Retired Oakland Police Captain Shot in Gas Station Robbery, Kills One of His 3 Attackers

1. Its gas stations/convenience stores, parking lots, fifty or one hundred feet outside your home, and apparently after the Alec Baldwin incident its movie sets too.

2. Black on black crime, add to this that he was retired, made him even a more likely victim. I am so sorry that someone that has tried to help society and tried to get gang members to leave the gangs is a victim of their greed. At least he is able to carry a firearm, which is not allowed for other seniors in Ca.

3. Hey there’s gas stations I absolutely won’t patronizes. Mostly in sketchy neighborhoods but Speedway seems to have more than their share of crime. Head on a swivel & be able to make a quick getaway. It’s not worth risking your life saving a few cents a gallon. Same for parking lot’s. Never got boxed in!

4. Nicely done, sir, I wish you a speedy recovery. Next time, spray them with gasoline as they approach, see if they wish to fire a gun afterward. If I see ANYONE in the 150 feet outside my home, other than my neighbors, I would exit my car with a gun in my hand and total focus on that person. Hasn’t happened yet, but I’ve only been here 25 years. Where the hell do people live that there are strangers within 150 feet of your door? And why would you live there?

   • not a bad idea…when you’re holding a gas pump handle you’re holding a pretty lethal weapon….

   • I are very lucky to have 150 feet of time, to see it coming. Most have only 6 or 10 feet to see it coming.

     • edit

       You are very lucky to have 150 feet of time, to see it coming. Most have only 6 or 10 feet to see it coming.

5. Seems like it’s almost always tHeM.

   • imagine what a peaceful world would look like without them…now you know why people move and abandon parts of cities…basically a kuman cancer…

6. The perps picked the wrong person to mess with and now one of the three cowardly perps is gone far away…so sad…Not.

7. One. More. Time. For. The. Learning. Impaired.

   There is no such thing as a ‘safe place’. Bad shit can happen anytime, anywhere in any community.

   Plan accordingly.

8. this happened in chicago not too long ago when the fire chief was walking out of store, it looked like a HIT and so does this incident

9. Drove up to a Racetrack Sunday around 8 pm and the door was locked….told my wife they must have been robbed. She said no they were just closing, looked on the web and nope 24×7. Location is right off I75 with 2 other highways nearby, going to skip that Stop-n-Rob in the future.

10. I watched the video. The retired police captain did a fine job right up until the point that he stepped out in the open to pursue and shoot at the getaway vehicle–at which point someone in the getaway vehicle shot him.

    The retired captain had already shot two of the robbers (one was laying motionless on the ground and the other fled to the getaway vehicle after taking at least one round) and he was in a relatively safe position behind cover. (The gasoline pump was between him and the getaway vehicle). Then the captain moved past the gasoline pump to shoot at the getaway vehicle–that is when someone in the getaway vehicle shot him.

    Pro-tip: when three armed robbers (with additional potentially armed accomplices in a getaway vehicle) are robbing you, you manage to shoot two of them, and you are behind cover, do not, I repeat, DO NOT MOVE OUT FROM BEHIND YOUR COVER TO ENGAGE MULTIPLE ARMED ATTACKERS.

    That above pro-tip is especially true when your firearm is a sub-compact handgun which fits easily in your front pants pocket.

    • quote————Then the captain moved past the gasoline pump to shoot at the getaway vehicle–that is when someone in the getaway vehicle shot him.——–quote

      And by doing so the dumb ass cop put everyone in the neighborhood including the rest of the people at the station from being hit by the gangsters bullets or his own. Brilliant move. Again trying to play Wyatt Earp he got his own dumb ass blown away rather than wait for an army of cops to take on the bad guys.

      • you can’t possibly be this stupid.

        The “getaway vehicle” was a close as the bad guys on foot when he fired at it. Are you blind also? Take a close look at the video. The car is just pulling away from the pump, its still as close as the bad guys on foot were when he fired at the people in the vehicle. So its ok if the victim shot at a bad guy that close, but its not ok if the victim shot at the “getaway vehicle” people inside the vehicle that are shooting at him when he tried to escape the situation by going around the pumps?

        • No Booger Brain

          Is is you that are dumb as a rock. Its obvious you never fired a gun in a defensive situation. Being close has nothing to do with the danger of a missed shot that can go for a mile and still kill innocent people. I mean Jesus Christ are you really that much of a fking idiot.

11. he was doing fine until he committed a tactical error…leaving cover before the shooting is over is never wise…

    • true. I think he was surprised by the car being there. The one guy who ran back to the vehicle I think he expected him to try to run around the pumps and come back which would be why he acted defensively to try to leave that immediate area and go around the pumps to stop him so he would be facing and interrupting the threat and gain the tactical advantage. There is a very slight hesitation in his tactics that makes me think he was surprised the car was there. Even the most well trained and experienced battle hardened veterans would want to stop the threat before it became lethal to them. And although its usually recommended you not leave cover, I think he was concentrating on stopping the threat, and in fact some courses teach to move towards the imminent threat to engage it before it becomes lethal to you. Cover is nice but the open nature of this area really didn’t provide cover considering there was a threat that could enter the cover area from different directions and he didn’t know where the other guy threat was. There are lots of different ways one could look at this from a cover aspect.

      But I’m not going to second guess the man, i was not there, neither were the rest of us, he was in a fight for his life and sometimes judgement is not always the best in those situations. But, even though he got shot his defensive gun use did repel and stop the threat and thus saved him from being probably killed right there.

12. The incident further validates studies done that prove when you try and shoot it out to save a couple of pennies in your pocket all the advantages lie with the bad guys who have already got the drop on you. This numb scull cop who was used to bullying and terrorizing people all his life thought he did not have to take no shit from anyone. Wrong. The dumb ass got gunned down. If he would have just gave in to them and gave them what they wanted when the odds were better with an army of heavily armed cops they could have swooped in on the bad guys.

    Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

    Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

    Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

    Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

    • Remember, good people. Engaging the mentally ill like lil’d does no good.

    • Dacian
      Pro tip.
      Don’t be a pussy.

    • Do you not understand anything you read.

      Do you know what it means when they say “We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.” ?

      “confounding variables” are things they do not consider because it does not fit with their theory. This study, when the “confounding variables” of gun defense is included to account for the more than 6,000 incidents a month, using this studies methodology, its been shown that a defender using a gun is 80% more likely to survive a violent attack and women are 72 times more likely to avoid a sexual assault by brandishing the firearm and people of color are 87 times more likely to survive or avoid a violent crime incident by being armed with a firearm.

      Your study had to adjust the odds ratios to suit their theory because they left out 90% of the facts (AKA “confounding variables”). This is the infamous study that was prompted by gun-control interest groups. Its purpose was a very narrowly defined scope not intended to include the whole picture. When ever a study mentions adjusting for “confounding variables”, it means they are leaving things out that don’t fit their theory and they will tailor their results to support their original premise.

      Would you please get some more material, this comedy routine you keep bringing up is getting stale.

      • Also, look at this line in your stuff

        “Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”

        In particular this part

        “Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas.”

        Do you not understand what that says?

        “successful defensive gun uses occur each year” yet for some odd reason according to this study success is only low for “for civilian gun users in urban areas”. Huh? What about the other millions of annual non-urban area gun users that were successful, I guess they don’t count and get left out.

        What this study did was cherry pick from only those who had not been, what the study determines as “successful” (by re-defining “successful” to mean escaping unharmed) in their gun defense when in reality they were “successful” in their gun defense because they were still alive to participate in the study. That’s the purpose of self defense gun use, to remain alive by stopping a threat and it does not mean you will always escape completely unharmed and if you do escape completely unharmed that works too. But this study limited it by re-imaging “successful” as being unharmed and ignoring the purpose of self defense gun use to stay alive by cherry picking those who were not unharmed. Your study eliminated 90% of the facts. These 677 participants were successful and proved that defensive gun use works by them being alive to participate in the study.

        Seriously, do you not understand anything you read? You read this crap confirmationally biased.

        • and another thing you also did not understand from your reading among many others, this…

          “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

          Which is exactly what is expected as a possibility in defensive gun use, your study only, indirectly, justified defensive gun use as being effective.

          Its true that having a gun does not, on average, “protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault” just as wearing your seat belt does not stop some else from crashing into your car. A gun is not some sort of magic shield force field like this study theory posited by limiting and redefining like it did.

          The study started with the premise that guns did not keep someone from being shot, and then tailored its whole methodology to arrive at only that conclusion by redefining and then excluding facts.

          But for these 677 defensive gun use did keep them from being killed which is the ultimate purpose of defensive gun use just as wearing your set belt has the ultimate purpose of keeping you from being killed in a crash – but your study left the actual defensive gun use out.

          What if seat belt use studies left out those who wore seat belts and did not get killed in a crash and started with the theory that seat belts do not keep you from being killed in a crash and then tailored the study to only arrive at that conclusion? That’s the basic methodology employed in this study by ignoring the ultimate purpose of defensive gun use to keep a person from being killed which is the primary and ultimate purpose of defensive gun use.

          You picked one of the biggest jokes in gun studies and actually believe it.

        • So tell me 40, when will your news about Alec Baldwin being arrested for murder hit the open press?

          Did I just read above that you said people should not believe everything they read?

        • “Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

          Which are really low numbers, meaning its insignificant compared to those who are not shot in defensive gun use which is 80% or more.

        • @ Miner49er

          “So tell me 40, when will your news about Alec Baldwin being arrested for murder hit the open press?

          Did I just read above that you said people should not believe everything they read?”

          I though it pretty obvious it was probably fake news. You didn’t get that?

          I guess some people need to be told that, did not consider that.

        • To Booger Brain
          quote————-Which are really low numbers, meaning its insignificant compared to those who are not shot in defensive gun use which is 80% or more.————quote

          Have your wife explain the post to you. Your statement just made a fool of yourself. The study was 677 incidents and that is hardly low numbers to the numbers who got shot you fool.

          You flunked math class Booger Brain.

        • to Booger Brain

          quote————But for these 677 defensive gun use did keep them from being killed which is the ultimate purpose of defensive gun use just as wearing your set belt has the ultimate purpose of keeping you from being killed in a crash – but your study left the actual defensive gun use out.———quote

          You did not even understand what you read. Again have your wife read it to you and explain it to you. Yes the study did prove that you were way more likely to be shot by resisting and having a shoot out than by simply not resisting. Now even a 5th grader would be able to understand the study. Its just that your mind is so fixated and paranoiac that no amount of studies would ever get you to see reality.

          Lets put it on the 5th grade level genius boy. A criminal walks up to you suddenly while you are on your cell phone looking down. You look up to see a gun in your face. Now genius boy try and tell me you are more likely to survive by drawing your gun when all the criminal has to do is pull the trigger. IS THIS GETTING TO COMPLICATED FOR YOU BOOGER BRAIN.

          Your diatribe makes about totally ignoring 677 incidents makes about as much sense as ranting against vaccinations for Covid. Typical for the Far Right Neanderthals.

        • To Booger Brain

          Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html

        • Again to Booger Brain

          Taken from an article in the New York Times.

          By J. David Goodman
          April 28, 2013
          The first armed robbery attempt was in October, on a residential Bronx block near an elevated train stop. The victim fought back. He was shot in the leg.

          The next came a month later and roughly a mile away. Once again, the victim resisted and was shot.

          After the third robbery attempt, in February, two distinct patterns became apparent. The police suspected a single group was to blame, a group that cruised in cars and attacked lone men at night. But a more unusual pattern was seen among the three victims: when faced with a gun and a straightforward proposition — your money or your life — they had opted to take their chances with their lives.

          “Being held at gunpoint, for some people, is not that scary,” said Brian Melford, 21, a Bronx youth activist and student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “Around here, people think they’re strong. They just say, ‘I’m not going to give it up.’ ”

          Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.

      • To Booger Brain

        The death rate and wounding rate in the ratio to people who carried is proof enough you moron. Now what part of this do you not understand?????

      • to Booger Brain

        quote————“successful defensive gun uses occur each year” yet for some odd reason according to this study success is only low for “for civilian gun users in urban areas”. Huh? What about the other millions of annual non-urban area gun users that were successful, I guess they don’t count and get left out.————–quote

        Look Booger Brain they took the stats from high crime areas to get the largest samples of attacks and survival when comparing people who did not resist and those that did. Again even a 5th grader could understand this.

      • to Booger Brain

        QJOTE———-Would you please get some more material, this comedy routine you keep bringing up is getting stale. QUOTE

        Ok here it is which of course you will reject with a wave of the hand because it does not conform to your right wing paranoia and misbeliefs about using a gun to defend yourself.

        https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

        Resisting an armed robber drastically increases the risk of death to the victim, according to results from a new study done at the University of Chicago.

        While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.

        The study was done by Franklin E. Zimring, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and James J. Zuehl, a lecturer there. They analyzed nearly 1,000 robberies that were reported to the Chicago police in the course of a year. Ninety- five of the robberies ended in the death of a victim.

        The study also found that robbers who used guns increased the risk of death to their victims far more than did those who used other weapons, such as knives. Guns accounted for three times as many deaths as knives, the next most dangerous weapon.

        • So when that guy was going to kill me and my wife, take my car and the processions in it I should have just let him do it?
          Every situation is different.

13. Fortunately; most of the people in my neighborhood know me well enough to be scared shitless of me.

    • What about the times your not in your neighborhood?
      perhaps a tshirt with
      ” My Neighborhood Knows I’m A Badass.”

      • This made me laugh out loud. I don’t type LOL and I think most people who do don’t actually laugh out loud. But I give you my word that I did.

        • It were good.

14. Best wishes for a full and speedy recovery for Mr. Joyner.

15. “Legalize all drugs and all the crime will go away”

    • “Legalize all drugs and all the crime will go away”

      … until someone else wants your drugs, or your property, or you wife/girlfriend/partner, or what ever you have that they want, then all bets are off.

      • That’s not possible. All the drugs have been made legal. There is no reason for a stranger to want what I have.

        s/

16. This is why I try to get all my business in town done by noon. The ne’er-do-wells are still sleeping off the previous night’s excitement.

    • “The ne’er-do-wells are still sleeping off the previous night’s excitement.”

      Ne’er-do-wells are like 7/11, running 24/7.

      These days if you venture into Denver you can sit at a traffic light as some girl dances through the intersection wearing nothing but roller skates and a thong while a couple crack-heads spark up a pipe feet from your car and you can have this experience any time of day. I just did it at 0830.

      Really, quite a nice ambiance. The sound of the wind gentle rustling the tarps on the homeless tents all over the sidewalk and the odor of freshly lit crack mixed with raw sewage all with the beautiful backdrop of a parking lot half full of trash.

      And that’s a “nice”…. well, formerly nice, area in the bar/restaurant district.

      And if that’s not enough, if you’re quick, by 0900 you can park on the street near a public park and watch the cops check to see if all the junkies passed out around the playground are still alive!

      • The last time I was in Denver the only thing on the sidewalks was beer cans and tobacco spit and cowboys was the cause.
        Wouldn’t mind the girl on roller skates though.

        • These days REI in Denver can’t keep kevlar alpinism boots for dogs in stock.

          Normally you use them for taking a dog into a scree field so that the dog’s paws don’t get cut up.

          They sell like hotcakes now due to all the discarded syringes on the sidewalks.

      • 16th Street Mall went from dump to decent to dump again. The cycle continues.

        • Try the area just East of Coors Field. It’s a trip.

      • to strych9

        Based on our last interaction (2 years ago?) you supported the resulting consequences of drug legalization. Have you changed your mind?

        “[S1 CHAPTER 2] BART ‘DERAILED’: The Train Has Left the Station” video 4 min long

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leRLtiKxfaY

        • No, I have not changed my mind. Facts being stubborn and whatnot.

          But then I never bought into the false dichotomy presented by the American Left (or Right) either, so it wasn’t that hard to figure this out.

17. Skinny Jean’s and hoodies .
    Something to watch for, ehh.
    Their getting smarter , baggie pants and untied shoes slows you down.

18. Since this was a taking of, under the Libertarian limit of $950, this was only a misdemeanor crime. So no big deal.

    • Lol the frightening part is you actually believe the BS you are spewing. Typical Retardican worse than the Democrats. Dont you have the gun control alter of Ronald Regan to worship?

      • You are a dishonest Libertarian.

        From 2014, Prop 47

        “The initiative changes the possession of most drugs, including cocaine and heroin, from a felony offense to a misdemeanor. Possession of certain, less common Schedule I and II substances (including LSD for some reason) will remain a felony offense. Certain property offenses such as shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing a bad check will all be considered misdemeanor offenses, as long as these crimes involve $950 or less.”

        “The success of this measure indicates that sentencing reform is starting to become palatable to more than just libertarians, but the general public. Criminal justice reform is certainly an issue both Democrats and Republicans agree is going to play a central role in the 2016 presidential election. Let’s hope that what happened in California last night may be replicated elsewhere, either by legislators or voters themselves.”

        https://reason.com/2014/11/05/california-voters-make-possession-of-mos/

      • BSFag, I don’t know how many times your momma dropped you on your head as a child, but it clearly wasn’t enough.

19. Don’t give the cartoon too much credit. We all know he’s never been in a life theatening situation in his life. Unless it was falling down
    his mom’s basement stairs. Ignore his kind. They don’t matter. And that just kills them.

    • I’m petty sure he said he handed out potato chips, dip, and toothbrushes while with the 25th infantry.
      .
      ” That dip taste like shit.”
      It is , you want a toothbrush.
      Now if that dont get you in a fight????

20. I wanted to know from the video when he got shot – not because I want to see that or want him to be shot, I just want to try to learn. I was thinking it would be when they all took him over and that they’d shoot him just for the hell of it. But geez, as others have said, when he went around that pump I said to myself – oh no, why did he do that? It’s so easy to critique when you are not in that situation, but I would like to think I would not go after my assailants like that. You just can’t do it. If they are fleeing and not shooting back, no threat at all, and you shoot and kill or maim, you are in big fat legal trouble. If you run outside of cover or concealment and they shoot back? Ugh.

    I’m glad he got one of them. Hope he recovers well, God bless him.

    • In Cali coming from behind cover to shoot would not be considered a crime. Still covers by “Heat of Action Doctrine”.
      Getting in one’s car firing down the street at 50 mph would have been a crime.

      • It’s not the act, in and of itself, of shooting when you come out of cover, or even shooting someone who is fleeing. It is the circumstances of the person fleeing that matter legally. If you shoot at an attacker, and that attacker runs away clearly in fear, not shooting back or threatening you or anyone else in any way, then you go off chasing them and shoot them, you are most likely going to jail. No state in the union allows for this sort of thing. The threat to you must be immediate in order to use deadly force. There are countless cases of good-intentioned people who do not understand this and face serious jail time.

    • Heat of action ,a pretty good description.
      If someone was shootzing at me I’d either be scared to death( possums do that) or really, really, pissed off and mad about it.
      .

21. He can get a carry license in CA but you peasants living there have to jump through hoops and more than likely still will not get one.

    Just think about that.

22. TOO BAD HE DIDN’T GET ALL 3 RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES

23. I went on a little road trip this week. Of course I started with a full tank. When I arrived at my destination I filled up again. I never drive into a convenience store/gas station without looking and telling myself, “That’s how I’m getting out of here.”

    • Smart idea, and I pump the gas with my left hand because my gunm is on my right hip, and any sacks I carry are with my left hand also.
      I’m no Outlaw Josie Wells.

      • Force of habit from saluting with my right hand.

        • Me, too, but it translates well, huh?

      • I’m not sure how gas pumps are designed over there, but downunder I jam the fuel cap into the pump handle to have it pump gas until the auto cutout stops the flow. Means I can check the area while the gas is pumped.

        • Here too, do you turn your back to replace the nozzle? What about replacing the cap?

        • You guys are doing it wrong.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnFNJaOi5x8&t=1s

        • Cross, most places you have a mechanism built into the pump handle which holds it on, some places that is illegal so your trick might be handy. Also, some places pumping your own gas is illegal ‘cuz you’ll blow your ass up like happens everywhere else (not). Personally, if someone is close enough for me to be concerned about attack while I’m pumping gas, I’m unlikely to turn my back until he’s gone.

24. It will surprise me not at all if the Oakland DA indicts Mr. Joyner. As the camera seems to show the bad guys were leaving and the use of deadly force may be seen as unjustified.

    • On a deal like that the laws can go to hell.
      Criminals like laws, they keep the law abiding disadvantaged.

25. Looks like homie in black took one to the dome. So el capitan did pretty well until 0:49 where he decided to move forward and break concealment, getting himself shot.

    Outnumbered but moving forward as they retreat sometimes doesn’t end the way you’d like it to. Violence of action is an advantage but no guarantee of success.

    Also note how close they were before he realized there was a problem. Combined with the way they deal with him immediately; they’re not new to this game. They knew that acting like normal customers just out to pump some gas while one guy goes to get snacks/smokes/take a leak was very likely to get them within a couple steps of the target before they were detected.

    An excellent example of how magic talisman thinking isn’t a good idea.

    • when the price of gasoline goes up to $15 a gallon there shouldn’t be as many of these kinds of holdups.
      theBiden is thinking way ahead

      • *snicker*

        Like living in a shitty neighborhood, few burglaries because there’s nothing to steal. Why rob people at a gas station when they already went broke paying for gas?

26. Good news! Really I am very good to know this important news. Recently I got similar topic on this https://paperap.com/free-papers/violence/ website.

27. Article is missing the fact that the news link mentions this retired cop currently owns and operates pot dispensaries and everybody seems to forget that he is technically a drug dealer and prohibited person under federal law.
    “When he left the Police Department, Joyner started a new career in the cannabis industry. He now owns dispensaries in Oakland.”
    So… prohibited person in possession of a firearm, defending himself and his drug money from armed thugs who wanted to take a piece of his drug money. If legal precedent is to be honored, this man should be justified in self defense, but still prosecuted for illegal possession under federal law.
    Since he was part of the homicide unit, I wonder how many people he helped put in prison for the violence involved with selling drugs during his career.
    But it’s okay when HE does it, right? Is he out there advocating for expunging convictions and restoring rights toe people convicted of drug crimes?
    At least I won’t cry myself to dehydration over him getting shot.

    • hes not a prohibited person under low for selling pot if its legal to do in his state and the federal government will not prosecute those offenses. People forget, or don’t know, the federal government reached the decision a long time ago not to prosecute for states in which it was legalized to sell it unless it was done on federal property in the state. A law the federal government will not prosecute does not make one a “criminal” (or in terms of guns “a prohibited person”) or having done something illegal under federal law.

      On the other hand, if he uses pot personally that’s a different matter because the government decides who gets to buy/own/possess a firearm and one of the conditions is no drug which includes pot.

      • I think tea should be illegal

        • Along with coffee and okra. And spinach. And dogs so small they fit in a purse.

        • Mostly okra.

28. Damn these white supremacists wreaking havoc on the streets of America! 😛
    That was some good second target head-shooting! 🙂
    Sorry for the guy to get shot anyway, hopefully he’ll recover.
    Nice ride for a former cop BTW.

29. ME TOO , SAME O SAME O , TRY TO STAY ALERT , TIME TO SEE IT COMING , ? , TRY TO STAY BEHIND YOUR COVER IF HAVE ANY , AS A COMBAT VETERAN , THERE ARE SO MANY VARIABLES , AND MURRYS LAW , WHEW SO MUCH CAN GO WRONG FOR THE GOOD GUY , PRAY RETIRED MAN BE WELL SOON , PHYSICALLY , MENTALLY COULD BE ANOTHER STORY .

Comments are closed.