Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

who's decision is it to determine this?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it will have to be determined by the courts. The implication, however, is that since openly carrying a rifle is legal, the cause for alarm must be inherently more than openly carrying a rifle- through actions and demeanor.

If the guy is muzzle sweeping,and running around like he's in a 3 gun competition- ok. But it would be difficult to suggest a guy walking at a lesiurely pace with it appropriately slung was trying to cause alarm.
 
I'vebeenduped, while Angel1495 had a good point about posting appropriate statutes, his specific citation did not support his argument. It was specific to handguns.

Meanwhile, while the law could be interpreted to say that Grisham was carrying in a manner that might cause panic, and while you have reaffirmed that the law could be construed to mean that, unless things have changed the local prosecutor has not charged him with unlawful carry. That tells me that prosecutor does not want to make that argument.

If any charges have been added, since they reduced the original ones to interfering with a LEO in performance of his duties, anybody is free to update the current charges.

But it seems to me that prosecutors only reduce charges like that when they suspect the court case isn't so good, and they hope the defendant will accept the lesser misdemeanor in a plea.
 
MLeake,
I understand about the prosecutor reducing the charges and the possible reasons for that. I think that my initial rxn would have been different had I armed myself with the Texas statutes. Please don't misunderstand me. I am ALL for people standing up for their civil rights and liberties! YEARS ago, I took a social movements class. It seems like, the only way to induce change is to offend some people in some manner or another. I thought the officers reason, per the recording, at any rate, for arresting the MSG was ridiculous. I think now that, as ridiculous as it is AND sounds, it seems as if it may have at least some legal merit in the state of Texas. I am merely conceding that point.

I also agree with you in that although Angel1495 did make a good point about citing the law, his arguments were flawed as they only pertained to handguns. I didn't care so much as to point it out. I only wanted to stick with what I found to be constructive as arguments here can, at times, get inflamed easily.

I appreciate your responses. I think that your points are always well thought out. I especially liked your insight in the use of drones argument. You dominated that thread in my opinion!

David
 
"...not to cause alarm..."

Vague law is vague. Any half way decent lawyer can argue his way out of that one. Seriously.

How do you determine if someone will be/was/is alarmed? Is there a definition for "alarmed." If I were an LEO, could I say that carrying a long gun on your back, muzzle in the air could be alarming? If there were ever a law that needs legal precedent, this is it...
 
The standard will be a "reasonable person". WA state has had similar stuff happen. One published, one unpublished. Precedent is needed, because one "Reasonable" person isn't as good as another, but it's better than anybody's guess.
 
Playing devil's advocate here, but does anyone think that the Aurora and Newtown shootings, involving AR-15's with 30 rd mags (100rd drum in the case of Aurora) had anything to do with the cops detaining Grisham?

Maybe not a good idea to walk around with such a weapon, legal or not, in light of some terrible mass shootings involving similar guns.

I dont think any cop wants to be the one who lets a guy walk around with an AR-15, legal or not, and then finds out later said guy just shot up a public place.
 
I do not think the shooting had anything to do with his arrest at all. I live in the town of Temple. Where he was is not very rural, and there is a ton of traffic on the road in that area. A passer by called 911. That is a causing alarm when someone calls police about it. I wrote in on of my precious post about my experice with TPD when being stopped, and visably armed. The SGT refused to turn over his weapons while the police were sorting things out. It is very legal for an officer to have the person turn over the weapon for the duration of a stop for officer safety.

The SGT had a chip on the shoulder I know better than you attitude with police, and refused to comply while visably armed with the weapon in front of him. If he is luck he will pay a fine, and get probation for the misdemenor.
 
I understand the arguements on both sides.I think they all did poorly.

The application of courtesy would have gone a long way,I think.

I can be approached by an LEO,and I think"This guy wants to see his family again"

That does not mean I lay down and wet myself,it means I defer to his security,as a courtesy.How I move,what I do with my hands,when I say"I have that in the console,OK to open it?

I do what I can to let him/her just do their job.Checking out a man with an AR,might be his job.

I know I will never,ever win a power struggle with an LEO.They just cannot be effective by backing down.

If there is problem,it reasonable to state it."Am I detained?Am I free to go?"

You might find a bad LEO,one just pulled a gun because McDonalds was moving too slow.

File a complaint,use the system,sue,fine.

But,IMO,in the moment,in the field,a cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong.
 
But it seems to me that prosecutors only reduce charges like that when they suspect the court case isn't so good, and they hope the defendant will accept the lesser misdemeanor in a plea.
Click to expand...

If he is convicted of a felony they will throw him out of the Army. With a misdemeanor he can still lose his clearance depending upon the circumstances, his level and the adjudicator. So they might be trying to go easy on him.
 
He is a Hero, with a capital H.
Click to expand...

So is Eddie Ray Routh, Charlie Whitman, Chris Dorner, Robert Walters, Diggs Brown, Louis Bressler, Michael Platt, and possibly Erik Scott would fall into the same category, but they also did some bad things and now have arrests and convictions, most as felonies, or are dead.

Being a war hero doesn't mean that you are without fallacy and will never do anything wrong.
 
Last edited:
DNS said:
Being a war hero doesn't mean that you are without fallacy and will never do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

That is a very important part that many tend to forget... If the Army only had angels, there would be no need for CID and a buddy of mine (Army CID) would be out of a job.

Looking at this from the outside, I can see where both sides could have done things to improve the situation.
 
Fishing_Cabin, I agree it seems both sides could have handled things better. I still have concerns with "rude display" and the questioning of the minor, though.
 
The question remains, however - what evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the arresting officers any cause to forcibly disarm him?

Whether you like him or not, is there any evidence that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the LEO's any basis to detain, disarm and arrest him? I argue no.
 
csmsss "what evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the arresting officers any cause to forcibly disarm him?"

Please believe me. It cringes my very soul to even write this. I think that, given the law as it is written in TX, the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop. It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. Ultimately, it would be up to the court to decide if the MSG truly violated this poorly written, horribly miserable piece of law. I don't, at this point, believe the questioning and detention of this guy to be against the law. Just think about this honestly; It could have been that, from a distance, it may have looked like the MSG was at a port of arms rather than his rifle being attached to his gear. This would have caused the officer to stop and speak to the individual rather than a simple drive-by. It is my belief that things escalated out of control form there. I think the professionalism we pay for and expect of our police was damaged by this. Still, based on that stupidly written law (really, how can you PROVE it was CALCULATED to cause alarm in the way it was displayed?), I believe the MSG could have been cited legally. As far as questioning the kid, well, I find no excuse or reason for that. I am not saying the defense has a rock solid case. The prosecutor pretty much admitted that by lessening the charges. Besides, the article that I posted earlier has an attorney that completely disagrees with his arrest. Time will tell, I suppose. Then again, rude isn't necessarily calculating...

In relation to my previous point about Rosa Parks; I say that anyone standing up for their rights is just like Rosa Parks. I am sure that there were people who scoffed at her sitting on the bus, implying that it was a trivial gesture and that she has some personal agenda to push. I am sure that if blogging was available then, she probably would have said some pretty controversial things. The only difference between her and anyone else standing up for their rights is coverage and the wining side writing history.
 
the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop
Click to expand...

I disagree. If that were the case, any truly anti-gun person could scream bloody murder every time someone prints, and get them harassed for hours.
 
I think that, given the law as it is written in TX, the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop. It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
Click to expand...
I think you are misreading/misapplying the law. Read it again - "IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO ALARM" is the critical element of the crime. What evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham was carrying his rifle in such a manner? Are you suggesting that the mere use of a single point sling translates to such intent?

Btw..the 911 caller(s)' "fear" is irrelevant. It matters not how afraid they are - the only issue is whether Sgt. Grisham's open carry of a long arm was intended to cause fear. Absent evidence to the contrary, one can only conclude there was no reasonable suspicion for the arresting officers to infer such a method/manner of carry, and therefore they had no legal basis on which to conduct a Terry stop.
 
This one has run on long after I last looked at it.

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.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you read something and you just know that this is what happened. It just smells right.

There other little things like this guys "political activity" paint a picture for me. In my time in the Army I have met some like this. While I was in I always had this feeling like I needed to keep out of politics. I voted, but I mostly kept my mouth shut because as I saw it, I was charged with following orders and those orders run all the way up to those civilian officers, the Sec. Army, Sec Def., and the President. Even if I didn't vote for the guy I still owed him something for the position. Almost a "Blue Line" kind of thing.

Now a guy like this, a MSG that spouts off, I see arrogance in that. He's a big guy and above a lowly local cop, and he knows the law and therefor he doesn't have to comply with an officers request.

Even if the cops don't charge him he could be in a world of hurt if his Command goes after him. Military regulations have a whole lot of wiggle room when someone wants to go after an embarrassment.

It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
Click to expand...

Naaa, I think the officers responded to the call like they should have. They asked the guy to put the gun down so they could talk. I think he got smart mouthed with them and that is just not the way you talk to cops, not when you have a weapon in your hands. The charge is just a better way of saying "We arrested this guy for being stupid when all he had to do was cooperate".
 
Last edited:
And in this case, precision in terminology is vital. The police are required to respond to 911 calls - that's what they do. They get 911 calls about all manner of things and, for the most part, respond in a professional manner and respect the rights of citizens. The idea is that the police officer is there to INVESTIGATE the circumstances at the scene - it is not a presumption that a crime has been committed and that, therefore, an arrest must or even can be made.

The police officer is free to speak to a subject - free to ask questions and even to ask the subject if he wouldn't mind removing the firearms from his person and, say, putting them on the trunk of his car - but the subject is free to decline to do so. Absent the LEO's reasonably articulable suspicion, he's also free to go on about his way. What was the LEO's "reasonably articulable suspicion" in this case? Ummm...something about the rifle being "rudely displayed." Try as I might, I find no reference to courtesy in the Texas statutes.
 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+Cause
"Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt."

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa.../probable-cause-and-reasonable-suspicion.aspx
In a Nutshell

"Probable cause" means reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence. "Reasonable suspicion" is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top