (technical accuracy of that scenario be damned). Or cracky has more entry wounds in his back than his front.
The police on the scene will be the ones who initially determine whether to charge you. The prosecutor will decide if she has enough to convict. They may try to coerce or trick a confession out of you that you weren't acting in self defense against an imminent deadly (or GBH) threat. This is why, after an incident, when the cops show up, just say 'I want to talk to my lawyer first'. AND NOTHING ELSE. Maybe vomit. Nice guys don't like killing other people so that is a typical reaction. Hardened thugs don't care. The cops will be watching your every reaction; none at all is as telling as losing it.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. That is, if the solicitor decides to indict you, your defense will allege self-defense. Then the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wasn't self-defense. This is why George Zimmerman essentially got off, it didn't even get to the point of "was it murder" or not. This is all before they have to prove, again beyond a reasonable doubt, that you committed murder/manslaughter/negligent homicide /etc.
Thing is, the cops do this evaluation all the time. So do the prosecutors. When you've got a guy in the Wal-Mart parking lot with his family, that just bought something, with a job and generally not a felon, who shoots another guy with multiple meth arrests and tox screen comes back for something... I don't have to be omniscient to see that as legitimate self-defense. So the first guy never gets charged. That's why you don't read about it.
While the thought that you have to live through the experience to be able to defend yourself (better to be judged by twelve than carried by six), if you're defending your family you need to be able to defend them again afterwards. Bad guys aren't a one-time thing, and if you cap a gang member trying to rape your daughter, you need to be there for the war that's about to start to keep defending her.
Point of fact about ammo choice: Police officers don't carry ammo to kill people with. They are not soldiers, no matter how much some would like to believe so. They carry arms and ammo to defend themselves and others, and to stop dangerous people from escaping to endanger others. To that end, their arms are chosen for reliability and ability to stop a man efficiently without overuse of force. And budget/politics/kickbacks but that typically says more about the firearm than the ammo. When I carry a gun (now), CCW or otherwise, I do not intend to kill people with it. I intend to use it as a last resort to stop a bad guy from doing a bad thing. When he stops doing the bad thing, I stop shooting. Anything more *is* murder, in the eyes of the law. So using the same armaments as the police, who are carrying for the same reason, is a very powerful argument against excessive force or wrongful death lawsuits and/or criminal charges. Then again, most of the states that allow civil liability after a self-defense shooting are so anti-gun that you kinda should expect that goatrope.
OTOH, shooting someone with your concealed carry Glock 18 might get you charged almost anywhere.
Here's a non-handgun scenario: Home invasion. Grandpa shoots the guy as he comes through the door, kills him. Scenario A: grandpa uses two rounds from his M1A-Socom 16 kitted all out with laser, red dot, rails everywhere, multiple mag pouches on the rifle, and bayonet. Scenario B: grandpa hits him twice with a Remington 700. Same caliber, same shot count, same effect. Who are the cops going to say is using self-defense, and who is 'intentionally killing another person'? You and I know that grandpa probably just grabbed what was closest and readiest. But appearances can damn you before you get a chance to explain yourself in any meaningful way.
TL;DR version: Don't say anything other than to demand a lawyer. Don't shoot someone after they stop being a threat. Use what police agencies use; if nothing else, it is designed to do the task you're asking of it.
Situational awareness is 99% of self-defense.
