Perhaps I'm reading the report wrong, but it seems he used deadly force more to protect himself than his property. However, being that his business is a pharmacy, there may be a difference as to whether or not lethal force is justified in preventing dangerous drugs from being stolen. One of our legal lights will have to expound on that one.
Not responding as a "legal light" just a guy who tries hard to be a good guy!
Since when must one wait until actually shot/killed by the BadGuy before one can take action to lawfully defend themselves?
Perhaps due to his excellent (per report) surveillance system he saw the BG get out of a waiting vehicle from passenger side with shotgun and zip ties before entering the pharmacy then when BG failled to breakoff his advance when told to do so by the pharmacist/owner the businessman was fully justified in taking the action he took... and got the "congratulations" and thanks from the District Attorney for his actions.
Sure seems to me after reading the linked story that the BG had evil intent (failed to stop when warned repeatedly), was prepared with zipties to unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill any present within the building in his effort (unlawfully detain, restrain, and/or kill) to obtain possession of that which was not lawfully his.
As always I am sad the GOOD GUY was put in the position of taking the life of another, BadGuy in this case, but would much rather the good guy lives vs the bad guy.