Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

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.
Can you explain how this is relevant to this particular case? I know you have your suspicions and all, but...how does this extemporizing relate to the facts of this case?

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.
A couple of things. First, he DOESN'T have to comply with the officer's request, because it's a request - if the person of whom something is being "requested" can't say no, then it really isn't a request after all, is it?

Second, the officers didn't "request" anything. From what I can tell, they simply drew their firearms on Sgt. Grisham and forcibly disarmed him.

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.
And, again, how is this of interest to anyone but Sgt. Grisham and the Army? And how does it impinge upon his legal standing with respect to the state of Texas?
 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...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/pat...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.
I'm quite familiar and comfortable with the definitions and terminology. The officers never had anything resembling reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. By your calculus, anyone driving a car could be detained for DWI just because someone reported someone else driving erratically. I am astonished some folks just don't understand that it is LEGAL to carry a long arm in Texas openly - and that the presumption is not on the carrier to prove his innocent intent.
 
Can you explain how this is relevant to this particular case? I know you have your suspicions and all, but...how does this extemporizing relate to the facts of this case?

Jesus, "this particular case...."

I'm not a lawyer, I was a soldier. I owe you nothing.

You don't like it, I don't care.

Carry on.
 
I am astonished some folks just don't understand that it is LEGAL to carry a long arm in Texas openly - and that the presumption is not on the carrier to prove his innocent intent.

And that's the point. That's what this boils down to.

He wasn't waving the gun around, heck, he wasn't even holding it. It was on a sling in front of him. I just don't see how they could have any reasonable suspicion that he was committing or going to commit a crime, simply by legally carrying a firearm.
 
csmsss, "And in this case, precision in terminology is vital"

I agree with you here. That is the major problem with this poorly written law. I think it leaves too much to interpretation rather than factual context. This is terrible. A man's livelihood is at stake.
 
csmsss, "The officers never had anything resembling reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed."

That is just it. The crime here was how he was carrying his weapon, not that he was openly carrying a weapon. Yes, it IS DEFINITELY legal to open carry in TX. However, it is ILLEGAL to display a weapon in whatever fashion is deemed to be calculated to cause alarm... Whatever the heck that means. Is that splitting hairs? Maybe. But you said yourself that, "precision in terminology is vital." This is why this is such a horrible law. I don't agree with it. I am singing in your choir! However, from the perspective of the primary stop, I think he could have been cited legally. Does he have grounds to fight this from his 2A standpoint? I really hope he does. I hope he sues and is rewarded handsomely. I hope he can contribute to stopping the loss of our 2A rights. I hope he Rosa Parks the crud out of this.

csmsss, "and that the presumption is not on the carrier to prove his innocent intent."

The rub is that he has to now. They cited the reason for his arrest was because of his weapon display. The law backs that up. That, in an of itself, for whatever reason, can be used against him in TX. Fortunately for him, his charges were reduced.

Please note, I am basing everything from that recording that only caught the last bit of the arrest. I have as much information as you do. I applaud the fact that this MSG was politically active but I am not inferring this into my argument. Honestly, we don't have very much to go on either way. This is why I am also basing what I am saying around this ridiculous law.
 
I'm not a lawyer, I was a soldier. I owe you nothing.

You don't like it, I don't care.

It's not a matter of owning anyone anything. You're participating in the Law and Civil Rights forum and discussing a legal case and situation. I'm not a lawyer either, but I try and keep the comments I make to either the funny tension breakers that are my particular brand of genius, or related to the relevant law.
 
Can you explain how this is relevant to this particular case? I know you have your suspicions and all, but...how does this extemporizing relate to the facts of this case?

Contextualize not extemporize. If as a member of the military you decide to engage in open political activity in uniform don't go looking for sympathy when the results hit you. In the Army we call it "doing whatever your rank will allow".

A master sergeant is pretty senior he knew what he was doing.
 
Contextualize not extemporize. If as a member of the military you decide to engage in open political activity in uniform don't go looking for sympathy when the results hit you. In the Army we call it "doing whatever your rank will allow".

A master sergeant is pretty senior he knew what he was doing.
And Grisham's military career is still entirely unrelated to the context of this arrest and its legality, is it not? And I've read this thread, and don't remember much boo-hooing about the status of Grisham's military career. I think most of us understand that military personnel enjoy a much smaller shadow of 1st Amendment protection than the rest of us.
 
Not that I've gone out and run down the law on A1 protections for the military, but my recollection is that the A1 protections for those in the military really are smaller than that for the general public.

Also, the issue with a private airline and a stewardess? Not an A1 issue, because the private employer is not an governmental agency.
 
Perhaps a better example is the Congress critter, or Cabinet member who gets caught in the paper dipping his pen in somebody's ink? Does anyone here have any doubts that if the Secretary of the Interior spoke favorably on one of several very unpopular groups that advocate illegal activities, they'd be polishing their resume sooner rather than later?
 
Not that I've gone out and run down the law on A1 protections for the military, but my recollection is that the A1 protections for those in the military really are smaller than that for the general public.

Politics in uniform, anything to bring discredit to the service... stuff that can get you fired in the civilian world can get you locked up in the military. That is a pretty big difference.
And I've read this thread, and don't remember much boo-hooing about the status of Grisham's military career.

Every article I have read has a picture of him in uniform, talks about his service in Iraq and his medals. Whoopteedoo. Lots of people have medals. That does not give you the right to do whatever you want.
 
Every article I have read has a picture of him in uniform, talks about his service in Iraq and his medals. Whoopteedoo. Lots of people have medals. That does not give you the right to do whatever you want.
I wasn't referring to linked articles. I was referring to the communications within this topic itself. And this is STILL a strawman. Sgt. Grisham's military career is entirely extraneous to the legal issues in this case.
 
I get the part about the Sgt being legal to carry,etc.

I get the legal issues being discussed.

Observing the vid,the Sgt was a jerk.He escalated the situation as much as he could.He was a drama queen.He was playing up a political "I am a victim" routine.

He was using his son as a tool.

He may be waving a gun rights flag while doing it,and some applaud him,

but really,how does it play to the public? Do you really think he served the 2nd Ammendment?
I think he is an embarrassment.An immature hothead.A whole lot of folks who are non gun owners,who might buy into an AWB,an use our Sgt as a posterchild.He is not good PR.

It was his son's Boy Scout 10 mile hike.Once in a lifetime father/son trip.TheSgt scrapped his son's experience for what?

Did he teach his son how to relate with LEO's?

If our Sgt put his son first,the M-4 could have stayed at home,the CCW handgun was fine,they could have hiked the hike,made a fire,burned some weenies,purified water,used a map and compass,and made some lifetime gold.

All things have their time and place,and the son's hike with his dad was not the time or place.

The one person who had the power to create a better outcome was the Sgt.
 
The one person who had the power to create a better outcome was the Sgt.

There was more than one person.

Now realize my tone here is something to make a point, not actual (angry) indignation-

Where do you get off? If you don't think Business X should be telling you to leave it at home instead of concealed carry, or if you don't think the GOVERNMENT should be telling you if you can or can't carry- why should that be any different in the boonies with a rifle?

See the point I'm getting at? If we're going to get unhappy that someone else is going to question OUR judgement on what we need to carry to be safe, do we have any right to question HIS choice on what he needed to be safe with his kid? Sure we can draw the same line everyone as a society does- That which is protected by the amendment is legal, in a manner of carry that is legal. But the thing is, this guy was doing that. He wasn't carrying dangerous, or unusually weapons. He had a concealed permit, and open carry of a rifle is legal.
 
As I said in my post,I already understand he was legal.

You can be legal and stupid.You can be legal and unwise.You certainly can be legal and make other gun owners look bad and discredit the 2nd Ammendment.

You can be legal and make choices that negatively impact your son.

Suppose(I do not know) he would be legal walking into Wal-Mart.He IS going to get LEO attention,legal or not.Legal or not,it is stupid to walk into WalMart displaying an AR.

Years ago,in Colorado,the advice was"Well,open carry is legal,but if you show up at 7-11 and anyone calls in,you will be arrested for disturbing the peace"

When an LEO checks you out for carrying an AR,and he asks you to set it down,set it down.The LEO said,had he done that ,after some questions,he would have been on his way.

Get confrontational and defiant with a cop,you will lose every time.

I do not understand celebrating the guy.As a gun owner,I do not want him representing me.

As a father,that was a fail.

Freedom can only exist in a civil society.We used to have more freedom and fewer laws.

Now,thanks to your Sgt buddy and his Jerry Springer show grade behavior,plenty of citizens,lawmakers,and perhaps a Governor will discuss whether they need another anti-gun law.

And,BTW,I like AR's,50 cals,etc.
 
Suppose(I do not know) he would be legal walking into Wal-Mart.He IS going to get LEO attention,legal or not.Legal or not,it is stupid to walk into WalMart displaying an AR.

He wasn't in Walmart. He was on, assumedly, a country road of some kind.

Let's go the other way- Had he been in the middle his hunting lease during hunting season, and an anti-hunting neighbor called in- then what?

We don't have enough information about what happened to make any judgement calls either way. Though I haven't seen anything where the LEO asked the guy to set it down and he didn't- Just that they walked up with guns drawn and took it from him.

The LEO can say anything he wants until video evidence proves otherwise. And he's likely to with that problem of holding the child for questioning without parental approval.

Your argument appears to be "It Takes Two To Tango". And the flip side of that is that the LEO could have handled it a whole lot better as well.
 
As you said in your post, he was legal. Therefore there existed no suspicion of illegality, and therefore there was no reasonable suspicion to detain.

You can be legal and smart, and you can be unconstitutional and stupid. You can without a doubt be outside the bounds set by the courts and the law. And you can make other law enforcement officers look bad as you work hard to discredit all the work they have done to be seen as guardians of the law.

You can make improper choices that negatively affect your career and bank account.


Years ago,in Colorado,the advice was"Well,open carry is legal,but if you show up at 7-11 and anyone calls in,you will be arrested for disturbing the peace"
Years ago, in Chicago, the advice was "Be black and walk around town at night and be found hanging from a tree in the morning."
The free advice given was worth every penny paid, as the law reads ...
18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or
(b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 708, 39, effective July 1, 2000.)
(c) Makes unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; or
(d) Fights with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or
(e) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting; or
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There's much more than "somebody done called it in" required to substantiate a Disturbing the Peace charge.

"When an LEO checks you out for carrying an AR,and he asks you to set it down,set it down.The LEO said,had he done that ,after some questions,he would have been on his way. " The cop just put out his version of the story, "If only he'd ......" is his excuse. You know you're not obligated to answer Officer Friendly's questions, right? You know that NOTHING you say can be used to help you in a court of law?

"Get confrontational and defiant with a cop,you will lose every time."
You may lose the battle on the side of the road, that doesn't mean you won't win the war in the courtroom. Cop does something stupid because he can't control his hormones or someone didn't 'respect his authoritay' doesn't come off well when he's the one being the respondent to a civil suit.

"Freedom can only exist in a civil society.We used to have more freedom and fewer laws."
And who do you think is responsible? Dan'l Boone used to carry a 5 foot long Kentucky rifle everywhere he went, the cowboy had his trusty six-shooter, it was the riverboat gambler and backstreet cutthroat that carried a concealed weapon, which is why concealed carry has always been regulated and open carry has traditionally been seen as the mark of an honest man.

Now, thanks to Officer Friendly and his abhorrent behavior, plenty of honest citizens are up in arms over such abuses of authority.
 
Back
Top