Lucky45 said:
That is what transpired with the clerk. He has CHL, he did not just arm himself. He was armed from the time he recieved his license.
That argument isn't going to stand up in court. Wearing a weapon, and being licensed to carry a weapon is not the same thing as drawing your weapon. You aren't using deadly force when you wear a concealed weapon. You are using deadly force when you draw your weapon with the intent to use it.
As I said before, if the prosecutor can show that there was another method to recover the product, or the value of the product, or that the store had previously considered this level of loss not to be up to the level of the use deadly force, or even much less normal force.. then any claim of justification for the use of deadly force goes right out the window.
Yes, the law says you can use deadly force to protect property. BUT, and this is a giant BUT, it also says you can't do that if there are other means of recovery and only if it's considered immediately necessary.
If the prosecutor shows that the establishment didn't consider the use of deadly force necessary in similar circumstances in the past, you're sunk.
Why is this important?
Simple. If the prosecutor invalidates the claim of lethal force in defense of the property, the person has zero recourse as to why he put himself in the situation that he claims to have had to use lethal force in defense of himself. He illegally put himself into a shooting situation. A self defense claim won't stand there, any more than a carjacker could claim self defense when his victim shoots at him.
If the perp had whipped out a pistol while inside the store taking the beer, the story would be completely different. Then it would be an immediate case of self defense in which the actor did not have to put himself into the position to use deadly force. As it is though, the actor invalidates that claim by following the thief out of the store.