You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm
- Thread starter csmsss
- Start date
Alabama Shooter
New member
When I was stationed at Ft. Hood over the years I spent some time in the area. That entire area has grown amazingly in the last twenty years.
m&p45acp10+1
New member
I live in Temple so I am going to chime in here about a few points. I have dealt with Temple PD, and know more than a few of the officers here. Most are very friendly. They will be nice even if they are writing you a ticket. I have never had any personal dealings with either of the officers in the video, and I am legaly deaf so I can not make out the exchange of words they are having.
First is not much of Temple is rural. The population is over 60K. The town is still mostly blue collar workers. It is a traditional rail road town centraly located to Interstate Highway 35. There are several factories, and a great many warehouses here. There has been a large explosion in the local population over the past 10 years. We are about a 30 minute drive from Ft. Hood, and many soldiers tend to move here once they are out of the service. Near to half the adult population here are veterans. The outskirts of town are semi rural. There are a few farms, and on the other end of town is an area around the lake. Temple PD has 133 sworn full time officers.
Open carry of a long gun while it may be legal is going to lead to a person calling the police. With cell phones as they are in this day, and age a passer by driving is almost sure to call 911 with a "guy walking down the road with a gun" call. Even if it is not "illegal" the police will send someone to check it out.
Now while the officer is checking things out. He can very legaly disarm someone he is questioning for the officer's safety while things are being sorted out. They are also legal in doing a pat down to check for other weapons. Failing to cooperate to do so is a crime, even if you were not breaking any laws to beging with. The charge is "resting search, or detention." I think it is a class B misdemenor. (Up to 6 months in county with a fine if I remeber correctly.)
I have had Temple PD show up while I was hunting in the rural areas, at Corps of Engineers' hunting areas. I was walking from one to another along a highway. One was passing by, and stopped me. He was friendly, and asked me to put the weapon in the back seat of his car while things were checked out. I did so. He did a pat down search, then asked me what I was doing. I was friendly back, and told him I was walking to the other area to hunt. He checked my hunting license, and my ID. He checked my ammo to assure that it complied with the Corps restriction of shot gun with shot only. It did so he sent me on my way reminding me I could not shoot within 500 feet of the roadway, or any building. He wished me luck, gave me my shot gun back, after drooling over it. Then sent me on my way. While this happened another officer came up. Both were nice to me, I was nice to them. (This was 16 years ago, and I was a 19 year old college student, and it was dove season.)
First is not much of Temple is rural. The population is over 60K. The town is still mostly blue collar workers. It is a traditional rail road town centraly located to Interstate Highway 35. There are several factories, and a great many warehouses here. There has been a large explosion in the local population over the past 10 years. We are about a 30 minute drive from Ft. Hood, and many soldiers tend to move here once they are out of the service. Near to half the adult population here are veterans. The outskirts of town are semi rural. There are a few farms, and on the other end of town is an area around the lake. Temple PD has 133 sworn full time officers.
Open carry of a long gun while it may be legal is going to lead to a person calling the police. With cell phones as they are in this day, and age a passer by driving is almost sure to call 911 with a "guy walking down the road with a gun" call. Even if it is not "illegal" the police will send someone to check it out.
Now while the officer is checking things out. He can very legaly disarm someone he is questioning for the officer's safety while things are being sorted out. They are also legal in doing a pat down to check for other weapons. Failing to cooperate to do so is a crime, even if you were not breaking any laws to beging with. The charge is "resting search, or detention." I think it is a class B misdemenor. (Up to 6 months in county with a fine if I remeber correctly.)
I have had Temple PD show up while I was hunting in the rural areas, at Corps of Engineers' hunting areas. I was walking from one to another along a highway. One was passing by, and stopped me. He was friendly, and asked me to put the weapon in the back seat of his car while things were checked out. I did so. He did a pat down search, then asked me what I was doing. I was friendly back, and told him I was walking to the other area to hunt. He checked my hunting license, and my ID. He checked my ammo to assure that it complied with the Corps restriction of shot gun with shot only. It did so he sent me on my way reminding me I could not shoot within 500 feet of the roadway, or any building. He wished me luck, gave me my shot gun back, after drooling over it. Then sent me on my way. While this happened another officer came up. Both were nice to me, I was nice to them. (This was 16 years ago, and I was a 19 year old college student, and it was dove season.)
Last edited:
Gentlemen can't we all just get along?
Wow where to start with this mess. As A law enforcement officer I can see both sides of this. I feel that the responding Officer could have handled this much better than he did but since I don't know the full story I will withhold judgment until I hear the whole thing from both sides. Where I think the Officer with be handed his backside is with the minor child. It is very common for us to separate people to get different sides to the story but to hold a minor child without the permission of the parent until he talks is not permissible ever. Civil rights violation all day long.
Now if I received this call I would roll up and politely ask the gentleman if he was out hunting? I would inform him we had a 911 call of a man with a gun and that I have to investigate this call. Where we went from there would be up to him but I would instruct him to point the gun at the ground while we talked. If he refused to do so then and only then would we have a problem. At this point he is now breaking a law in my state. He would be impeding an investigation which is a misdemeanor and then he could be placed under arrest. As I said all of how this went is up to him.
Wow where to start with this mess. As A law enforcement officer I can see both sides of this. I feel that the responding Officer could have handled this much better than he did but since I don't know the full story I will withhold judgment until I hear the whole thing from both sides. Where I think the Officer with be handed his backside is with the minor child. It is very common for us to separate people to get different sides to the story but to hold a minor child without the permission of the parent until he talks is not permissible ever. Civil rights violation all day long.
Now if I received this call I would roll up and politely ask the gentleman if he was out hunting? I would inform him we had a 911 call of a man with a gun and that I have to investigate this call. Where we went from there would be up to him but I would instruct him to point the gun at the ground while we talked. If he refused to do so then and only then would we have a problem. At this point he is now breaking a law in my state. He would be impeding an investigation which is a misdemeanor and then he could be placed under arrest. As I said all of how this went is up to him.
One was passing by, and stopped me. He was friendly, and asked me to put the weapon in the back seat of his car while things were checked out. I did so. He did a pat down search, then asked me what I was doing
And this is where people are starting to object. I think you had a Terry Stop in pretty much the reverse order. You were stopped and frisked, and THEN questioned.
It's supposed to be Stop Question and Frisk.
There would also be some objection to reasonably suspecting criminal activity is likely when seeing an individual with a hunting arm in such close proximity to known hunting grounds.
If I go to prison the gigantic substandard neighbor, ironically nick-named Tiny, attempting to make me his girlfriend can be as nice as can be- that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy the process, OR find it particularly lawful.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Right, so we are back to the aspect that the police do in fact have the legal ability to disarm you. We don't know what happened before the video started rolling other than Grisham's account and that is only one side of the story. Regardless of who Grisham is, we have all seen people in high positions, positions of authority, positions of respect, cops, military, politicians, CEOs, parents, etc. tell lies. That isn't to say that he is lying, only that credentials aren't proof of what he is claiming.
The cops are claiming he would not comply. To a certain extent, Grisham clearly backed up their claim and Grisham, like Ersland, may have been exceptionally stupid in speaking to the media.
On Genn Beck, Grisham states plainly he would not be disarmed,
At that point, there is a definite problem as Grisham is on record as stating he would not allow himself to be disarmed. What is then in question is what happened before that point. It isn't on video. Nobody here knows what happened. No doubt, it will come out in court. If the officers' actions can be shown to be legal, Grisham loses. If not legal, then no doubt the cops will lose and Grisham will likely end up with a nice settlement. However, Grisham would have been very smart to exercise his right to remain silent and not speak with the media.
However, arguing over what is going on in the video is pretty silly since the video isn't the critical part of the situation.
I did have to laugh at the indignation Grisham showed, however, that the cops should have known he a combat veteran because he had a boonie cap with his rank on it. My boonie cap says I am a Sgt. as well. It was the only used boonie cap that fit me at the Army/Navy store. I wear it when I mow the lawn.
The cops are claiming he would not comply. To a certain extent, Grisham clearly backed up their claim and Grisham, like Ersland, may have been exceptionally stupid in speaking to the media.
On Genn Beck, Grisham states plainly he would not be disarmed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy3Sw8APRQo"What the hell do you think you are doing. ... You are not going to disarm me."
At that point, there is a definite problem as Grisham is on record as stating he would not allow himself to be disarmed. What is then in question is what happened before that point. It isn't on video. Nobody here knows what happened. No doubt, it will come out in court. If the officers' actions can be shown to be legal, Grisham loses. If not legal, then no doubt the cops will lose and Grisham will likely end up with a nice settlement. However, Grisham would have been very smart to exercise his right to remain silent and not speak with the media.
However, arguing over what is going on in the video is pretty silly since the video isn't the critical part of the situation.
I did have to laugh at the indignation Grisham showed, however, that the cops should have known he a combat veteran because he had a boonie cap with his rank on it. My boonie cap says I am a Sgt. as well. It was the only used boonie cap that fit me at the Army/Navy store. I wear it when I mow the lawn.
m&p45acp10+1
New member
Jim it is acceptable for an officer to frisk before questioning for officer safety. He did ask if I had any other weapons on my person. I told him I had a pocket knife, and a pair of siscors in my pocket for breasting dove. He did ask before frisking me. I did consent. He was being friendly, and never at any point did I sense any hostility from him at any point in time.
Truth be told if you were a cop, and you were responding to the same type of call, and the person had a chip on the shoulder attitude towards you, and was visably armed, and refusing to cooperate it is hard to say that one would not have done similar to what happened. I am not justifying what the officer did. I can not hear what is being said, and can not find a captioned version. To me it seams all were wrong in many ways.
Truth be told if you were a cop, and you were responding to the same type of call, and the person had a chip on the shoulder attitude towards you, and was visably armed, and refusing to cooperate it is hard to say that one would not have done similar to what happened. I am not justifying what the officer did. I can not hear what is being said, and can not find a captioned version. To me it seams all were wrong in many ways.
The interesting thing is, in the limited interactions I have had with LEOs while carrying, once I have let them know I have a permit and exercise it, they have been content to say, "Ok, just leave it holstered."
I do not believe there is any requirement for a LEO to disarm an armed citizen; I do believe they should have some reason aside from general officer safety precautions to do so.
I do not believe there is any requirement for a LEO to disarm an armed citizen; I do believe they should have some reason aside from general officer safety precautions to do so.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Right, no requirement to disarm, but they can do it.
Wow. Six pages of comments. Not one quote of Texas law.
I am going to guess that many people commenting are basing what they are writing on their OWN states law.
Do a Google search. You might be surprised what you find.
I am serious. See if I am mistaken. Go to everything from the state's own website to the NRA website, to everything in between. Prove me wrong.
Try this for starters. It is in a more user friendly format, easily found using a Google search, taken from the Free Republic, dated on Saturday, April 16, 2011:
"Texas is a traditionally rough-and-tumble state that has some of the most permissive guns laws in the country. But you may be surprised to learn that it is illegal to carry a gun openly there.
"Texas is one of just seven states -- the others are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma and South Carolina, plus Washington, D.C. -- that does not have an open-carry law.
"Gun advocates are trying to get the state legislature to pass an open-carry law, but so far it has been unable to do so.
"It's shocking that Texas, with its history of rugged individualism that the state symbolizes, doesn't allow open carry," John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
"Texans have been able to get licenses to carry concealed handguns in most places since 1995. However, carrying them openly remains illegal.
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry doesn't shy away from his love of guns -- he admitted he takes his gun along with him on jogs, last year shooting a coyote that threatened his dog. The governor said he would consider an open-carry bill if it landed on his desk".
And yes, I have read those things about, "long guns".
I am going to guess that many people commenting are basing what they are writing on their OWN states law.
Do a Google search. You might be surprised what you find.
I am serious. See if I am mistaken. Go to everything from the state's own website to the NRA website, to everything in between. Prove me wrong.
Try this for starters. It is in a more user friendly format, easily found using a Google search, taken from the Free Republic, dated on Saturday, April 16, 2011:
"Texas is a traditionally rough-and-tumble state that has some of the most permissive guns laws in the country. But you may be surprised to learn that it is illegal to carry a gun openly there.
"Texas is one of just seven states -- the others are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma and South Carolina, plus Washington, D.C. -- that does not have an open-carry law.
"Gun advocates are trying to get the state legislature to pass an open-carry law, but so far it has been unable to do so.
"It's shocking that Texas, with its history of rugged individualism that the state symbolizes, doesn't allow open carry," John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
"Texans have been able to get licenses to carry concealed handguns in most places since 1995. However, carrying them openly remains illegal.
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry doesn't shy away from his love of guns -- he admitted he takes his gun along with him on jogs, last year shooting a coyote that threatened his dog. The governor said he would consider an open-carry bill if it landed on his desk".
And yes, I have read those things about, "long guns".
sigcurious
New member
^ lol, if you're going to harp on not posting the law...perhaps you should actually post the law and not random excerpts of articles, which don't address the issue at hand.
Long gun open carry is generally(I don't know if there's preemption and/or grandfathered laws from counties/cities that prohibit it) legal in Texas.
Notice how it only addresses handguns?
Long gun open carry is generally(I don't know if there's preemption and/or grandfathered laws from counties/cities that prohibit it) legal in Texas.
SourceSec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
Notice how it only addresses handguns?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
San Antonio has a local ordinance against long gun carry. The SAPD says they would enforce it. It was written to bust gang members who in the days of cheap SKS rifles would drive around with them.
Is it 'constitutional' given state law - hasn't been tested to my knowledge?
Is it 'constitutional' given state law - hasn't been tested to my knowledge?
I'vebeenduped
New member
This is interesting. So, is his case room temperature now?
http://www.texasgunlaws.org/
Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?
A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.
Q: Can I strap a gun on my hip in Texas?
A: No, with some exceptions. Open carry is not legal in Texas, but you may open carry on your own property, in the commission of a sporting activity (competition, shooting ranges, etc.), and while engaged in hunting.
http://www.texasgunlaws.org/
Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?
A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.
Q: Can I strap a gun on my hip in Texas?
A: No, with some exceptions. Open carry is not legal in Texas, but you may open carry on your own property, in the commission of a sporting activity (competition, shooting ranges, etc.), and while engaged in hunting.
If it was, a guy wearing boxers, or going "commando" would have the same problems in mixed company. Muzzle sweeping people while hiking might cause alarm. Having your rifle with you, swinging on the end of a single point sling- not even in your hands, should not be considered alarming for reasonable people in rural areas that may reasonably contain predatory animals.
I'vebeenduped
New member
MLeake,
I agree with what you are saying. However, I think that angel1495 made a good point about posting the laws of Texas before the debate. I believe that I did err in making a case for the MSG before knowing the Texas law. That was pretty stupid. I try to do better than that. I am still trying to find something more definitive to post since the link that I posted stated that it was not really authoritative.
David
I agree with what you are saying. However, I think that angel1495 made a good point about posting the laws of Texas before the debate. I believe that I did err in making a case for the MSG before knowing the Texas law. That was pretty stupid. I try to do better than that. I am still trying to find something more definitive to post since the link that I posted stated that it was not really authoritative.
David
I'vebeenduped
New member
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
This pretty much reaffirms it.
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
This pretty much reaffirms it.
I'vebeenduped
New member
JimDandy,
"should not be considered alarming for reasonable people in rural areas that may reasonably contain predatory animals."
I am in the choir here! I feel the same way that you do. The problem is; who's decision is it to determine this? I think that it is up to the officer in this case. Think about this; there was an individual who was "alarmed" enough to call the police for the way the MSG was carrying his weapon. Is this a ridiculous law? I think so. Was the MSG right? If he was in AZ probably yes. In TX?...
"should not be considered alarming for reasonable people in rural areas that may reasonably contain predatory animals."
I am in the choir here! I feel the same way that you do. The problem is; who's decision is it to determine this? I think that it is up to the officer in this case. Think about this; there was an individual who was "alarmed" enough to call the police for the way the MSG was carrying his weapon. Is this a ridiculous law? I think so. Was the MSG right? If he was in AZ probably yes. In TX?...