Spray containers which are used to deliver a stream of liquid or liquid spray for the purpose of demobilizing an attacker are becoming more popular. Not only are these so-called pepper sprays used for personal defense, but police agencies are using them as a more humane substitute for lethal force in instances where a suspect is irrational and unresponsive to orders.
Sprays utilized by citizens for their personal use often come equipped with a locking cap to prevent the spray from being actuated until the locking cap is removed or turned to enable the spray to be used. Some sprays come equipped with their own carrier to cover and prevent from unintended use the spray container. Schemes for preventing inadvertent discharge of the spray container are definitely necessary since an unwanted discharge can cause clothing, purses, and other storage areas to be ruined. The problem with many of the mechanisms for preventing unwanted discharge is that such mechanisms severely hinder the ability to produce the spray container quickly from its storage position.
In fact, some of the very schemes which were originally designed to prevent unwanted discharge can actually contribute to the unwanted discharge when the canister is to be retrieved in an emergency situation. Some spray containers are equipped with a forward trigger which predominantly extends forward of the canister. When carried in a holster, the forward trigger presents itself as one of two opposing surfaces which may be grasped in order to bring the spray container from the holster. Typically the user, in an emergency situation, will grasp the forward trigger and rear section of the head and lift. The result will typically cause the spray container to discharge onto the user's hands and clothing. If the discharge is sufficient to partially disable or immobilize the user, the purpose of carrying the spray will not only be frustrated, but also work out to a net detriment to the user.
Other schemes have utilized a configuration where the spray container is spring urged from its bottom from a simple tube. In this configuration, the spray container can be discharged inadvertently while in its holster. Further, where the rim of a holster structure is utilized as a safety to hold a trigger from its discharge position, such safety can fail where the trigger is depressed for several reasons. First, the slope and thickness of the rim may not be sufficient to hold the trigger mechanism away from discharge. Second, if the spray container is allowed to be displaced upwardly only a small amount, the use of a rim to inhibit discharge will be defeated.
With other spray containers, particularly those having a deep vertical displacement and discharge button safety cover, the use of a flap type holster arrangement will not enable the spray container to be produced as quickly as is necessary. Further, because the tops of such canisters are rounded, much like the top of a shaving cream can, the ability to retrieve it from a full deep holster is inhibited. With a conventional full deep holster, the user must open the flap, and attempt to grasp the region of a spray container which has very little lateral area at its upper portion.
The use of spray containers without a covering flap is desired, but like any such uncovered equipment, especially for police use, a suspect could quickly grasp the spray container and use it on the officer. This scenario is much more likely to cause the suspect and others to be shot, particularly if the officer becomes so impaired and immobilized that resort must be had to the service revolver.
Another serious shortcoming of previously available holsters relates to the use of closed bottom holsters. If a spray container is enabled to be ejected quickly from a holster, there should be a provision for air to enter the bottom of the holster to quickly displace the volume of the spray container as it is lifted upwardly. A closed bottom holster can severely inhibit this flow of displacement air. The alternative of making the spray container smaller than the portion of the holster it comes into contact with is unacceptable for two reasons.
First, it would cause the holster to be much larger than the spray container. The space for, weight and size of equipment to be carried by officers must be conserved, not only to insure that the officers can have sufficient space to carry the other equipment which is needed, but for a given level of equipment to reduce the bulkiness of the equipment area so that the officer is physically more free to move about. Secondly, a spray container significantly smaller than its holster would cause the canister to rattle about in an annoying fashon. If the canister were so small that it could form a significant angle with respect to the portion of the holster with which it was in contact, the canister could jam against such surface.
Another major problem with spray containers is the depth of the spray container as a match requirement against the depth of a closed holster. A spray container within a holster which is too deep can virtually never be quickly retrieved. The user must either insert the fingers into the holster and "fish" for the canister, or twist the holster to an inverted position to cause the spray container to fall out. This manner of operation is unacceptable.
In the case of spring urged sleeves, in instances where the sleeve is shorter than the closed bottom holster, the spring will not effectively urge the spray container to a level above the upper rim of the holster which will allow it to be grasped, much less to a level which will allow the spray container to be grasped from the side. The use of a powerful long spring can cause the can to spring beyond the user's grasp and would therefore also be ineffective.
What is needed is a system and method for enabling the retrieval of spray containers in a manner which lends advantage to the user both in terms of time and convenience and which is safe and minimizes the tendency of the spray container to be inadvertently discharged.