Jewelry Store Owner Shoots Would-Be Thieves

[WardenWolf]

Original Article

The owner of a Phoenix jewelry store shot two men who had used pepper spray on him during an attempted robbery.

The suspects, identified as 24-year-old Gregory Mills and 27-year-old Jason Buckingham, were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries and are expected to be charged Tuesday.

Phoenix police say Mills and Buckingham went to the jewelry store of a 61-year-old man around 2 p.m. Monday and tried to sell a watch, but were denied because it was missing parts.
About 10 minutes later, they returned, pepper sprayed the store owner in the face and smashed the glass of a display cabinet.

That's when the owner pulled a gun from his pocket, shot each suspect and held them at gunpoint until officers arrived.

Investigators say the owner acted in self defense and won't be charged.

This is all over the local news.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

That's when the owner pulled a gun from his pocket, shot each suspect and held them at gunpoint until officers arrived.

For some reason, that made me laugh. "Sorry, fellas, but before I hold you, you have to receive one pop of hot lead each, THEN you'll get to get on the ambulance. No free lunch."

 

[TylerDurden]

Oh oh.

Pepper spray is considered deadly force in Arizona?

Is Arizona like Texas as far as the value of property?

I heard about people using pepperspray or Bear Spray in Brittish public transit for mugging.

-TD

 

[WardenWolf]

Arizona law states that you merely have to feel "threatened". Pepper spray is still considered an armed assault, and he was outnumbered, so they solved the "threatened" part of the equation. Perfectly legal. Arizona is also a Stand Your Ground state. He had no duty to retreat.

 

[jpwilly]

^^^ YIP Thank God!

 

[divemedic]

Even so, I believe you could do that in other states as well. A 61 year old man who has just been blinded in an attack by 2 twenty-somethings can articulate a reasonable fear of serious injury.

 

[mbt2001]

This is kind of obscure, but you don't know what you were just hit with. There was a contract Killer called the Ice Man, HBO did a special on him years ago, in any event his favorite was to use cyanide in various delivery devices. In a drink, in a spray bottle so on and so forth...

In today's world I could see being "in fear of your life" if someone brandished a water bottle at you.

 

[22lr]

Threatened and in fear for your life can mean an airsoft gun that's been painted. Or a plastic knife. Its all in the intent.

 

[franconialocal]

Ok in NH

He probably has an affirmative defense in N.H. too.... two kids around 20 y/0, pepper spray, INTENT, a 60 some-odd store owner alone.....

He'll probably be ok in CRIMINAL court, but then here comes the civil court stuff.....

 

[Kleanbore]

Here's a lengthy (77 pages) but excellent paper written by an Arizona lawyer on the subject. Anyone who lives there or who plans to spend any time there should retain it, read it, and study it.

It is current and can be downloaded from the AZ website on CCW licensing.

http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/documents/ccw_legal.pdf

An excerpt relevant to this thread:

You would be justified in threatening or using physical force
against another person when and to the extent a reasonable
person in your position would believe that physical force is
immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other
person's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
(A.R.S. § 13-404) . You would be justified in using deadly
physical force when a reasonable person in your position
would believe that deadly physical force is immediately
necessary to protect yourself against the other person's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
(A.R.S. § 13-405).
It is important that you understand that the law
permits a measured self-defense. Generally, you can only
use the force necessary to resist the unlawful force. You
can resist unlawful physical force with physical force.
You can resist unlawful deadly force with deadly force.
You cannot use physical force in response to mere
words, no matter how offensive. Similarly, YOU CANNOT
USE DEADLY FORCE IN RESPONSE TO MERE WORDS
or, in most cases, to resist unlawful physical force.

There are a lot of hypothetical examples covered in this, along with an extensive discussions on the limitations of the use of firearms.

Here's a potentially relevant example:

EXAMPLE: You come under attack by several gang
members in a parking lot outside a Phoenix mall. None of
the five gang members is visibly armed, but they have nearly
surrounded you. There is a path of escape, but you are
unsure whether you can outrun the gang.
You have a tough choice. Since you are in a place
where you have a right to be, you are not legally obligated to
run, and you may defend yourself with deadly force in order
to avoid great bodily harm. State v. Palomarez, 134 Ariz.
486, 657 P.2d 899 (Ariz. App. 1982). Although none of the
attackers is obviously armed, if the circumstances are such
that a reasonable person in your position would consider
himself in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining
great bodily harm, then use of deadly force would be
justified. Walker v. State, 52 Ariz. 480, 83 P.2d 994 (1938);
State v. Andersen, 177 Ariz. 381, 387, 868 P.2d 964, 970
(Ariz. App. 1993); State v. Buggs, 167 Ariz. 333, 335, 806