Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

[csmsss]

I've read various threads on a handful of forums about this, watched three of the videos posted, and I am left with out any sympathy for Grisham. From what I read, and someone please let me know if I am wrong or misread or misinterpreted, the officers responded to a call about a man carrying a rifle. The caller may not have known what is lawful to do in that state, but that doesn't mean that law enforcement is going to ignore the call to a 911 operator. As I understand it, when the officers arrived, Grisham was asked to put the gun down so the officers could talk to him. When Grisham refused was when the officer drew his own weapon and turned this into a three ring circus.

Best I can tell, no one in this thread has objected to the police responding to a 911 call. Just a piece of advice - when raising a strawman, it's more effective when it refers to a previously referred to argument or topic.

Maybe Texas doesn't have written into the law that when asked to disarm by a law enforcement officer the armed citizen must, but I believe the officers acted from a position that looked out for their own safety and well being. His rights were not trampled by ignorant officers. He was not arrested for 'legal possession of a firearm'. He was arrested for his own arrogance and refusal to comply.

Your opinion is, well...your opinion and not really instructive as far as evaluating the lawfulness of the sergeant's behavior nor that of the police. In Texas, it is legal to openly carry a long arm. Period. There are no stipulations upon that right other than the (hopefully common-sensical provision that the bearer of the firearm not do so in a threatening manner). You're the first person who has suggested he did so in this case, and I see no evidence whatsoever he did.

Alaska has comparable laws to Texas. We can openly carry a long gun or hand gun. And while it is not uncommon to see handguns openly holstered, it is not common here in city limits to see people carrying long guns. You will see that when you go fishing or hiking or anywhere a person might enjoy the wilderness. What you will not see, even with all our bears/wolves/porcupines/moose/salmon is someone carrying a long gun in a ready position. It will be slung on their shoulder or back. And when the armed law abiding citizen encounters a police officer or state trooper or fish/wildlife, and they are asked to disarm for the safety of the law enforcement officer, we are obligated to comply.

Actually, Texas' laws are different in the respect that we are NOT permitted to openly carry handguns except under a sporting use exception. That being said, the footage would indicate that the sergeant was carrying his sidearm concealed, since the police officer asked him if he had a concealed carry permit (which would have been unnecessary if he were carrying openly).

And, again, Texas makes no requirement as to how a longarm be carried - the behavior of Alaskan citizens in Alaska is completely irrelevant - another strawman.

 

[thallub]

Sometime before his runin with the law, Grisham appeared before the Temple city council with a "gun rights resolution". He asked the council to affirm the resolution. The mayor, a military veteran, said no.

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/...tion-proponent-arrested-in-separate-incident/

 

[Wyoredman]

The mayor, a military veteran, said no.

And the plot thickens.

 

[csmsss]

Lots of people seem to want to hold Grisham up to ridicule. But what he's saying is essentially what the vast majority of members of this board would agree with. It may make some uncomfortable, but it's not irrational, it's not extreme, and there's a foundation for everything he's suggesting in the Constitution.

 

[L_Killkenny]

Being a LEO does not imply immunity from simple assault. Asking for cooperating an disarmament during a stop is one thing Reaching in and forcibly disarming someone without discussion during a non-arrest is another. Though I freely admit, it's another that's better settled afterwards with a big fat jury reward.

Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it. That he didn't ask or tell him to disarm first? Even though it's afternoon now I know the stars will be in the sky tonight, I know the local mart has beer, although I'm not looking out the window I know it's daytime and yes, I know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there.

You go walkin along the highway or in a city park with an AR (or an H&R single for that matter) and the cops are gonna show up. Simply fact of life, this ain't 1850. When they get there you are at some point gonna be told or asked to put the gun down. Put the gun down! Frikin brilliant isn't it. Ya don't say I don't have to, you don't start in on your rights, ya do it. Things get sorted out and probably in short order. If your legal no big deal, if your not you either move to where it is or don't do it.

No lawsuit, no hassle, carry on.

This guy is about the worst example of a gun rights advocate and more of a danger than any of those pinheads sitting in DC.

 

[Beagle45ACP]

I'm not quite sure why people here are arguing against Grisham, I mean, I thought we'd all be on his side here. But also, saying that his attitude or demeanor towards the police for their unlawful actions proves that "he deserved what he got" is comparable, in my mind at least, to saying that a rape victim "was asking for it, because look at how she dressed."

 

[csmsss]

Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it. That he didn't ask or tell him to disarm first? Even though it's daylight now I know the stars will be out, I know the local mart has beer, although I'm not looking out the window I know it's daytime and yes, I know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there.

Your presumption that the officer was entitled/authorized to instruct the sergeant to disarm is what I find most errant. Perhaps you haven't read the numerous instances in this thread where this has appeared, but in Texas, it is perfectly legal to openly carry a long arm so long as you do not threaten anyone with it or carry it into a prohibited place. I'd love to know how you "know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there."

You go walkin along the highway or in a city park with an AR (or an H&R single for that matter) and the cops are gonna show up. Simply fact of life, this ain't 1850.

You are now the second poster to hoist this strawman. NO ONE has suggested the police acted improperly in responding to the 911 call. That isn't the issue. The issue is what happened once they arrived.

When they get there you are at some point gonna be told or asked to put the gun down. Put the gun down! Frikin brilliant isn't it. Ya don't say I don't have to, you don't start in on your rights, ya do it. Things get sorted out after and probably in short order.

If a police officer, without legal justification, told me I had to strip naked and set my clothes on fire, should I comply with that order too? Are you seriously suggesting that ANY order a police officer gives must be obeyed without question or regard for my civil rights?

 

[Gaerek]

If your legal no big deal, if your not you either move to where it is or don't do it.

And what if it's illegal for the cop to disarm him without probable cause? Are we just supposed to capitulate to police because it keeps things easy? Or do we defend our rights?

What you're suggesting is exactly the same reason why we have to keep "compromising" on gun control. Gun owners are willing to give a little bit more and more. Grisham wasn't willing to give anymore.

We don't know all the facts. From what we can see in the video, he did nothing wrong/illegal. The police were inappropriate and/or illegal. That's all we have to go off of until more information is presented. And given how quickly they were to reduce the charge, I'm guess everything is going to get dropped and brushed under the rug to avoid embarrassment to the department.

Let me say again, he (Grisham) could be in the wrong...we just don't know. Based on the video he did nothing wrong, yet the police were willing to ignore his Constitutional rights. Why defend them right now, just because he was willing to stand up for his rights, unlike what you're apparently unwilling to do.

 

[csmsss]

FYI...some here seem to have this bizarre notion that anytime a police officer responds to a call, he's somehow required to arrest the person he encounters. Can someone please explain this presumption to me?

 

[Kimio]

How about we wait until more facts (from a credible judicial source) comes out before we state who's wrong and who's right.

We do NOT have enough information to deduce whether Grisham apparently went out with such an intent, or exactly what his reaction was prior to the tape started rolling from what I can tell.

I will reserve judgement on both parties until more data has come to light. As it is, I'd say, even if Grisham is guilty of inflaming the situation, that does not give the LEO' and excuse to detain his child and force him to answer questions, which by law, Grisham instructed that they are not allowed to do so without representation of a legal parent or guardian.

Right now, the evidence at hand does not favor the Temple LEO's, but like I said before, we need more data before we can say who was truly in the wrong here.

Let's keep the personal jabs and emotions to a minimum, lest this thread gets closed.

 

[L_Killkenny]

towards the police for their unlawful actions

There was absolutely nothing unlawful about the LEO reaction.

I'll go one step further, he should of been stopped, questioned, temporarily disarmed, etc. If I see him walkin down the street I may or may not call him in. It would all depend on his demeanor. If I'm and LEO, I'm gonna check him out and I WANT my LEO's to do such. Having the right to do something does not mean that we don't have a right to make sure things are on the up and up.

 

[Brit]

Having spent my whole adult life dealing with people who in the area I was in, my Dad's Pub, the Clubs I worked in in Liverpool UK. Working in armed Security here in Orlando (my Sons Company) and in teaching people who carried guns on their persons (job related) for over 20 years.

One thing you get to be good at, is assessing individuals state of mind, using body language, and facial expressions. (I did get stabbed twice) so I was not perfect.

The Officer who first stopped the rifle carrying Citizen, was frightened. I could not see why. And it went down hill quickly.

I am sure there are lots of Police, and Ex Police on this Blog, who would have dealt with this situation with less drama.

Starting with "Good afternoon Sir"

 

[JimDandy]

Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it.

I don't believe either story yet.

I do believe you tried to say that series of events was OK behavior...

Heck, even if the LEO didn't ask and just grabbed for it (as the defendants BS indicates) let him have it! It's not a big deal,...

 

[spacemanspiff]

Are you seriously suggesting that ANY order a police officer gives must be obeyed without question or regard for my civil rights?

So your opinion is that it was unlawful for the officer to ask Grisham to put the gun down so they determine if there was any validity to the call to 911 about 'man with a gun'? How is the officer to know that the suspect did NOT threaten anyone with it? Does the officer have ESP? Can he read the suspects mind? Will he know automatically that the person who called 911 was ignorant of the law?
I would bet a shiny nickel that had Grisham calmly unsnapped the rifle from being slung across his chest and put it down, there would have been no arrest, no story at all.

 

[csmsss]

Having spent my whole adult life dealing with people who in the area I was in, my Dad's Pub, the Clubs I worked in in Liverpool UK. Working in armed Security here in Orlando (my Sons Company) and in teaching people who carried guns on their persons (job related) for over 20 years.

One thing you get to be good at, is assessing individuals state of mind, using body language, and facial expressions. (I did get stabbed twice) so I was not perfect.

The Officer who first stopped the rifle carrying Citizen, was frightened. I could not see why. And it went down hill quickly.

I am sure there are lots of Police, and Ex Police on this Blog, who would have dealt with this situation with less drama.

Starting with "Good afternoon Sir"

Bingo. When faced with a situation of uncertainty, one can choose to escalate or de-escalate. Not having all the facts, it's impossible to know with certainty, but it appears to me that the officers in this case rapidly escalated the stress levels and turned what might have otherwise been a simple conversation into an arrest.

 

[Kimio]

I'll reiterate. Let's try to keep the personal jabs to a minimum. We don't have enough information to go off of here to determine what truly went on.

It's getting a little too passionate in here, I don't want anyone getting in trouble with the mods.

 

[spacemanspiff]

When faced with a situation of uncertainty, one can choose to escalate or de-escalate. Not having all the facts, it's impossible to know with certainty, but it appears to me that the officers in this case rapidly escalated the stress levels and turned what might have otherwise been a simple conversation into an arrest.

So, you think the officer should have reacted to this call to de-escalate the situation? You think the officer escalated it by asking him to disarm and then when he refused it was wrong for the officer to resort to drawing his sidearm to get the suspect to comply?

How is the officer supposed to determine an armed person is NOT a threat? We aren't talking about an officer driving by and seeing someone armed. We are talking about an officer responding to a 911 call about an armed person. Your 'simple conversation' cannot be used in all situations of uncertainty.

 

[csmsss]

So, you think the officer should have reacted to this call to de-escalate the situation? You think the officer escalated it by asking him to disarm and then when he refused it was wrong for the officer to resort to drawing his sidearm to get the suspect to comply?

Your assumption is that it was "escalated" to begin with. Exactly how did you come to that conclusion? The officers responded to a "man with a gun" call. When they arrived, they came upon a citizen legally carrying a long arm in full compliance with Texas law. YES they escalated it. Instead of just introducing themselves and just establishing rapport with the guy, their first considered act was to disarm a citizen who had broken no laws in their presence, and about whom they had no reasonable suspicion that he had broken any laws.

Exactly why is it that police officers are presumed to have the authority to disarm anyone they feel like disarming? Have we come to this point where even ostensible gun rights enthusiasts believe in the unfettered power of the police to take guns away from people who have broken no laws? Sheesh. I feel like a broken record here.

How is the officer supposed to determine an armed person is NOT a threat?

First, you are making a rather unwarranted assumption - that any armed person is a threat. By this standard, police officers should be arresting each other. Is your assumption that ONLY police officers should be allowed to carry firearms openly, never mind what the law permits? Why not suggest that only police officers should be able to drive cars, or open umbrellas, or any other perfectly legal activities? it is NOT a threat merely to carry a firearm. I shouldn't need to have to make this argument.

We aren't talking about an officer driving by and seeing someone armed. We are talking about an officer responding to a 911 call about an armed person. Your 'simple conversation' cannot be used in all situations of uncertainty.

An armed person in an area where it's legal to be an armed person. Sheesh. By your standard, police officers should be able to hassle whoever they run into any time they arrive at a call scene.

 

[Patriot86]

I don't understand the skepticism and at times downright hostility, even amongst some gun rights folks to open carriers. When something like that Toledo incident happened we were all pretty much up in arms. Yet just about every single time a OCer, be it a rifle or a handgun is harassed, accosted or otherwise wronged by the police the immediate approach is one of skepticism. Did he have an agenda? Was he trying to force a confrontation? Why is he OCIng anyways? Cant he just CC the gun problem solved!

I don't see all those questions being asked when we are talking about a CCer who is harassed or unlawfully detained/arrested simply for CCing a firearm legally.

Call me overly simplistic but I view this as black and white.
If you are violating the law, then you can be arrested. If you are not violating the law then you cannot be arrested. If there was no violation of the law in this case they had no right to arrest him, no right to charge him, no right to take his guns of his CC permit. All of those actions are blatant civil rights violations if the man is guilty of no crimes.

Regardless of his motives the second we "let it slide" when a gun owner has his rights violated when no law has been broken is the moment we mine as well let the antis burn the 2A and confiscate all of our guns because thats where the path will eventually lead.

 

[JimDandy]

You can spout off all you like about whether or not it should be legal but if you don't think a LEO can legally stop and question you for open carry you'd be naive.

No, I'd be a resident of the State of Washington. With State v Casad, while unpublished, still on my side- and State v Spencer somewhat nullified by being on a rural road surrounded by wild hogs, cougars, and other meth-head boogeymen.