Use Deadly Force at work

This is a discussion on Use Deadly Force at work within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hello Friends, I have question to ask. My employer knew I was carry and he doesn't want me to carry at work but leave it ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Use Deadly Force at work

  1. #1
    Member Array FireAir7215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    208

    Question Use Deadly Force at work

    Hello Friends,

    I have question to ask. My employer knew I was carry and he doesn't want me to carry at work but leave it at my truck. I'm Air Conditioning and heating technican for 15 years. I do go to customers home to fix their a/c and heating. My employer said that his business will be liable if I had to use deadly force at customer's property, any commerical property with my work vehicle present ? Is that true or not ? I told employer that it not true. Let me know if I'm wrong. Explain and why.
    Thank you,
    Stay safe and armed

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...the actions of an on-duty employee always reflect civil liability back on the company, especially when he's acting on company business...and in a company truck/uniform shirt...

    ...it would have been better had he not known you were carrying...how'd he learn that???
    mox and USM1976 like this.

  4. #3
    Member Array latentcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by FireAir7215 View Post
    Hello Friends,

    I have question to ask. My employer knew I was carry and he doesn't want me to carry at work but leave it at my truck. I'm Air Conditioning and heating technican for 15 years. I do go to customers home to fix their a/c and heating. My employer said that his business will be liable if I had to use deadly force at customer's property, any commerical property with my work vehicle present ? Is that true or not ? I told employer that it not true. Let me know if I'm wrong. Explain and why.
    Thank you,
    Stay safe and armed
    I am an employer in the same field and your employer is correct about liability. There is also the issue of my getting called by irate customers about my employee walking around in or around my customers home or place of business with a weapon which in all honesty scares me more than the liability issue.
    I don't carry when I am at customers home or business but I generally have a toolbelt with several tools that would work to keep someone away. I figure that has to suffice under the circumstances. My employees know this is my stance and are accepting because I make sure they realize that their saftey is my bread and butter and if they are uncomfortable with a situation: they have standing permission to leave and let me know that there is a problem that WE will work out together.
    Do as the boss asks.
    marcclarke and USM1976 like this.

    "MOLON LABE"
    "come and take them"
    King Leonidas of Sparta

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    Below is the law,83.001 is the section,If your Boss soesn't want you carrying and you violate his rules he can fire you,If you use your gun and are found not justified then he can very easily be sued by knowingly allowing you to be armed while on the clock

    AN ACT

    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (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;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] 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.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (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;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] 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 [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    ericb327 likes this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,162
    You were wrong when you told your employer you carry.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,195
    IMO, and IANAL, the above legal gobbledygook, does not preclude you from defending yourself against deadly force on a place you have the right to be.

    Your employer could fire you, but I don't see where he would be liable for your actions if you were justified.

    Only my opinion, maybe the weeing portion of code was quoted?
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  8. #7
    Member Array FireAir7215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    208
    My employer is also carry. He just got his license probably last year. He said its ok for me to carry at the office, business property but not on the field while working.

  9. #8
    Member Array kc_hhsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    IMO, and IANAL, the above legal gobbledygook, does not preclude you from defending yourself against deadly force on a place you have the right to be.

    Your employer could fire you, but I don't see where he would be liable for your actions if you were justified.

    Only my opinion, maybe the weeing portion of code was quoted?
    You are correct - you have the right to protect yourself.

    However, if you are on the job and are at a customer's location (say a home) the only reason you are at that home is to represent the service that the employer has you employed for. Otherwise you would not be there. Thus, you are a representative of your employer and not yourself and at this point his is liable for your actions. If you do something that is found - not justified - the employer becomes liable.

    The question becomes - if your employer has made it known that you are not to carry and you do and use the gun, has he mitigated his liability. He would be best served in writing you a letter and having you sign it with the understanding - you are not to carry.
    USM1976 likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    If you died today are you prepared for where you will end up tomorrow?

    Thank you to all of those who have served this country - you have my respect!!!

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...the cite you posted is in error...this one is correct as passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor... http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB00378F.HTM

    ...http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillL...80R&Bill=SB378

    ...the justification provided in 9:31 and 9.32 only apply to the one who shot...

    ...the civil immunity is provided only to the one who shot...and not an employer...

    ...the CHL16 has both 9.31 and 9.32 and the 83.001 correctly as passed into law...as my link shows, the sections your link has in brackets are stricken from the law...and are lined out in the legislature's copy...
    ...an online copy of the CHL16 can be found here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/interne...rms/chl-16.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    Below is the law,83.001 is the section,If your Boss soesn't want you carrying and you violate his rules he can fire you,If you use your gun and are found not justified then he can very easily be sued by knowingly allowing you to be armed while on the clock

    AN ACT

    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (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;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] 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.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (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;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] 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 [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
    Last edited by Snub44; April 3rd, 2013 at 01:52 AM.
    USM1976 likes this.

  11. #10
    Member Array R040607's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    206
    I would respect your employer's wishes. It is the right thing to do. His request is reasonable. But if not carrying makes you uncomfortable (and I could see how it could based on your profession and/or where you may travel to) then you could find a new company to work for.

    ...and I would NOT tell your next employer you plan to carry. It is unnecessary and puts him or her in an impossible position. Just read the employee handbook and determine if there are any set rules in place. Rules at not laws. You can legally carry, but the employer can fire you for breaking his rules. This is because TX is a right to work state.

  12. #11
    Member Array latentcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by FireAir7215 View Post
    My employer is also carry. He just got his license probably last year. He said its ok for me to carry at the office, business property but not on the field while working.
    Same for my employees.

    I realize this is a sensitive issue but in this sue happy world, you can be sued for anything and its your problem to defend yourself in court. My state has a "deep pockets" provision which means that the person with the best ability to pay generally assumes the liability. My business has deeper pockets than my employee so I would be the one that the rascals would go for. Even if I win in court: I would be facing horrendous legal fees that are generally unrecoverable. The insurance company would not help because they exclude this type of issue from my general liability and for a moment "be real" What do you think my premiums would be if I insisted that they cover my employees under such circumstances? Would you be willing to give up 70% or likely more of your salary to pay the premiums that would cover your carry in the field ?

    "MOLON LABE"
    "come and take them"
    King Leonidas of Sparta

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...he would not be precluded from defending himself... but that won't protect his employer from suit-only the shooter, and it won't protect him from getting fired...correct...

    ...the weeing portion of the code? I'm afraid to ask...

    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    IMO, and IANAL, the above legal gobbledygook, does not preclude you from defending yourself against deadly force on a place you have the right to be.

    Your employer could fire you, but I don't see where he would be liable for your actions if you were justified.

    Only my opinion, maybe the weeing portion of code was quoted?
    USM1976 likes this.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    For the most part the Constitution does not apply to private businesses...... It applies to the Government.....

    Example: We do not have free speech on this forum...... We are allowed only what is written in the Forum rules......
    ericb327 likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,056
    Quote Originally Posted by FireAir7215 View Post
    My employer knew I was carry and he doesn't want me to carry at work but leave it at my truck. I'm Air Conditioning and heating technican for 15 years. I do go to customers home to fix their a/c and heating. My employer said that his business will be liable if I had to use deadly force at customer's property, any commerical property with my work vehicle present ?
    Criminal actions would be on your own head. But anything can happen in civil actions, where "deep pockets" is the mantra. So, in that regard, yes, any and all people/organizations connected to the actions could indeed be held "liable" in some measure. But it'll come down to whether the situation was clearly an unprovoked, unjustifiable violent crime stopped, or something a bit less iron-clad. IMO, in any state short of full "Castle" protections, you're very likely to see quite a bit of liability liberally spread around via the courts, depending on the situation.

    What are the use-of-force and "Castle" type statutes in your state, specifically?
    Snub44 likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array ericb327's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bellevue, Ky/Cincinatti
    Posts
    1,414
    My employer knows I carry. I work at a large retail store in Northern KY. I carry in the store while off the clock but I leave it in the car while working. We do have an armed county sheriff deputy working with us on the weekends. I could not effectively secure a concealed weapon anyway with the work I do.
    For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. (Sun Tzu) The Art of War

    https://www.facebook.com/ninja312


    My food and product review blog
    http://trualitybarandgrille.wordpress.com/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can store employees use deadly force

,

ks employer liable for employees deadly force

,

use of deadly force insurance

,

what business insurance would cover deadly force by an employee against another employee

Click on a term to search for related topics.