Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

Military or not is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the officer's actions.

But if the military wanted to prosecute him, then his motive is relevant. Trying to provoke a confrontation with police may be service discrediting conduct in violation of Article 134.

I could see at most a reprimand if his intent was to have such an altercation. Conduct while perfectly legal in the civillian community may none the less offend a provision of regulation or the ucmj.

Even if punished the officer had no authority to enforce provisions of the ucmj and therefore he can't use military crimes to justify his actions.
 
I don't know about it being illegal to question the child, though anything they gained from the child may have become inadmissible.
 
According to this (admittedly not exactly a SCOTUS ruling), it is permissible but there are boundaries.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_leg..._without_the_parents'_consent_while_in_school

School officials can ask whatever they so choose, so can the police. However, a child, by law, can say, "I would like to have my parent present. Or, I would like to have an attorney present." At this time, by law, questioning should cease and desist.
Click to expand...
If this quote is true, then the cops violated the law by continuing to question the child once he said he was unwilling to talk with them.
 
Here's an excerpt from the initial post where the questioning of his son is discussed:

Chris told Fox News that the police officer refused to let him out of the car until he answered a series of questions. The boy had not been arrested.

“The officer told me that I wasn’t getting out of the patrol car until I answered his questions,” Chris said. “He said I didn’t have a choice. I was scared.”
Click to expand...
 
Oh, and pay careful attention to the behavior of the officer in the middle video with respect to the manner in which the sergeant's handgun is removed from his possession and handed to the second officer (the officer sweeps the sergeant's neck and head with the muzzle, and possibly with his finger in the trigger guard - that part is unclear).
 
This M/Sgt. Grisham is a loose cannon. A few years ago he called the Commander-in-Chief a liar.

For six years, Master Sergeant C.J. Grisham blogged about veterans issues and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the aggressiveness you’d expect from a decorated non-commissioned officer.

But when he called President Obama a liar on his blog, and started using the site to go after his local school board, Grisham “found himself the target of an inspector general investigation and a threatened general letter of reprimand. Now his command is exploring formal charges against him,” Military Times reports.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/how-a-blog-brought-down-master-sergeant-grisham/
 
I wouldn't consider him a loose cannon. I would just say that he is politically active. I don't think his decision in reference to Obama was very smart, but you cannot dispute that he is politically active. He was a blogger and an active duty soldier doing what he thought was best. I can't blame him for going after a school board on a blog. Look at the things that are happening in school today, the things being taught.
csmsss,
You have it right. There was no history for the police to go on. Even if they had his history, that, in and of itself, is not a reason to disarm an American Citizen!
 
Okay, the link in the OP goes to a website with a very flowery description, some photos, and 3 videos. Am I missing some videos?

Since the videos do not show what happened up until Grisham was detained, I can't see where anyone is drawing in conclusions about his guilt or innocence or whether how he was treated was appropriate.

After the videos pick up the action with Grisham cuffed, I see the officers going about their duties disarming him and him complaining left and right...like a lot of people do, then trying to tell the cops what the law is and how they are supposed to do their jobs (which always goes over well, LOL).

In short, without knowing what happened before the video started, it is hard to say if anything wrong went on afterwards. Depending on what happened before the video, the officers actions may have been wholly correct in their actions. That somebody made a website and is playing the war hero card and grand injustice card without other supporting information is a bit hard to follow without more documentation other than showing him after being detained.

The story from Wounded Times NewMilitary sounds a bit different, that Grisham didn't comply with officer commands...

http://newsmilitary.com/pages/12434349-nco-arrested-for-refusing-to-put-down-weapon
http://woundedtimes.blogspot.com/2013/03/fort-hood-master-sgt-arrested-for.html
(citing and partially quoting the story from a defunct link of Army Times)

...though Grisham says he did.
http://www.kcentv.com/story/21860185/local-soldier-says-police-violated-his-guns-rights

I am interested in all the wild cougars in the area of Temple. I didn't realize Temple was having a great problem with wild cougars.
 
Last edited:
thallub said:
This M/Sgt. Grisham is a loose cannon. A few years ago he called the Commander-in-Chief a liar.
Click to expand...

And as a SGT, I've refered to everybody from my platoon leader up as an idiot before, sometimes worse.

I don't see how that has any relevance on the case.
 
I hope those idiots with badges get fired for their actions and I hope that Sgt. Grisham gets a formal apology and a nice pay out. He is absolutely right that we must stand up for our rights or else we will lose them. The fact that they officers then detained his son, then questioned him without a legal guardian present is utterly unacceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And as a SGT, I've refered to everybody from my platoon leader up as an idiot before, sometimes worse.

I don't see how that has any relevance on the case.
Click to expand...

It isn't. Neither is that the guy is a MSgt, veteran, or that he was hiking where there were hogs and cougars, that it was purportedly a "Boyscout hike" of 10 miles. Nothing about the situation changes based on any of this information, but Grisham was sure to include all of it, playing up irrelevant issues in order to play up the situation. These are all emotional ploys to gain favor. It changes nothing about whether or not he acted accordingly or if the officers acted accordingly.
 
Double Naught Spy, "Since the videos do not show what happened up until Grisham was detained, I can't see where anyone is drawing in conclusions about his guilt or innocence or whether how he was treated was appropriate."

I think that the officer not telling him why he was being detained other than the manner in which he was carrying his weapon is a pretty good indication of a bogus charge. He did not say he was being detained for pointing his weapon at anyone or shooting in an unsafe manner. The only reason for his detention that I heard was the way he was carrying his weapon. I think that these officers are merely capitalizing on a political climate, and not the law. Hopefully, we can all get the chance to hear the entire conversation which should have been recorded by the officers. I don't think that anyone has said that they know he did not break any laws. However, based on what we saw and what the officers replies were, it doesn't appear too lawful at this point. My legal advice and $20 will get you a very small cup of coffee at Starbucks!

By the way, does anyone know how this is possible?
"At some point, the cop drew his own weapon and pinned Grisham until backup arrived. "
http://www.kcentv.com/story/21860185/local-soldier-says-police-violated-his-guns-rights
If you draw your weapon, are you necessarily going to be able to wrestle as well? Was this some type of standoff?
 
Last edited:
or that he was hiking where there were hogs and cougars
Click to expand...

Are you saying self defense against wild predatory animals is not a "good reason" to go armed? It may not be a requirement for the defense, but it does provide enhanced justification for carrying a rifle around.
 
Y'all must not know Texas, particularly rural Texas, very well. In Texas, you are permitted to openly carry a long arm, loaded or not, anywhere firearms are not prohibited. You do not need permission, or have any particular reason, whatsoever. Why this guy was carrying a rifle is irrelevant - the fact is that it is legal in Texas to carry a rifle. This guy was stopped and arrested, as one of the video clearly shows the police officer confirming, simply for possessing a rifle - because one or other citizens who didn't know or didn't care that it was legal complained.
 
I'm not familiar with Texas, nor am I claiming it's relevant to why he was arrested. However irrelevant to to the prosecution isn't necessarily irrelevant to the defense.
 
I'm not familiar with Texas, nor am I claiming it's relevant to why he was arrested. However irrelevant to to the prosecution isn't necessarily irrelevant to the defense.
Click to expand...
But it's unnecessary in the context of this case. The sergeant doesn't have to justify his possession of a rifle, and it cannot be used as some sort of precursor to an officer's claim of reasonable suspicion in the lawfulness of the arrest. We have the arresting officer on video confirming to the sergeant that he is being arrested for lawful conduct.

If that isn't enough to satisfy folks' as to the illegality of the police officers' conduct, then this is an exercise in futility.
 
Are you saying self defense against wild predatory animals is not a "good reason" to go armed? It may not be a requirement for the defense, but it does provide enhanced justification for carrying a rifle around.
Click to expand...

LOL, not saying that at all. Legally, you don't need a "good reason" to go armed, do you? That is clearly stated by Grisham in the video. However, Grisham is playing up a threat to gain favor. However, the threats claimed are virtually nil. If threat from hog and cougar attacks are his justification for carrying, then he is pretty clueless about actual threats in the Temple area. As an Army Intel guy, I really doubt Grisham is that naïve, so he is likely playing up an angle to gain favor with the public in order to raise funds.

If that isn't enough to satisfy folks' as to the illegality of the police officers' conduct, then this is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

While I agree that this is an exercise in futility, it is because we are not seeing the actual events that transpired before the video. The confirmation about which you speak does not appear to be the formal report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top