Dry Cleaners Manager Shoots Robbers

[Familyman1993]

A Dry Cleaner's Manager shoots robbers in the process of a robbery. I'm glad the owner is safe and glad to see that he was aware and armed. He had his CHL and was prepared. Though I'm concerned that these crimes are occurring more and more, I'm glad that it turned out in favor of the owner.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21895165/detail.html

[Keith B]

It is a little confusing as to if they had actually entered the store or not. If not, then it may not be as cut and dry as to justification. However, sounds like the evidence it was a good shoot is strong enough the DA didn't file charges.

[Beiruty]

It is not Halloween party when 2 BG enters a dry cleaner and pull down masks. If I see similar subjects in Backyards, five min later I am calling an Ambulance.

[suthdj]

I think he was a bit preemptive about shooting. Granted they were probably going to do no good in his store, however get a sleaze ball lawyer for the family and it may turn out they were "going somewhere else or just playing a game" etc... and he did not need to shoot them. Time will tell what the grand jury decides and the family.

[Drewthetexan]

Does the castle doctrine provide defense against civil suits for defensive shootings at a place of business? Or does it apply only to domiciles?

[Keith B]

Does the castle doctrine provide defense against civil suits for defensive shootings at a place of business? Or does it apply only to domiciles?

I believe it specifies anywhere you are legally allowed to be, so for sure your business would be included. IANAL though.

EDit to add:

Actually, found it. TPC 9.32, Use of Deadly Force in Defense of a Person, specifies '(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;'

and the bill amended TPC 83.001 on the use of deadly force if used in 9.32, which states:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

[KD5NRH]

Actually found it. TPC 9.32, Use of Deadly Force in Defense of a Person, specifies '(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;'

Actually, the relevant bit in this case is:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

The "castle doctrine" portion just establishes that the person's belief is presumed to be reasonable under certain circumstances. In the case of suspects putting on masks to enter a business, I don't see a rational jury assuming they just wanted to make an anonymous complaint about the service.