The Raid Robber

[ballistic]

Channel 8 Fox News in Cleveland reported on their 5 PM newscast yesterday, and again on their 6AM newscast this morning, a robbery yesterday at the CVS Pharmacy at Brookpark and Broadview Roads in Parma, Ohio. The robber, after meandering around the store, brought a can of Raid Wasp and Flying Insect Killer, used to shoot a stream of insecticide up to 30 feet, to the front register. After distracting the checkout clerk with a request for cigarettes the robber raised the sprayer and shot the clerk in the eyes from across the counter. (As Harry Callahan would say, "That shows a certain sense of style.") He then made his way around the counter and continued to spray the clerk while removing money from the cash register and then fled. The injured clerk managed to call police and was taken to the hospital. He suffered great irritation but no permanent loss of vision. The whole incident was captured on one of the store's minicams. The question is: is this a lethal force situation? What say you?

[TunnelRat]

Of course, once it's in my eyes, how do I see well enough to shoot and ensure I don't hit something I don't intend to hit?

Pray and spray? This is where the value of high capacity magazines can really be appreciated...

[Petrovich]

Channel 8 Fox News in Cleveland reported on their 5 PM newscast yesterday, and again on their 6AM newscast this morning, a robbery yesterday at the CVS Pharmacy at Brookpark and Broadview Roads in Parma, Ohio. The robber, after meandering around the store, brought a can of Raid Wasp and Flying Insect Killer, used to shoot a stream of insecticide up to 30 feet, to the front register. After distracting the checkout clerk with a request for cigarettes the robber raised the sprayer and shot the clerk in the eyes from across the counter. (As Harry Callahan would say, "That shows a certain sense of style.") He then made his way around the counter and continued to spray the clerk while removing money from the cash register and then fled. The injured clerk managed to call police and was taken to the hospital. He suffered great irritation but no permanent loss of vision. The whole incident was captured on one of the store's minicams. The question is: is this a lethal force situation? What say you?

Three things to remember are:

1. Did she initiate the confrontation?
2. Did she have a means of retreat and, if so, did she?
3. Did she believe there was the threat of death, or grievious bodily harm?

I'd say lethal force would have been justified. 1 and 2 were easily met. 3 maybe not quite so straightforwad; but certainly would have fallen under 'grievious bodily injury' provision.

Even if it turned out she suffered no permanent harm; it could have been easily argued she was in fear of eye damage or inhalation injury.

Of course, one has to ask. How well could she have shot with her vision impaired?

[CurtInOhio]

I would say #3 is easily satisfied... if someone sprays me in the eyes with a substance, I'm going to assume it's not something good, and could cause blindness. Of course, once it's in my eyes, how do I see well enough to shoot and ensure I don't hit something I don't intend to hit?

[Scott]

I would say #3 is easily satisfied... if someone sprays me in the eyes with a substance, I'm going to assume it's not something good, and could cause blindness. Of course, once it's in my eyes, how do I see well enough to shoot and ensure I don't hit something I don't intend to hit?

I figure that once the the badguy came behind the counter, he was in very close proximity to his victim whom he continued to hose down with the bug killer--it would have been hard to miss him at that range.

[Brian_Horton]

I think this is a shoot situation. Being blinded is grevious harm, plus it makes you very vulnerable and defenseless against escalated physical attacks that could kill you. One thing I always consider. This particular attack may not be lethal, but if it going to make me defenseless against a further escalated attack that could kill me then it is potentially lethal and I can't allow that to happen. The criminal is attacking me and I can't assume that he will stop once I am defenseless. Once I am defenseless he can kill me at will. Plus this guy was backing the clerk into a corner.

One other thing to consider. Blindness changes your life drastically and removes alot of freedom and job opportunities. I am an engineer. If I can't work on a computer then my career is over. I also think it would be hard to get a good job if you can't drive a car to work, taking a cab everyday is expensive and suburban areas don't have buses.

[Brian D.]

This sort of incident shows the value of Jeff Cooper's "Condition White-Yellow-Orange-Red Awareness" training, understanding of the "OODA loop", etc. Better to be a little too alert rather than too relaxed!

[williampelish]

You cant shoot what you cant see!

[gd9704]

How about always wearing protective goggles? I'm sure that's what Toby Hoover would advocate.

Seriously, that's a tough call. If you're blinded--and left alone in the corner while the thief empties the register, that's one thing....you're not being killed at the moment, but how are you to know what's coming next? The fact that he's using Raid as a weapon would make one think that he doesn't have a gun, but who knows.......


If the punk begins to beat/kick you while you're down, blinded, etc....I may be tempted to pull and shoot.

Tough call....

[CurtInOhio]

Why wait for him to begin? You've already been attacked and are being attacked, putting you in a weaker position from which to fight or even flee (how do you get out if you can't see). For me, I guess I would consider if I'm close enough to shoot point blank, where I don't necessarily have to see to know I'm hitting him.

And instead of goggles, how about a paintball mask? much more chic!

[Brian D.]

Might not have expressed my point cogently enough earlier: If one keeps him/herself in a "Condition Yellow"--and able to quickly shift gears into "Orange" then "Red"--rather than being in "White" all the time, the situation in question may have been over before the BG had a chance to utilize the bug spray. Btw, having spent some time training for and dealing with various chemical/hazmat problems, I can say for sure that insecticide is some very nasy stuff to ingest or inhale!

Once the clerk got sprayed it would have been awfully hard to fight back in any useful way.

[Garry]

Isn't the real solution just to ban the bug spray?

Garry

[CurtInOhio]

When dealing often with other people, such as working as a clerk, I think it would be almost impossible to ensure that you're always ready; even if you are, that close proximity, when you have to turn your back, opens you up to an attack that you can't respond to in time, unless you stand around all day with a gun in one hand, or something along those lines.

Garry, I think, to be safe, ban anything with a button that can be depressed... any item's button could be jury rigged to do something nefarious.

[SMMAssociates]

Interesting thoughts....

IANAL, but it would appear to me that the clerk would need to decide if she could see to shoot safely (a miss might be a real problem if it hit somebody else), and if the BG was going to continue the attack.

Coming behind the counter (with or without the spray) probably would cover the latter. The "could she see" has to be her subjective decision.

When being assaulted, unless the BG has already left (or is demonstrably leaving), there's no reason not to anticipate further violence. Of course, if he's got a couple of holes in important places that's another story.

IMHO, the first shot of the spray would put my hand on my weapon. You really don't know what that stuff is, and all you can do is gauge whether it's safe to shoot for other reasons (backstop/collateral issues). Most of us ought to take some cover if possible and wait until the BG closes the distance, but I think you've got the ticket to punch his. (Drawing the weapon - you won't have a lot of time - may be sufficient even if you can't see very well.... The difficult legal problem is guessing if the BG did get scared off before firing.)

Remember, too, that "grevious bodily harm" doesn't require a weapon, nor does it assume a guaranteed risk of death. You may have to defend your choice in court, but the perception of the threat is sufficient. If somebody my size (6'1", 275#) goes after my petite 19-year-old daughter, she's sufficiently at risk under most conditions to justify a weapon. OTOH, if she comes after me without a weapon, she's not going to be considered anywhere near as dangerous if it can't be shown she's on PCP or something like that.

[TunnelRat]

If somebody my size (6'1", 275#) goes after my petite 19-year-old daughter, she's sufficiently at risk under most conditions to justify a weapon. OTOH, if she comes after me without a weapon, she's not going to be considered anywhere near as dangerous if it can't be shown she's on PCP or something like that.

Dag, Stu, your daughter's on PCP? What else aren't you telling us...?