Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

Legally, you don't need a "good reason" to go armed, do you?
Click to expand...

Nope, and that wasn't my point. My point was limited to the "irrelevance" being claimed. While you don't "need" a reason, having a reason you don't even need is a good thing for a defense.
 
I am trying to figure this part out.

A decorated war veteran on a Boy Scout hike with his 15-year-old son was arrested alongside a Texas country road after a police officer accused him of “rudely displaying” a firearm.

Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham told Fox News he was illegally disarmed by members of the Temple Police Dept. – even though he held the proper permits to carry his weapons.
Click to expand...

So the rural country road is inside the Temple City Limits?

That is an odd way to describe a city road even for Texans.
 
I can't speak for Texas, but in my county, the city limits are drawn really funky, alledgely in order to ensure that one house was in the city limits for high school football purposes, so there are dirt roads and rural areas within inside the city limits, and also county maintained roads within the city limits, that are, rough, to say the least.
 
And we don't know what kind of reciprocity agreements there are between county and town law enforcement. You get rural enough, and that city officer on the south end may be closer than the Deputy.
 
So the rural country road is inside the Temple City Limits?

That is an odd way to describe a city road even for Texans.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with where this incident occurred, but city limits frequently extend well beyond the built-up areas of the city, even in cities outside of Texas. Most Texas cities are low-density, populationwise. Further, many unincorporated towns contract out their police duties to better-funded agencies. So it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that a Temple police officer had enforcement duties well into a rural area.
 
I'm not familiar with where this incident occurred
Click to expand...


I am, spent 2 years at Hood, but it was a while ago and things change. And Temple was a few miles down the road from Killeen and Fort Hood.

I see this a couple of different way, not that it matters much.

Some of the things they say the cops said sound absolutely goofy. I almost have a hard time imagining a cop even saying them.

And frequently I lean toward the cop's being correct, usually they have a reason and their reason is so often conveniently not printed because someone has a hangup with cops.

But if all this is portrayed correctly in the report. These cops are so wrong. The filing of a lawsuit would be telling in this case.
 
Funny, but the questioning of the child isn't what Grisham is upset about.

So the rural country road is inside the Temple City Limits?

That is an odd way to describe a city road even for Texans.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, you can have rural county roads inside the city limits.

I'm not familiar with where this incident occurred, but city limits frequently extend well beyond the built-up areas of the city, even in cities outside of Texas. Most Texas cities are low-density, populationwise. Further, many unincorporated towns contract out their police duties to better-funded agencies. So it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that a Temple police officer had enforcement duties well into a rural area.
Click to expand...

Right. Plus, legally speaking, Texas peace officers have jurisdiction anywhere in the state. So there is no issue of jurisdiction except maybe whether or not the officers were working outside of their area of primary taxpayer funding.

Nope, and that wasn't my point. My point was limited to the "irrelevance" being claimed. While you don't "need" a reason, having a reason you don't even need is a good thing for a defense.
Click to expand...

Then I would have claimed the meth-heads in the rural Temple area over hogs and cougars, oh my. There are plenty of reports of meth labs in Temple and in Bell County in general and problems with drug addicts are reasonably common and documentable. Problems with hog and cougar attacks in the area are not, LOL.
 
So there is no issue of jurisdiction except maybe whether or not the officers were working outside of their area of primary taxpayer funding.
Click to expand...
And even that isn't, strictly speaking, a "jurisdictional" argument - it's an inter-agency squabble, and usually over money received from fines/confiscated items. Counties, towns and cities like to spend a lot of money on enforcement gear and much of the funding for that comes from recoveries from defendants. They don't want a cop from another county, town or city entering their "turf" and poaching their fish, if you will.
 
Willfully placing a child under duress, i.e., won't let him out of the car until he answers questions...

Child abuse maybe?

This whole situation SHOULD have been over after a 30 second civil conversion. In fact, the Temple officers should have offered words of encouragement to the young working to make Eagle Scout!

As it turned out, if no law has been broken, I would expect that lawyers would be lining up to represent the arrested man.

When this is over and done, if no law has been broken, these officers need to be FIRED!
 
Then I would have claimed the meth-heads in the rural Temple area over hogs and cougars, oh my. There are plenty of reports of meth labs in Temple and in Bell County in general and problems with drug addicts are reasonably common and documentable. Problems with hog and cougar attacks in the area are not, LOL.
Click to expand...

that works too, though I'd stick with the hogs and cougars. Meth-heads makes you sound vigilante. Not wanting to be eaten is a visceral reaction everyone understands.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

:):):) -one for each ring.
 
It will be slung on their shoulder or back.
Click to expand...

He had it slung forward because that's how he was taught to carry it, and that's what he did on deployment. This might be an issue if the law states you can open carry a long gun, only if its slung on your shoulder and back. Yet the Texas laws make no such requirement. I lived in Alaska for most of my life, so I'm very used to seeing all sorts of people openly carrying all sorts of things. But the method of open carry is absolutely irrelevant to the case at hand.

I understand the police needing to respond to a call of a man with a gun. But when the arrived on scene, saw he wasn't doing anything illegal, that should have been the end of it. Instead, they illegally disarmed him, illegally detained his child, and charged him with resisting arrest and "interference" when he was cooperating as far as the law required him to.

BTW, I lived in Sitka, and during the first week or two of August (Sitka Blacktail season starts Aug 1) it's very common to see people openly carrying all sorts of weapons, both downtown, and out the road. It's fun watching tourists reaction to a guy walking in the middle of town in Camo, with a bolt action slung over his back, and a .44 Mag on his hip. :)
 
The guy is an idiot and caused, INTENTIONALLY, the whole issue. There are so many tell tell signs they weren't out on a Boy Scout hike it's not even funny. They grabbed a camera, grabbed the gun and headed down the road to make a statement. All fine and dandy. But if anyone believes his attitude only started after things went south and the camera came on they'd be a fool.

For the severely ignorant let me tell you what's gonna happen if/when you give an LEO attitude whether you're carrying or not...... You're gonna raise eyebrows, you're gonna inflate the situation, you may get searched, any weapons you may have are gonna be taken, and if you finally straighten up your act you may get em back and turned loose. Don't straighten up your act and your gonna get tossed. Doesn't matter whether you're pulled over for a traffic ticket or for just walkin down the street. You may very well be right in what you are doing but give an LEO crap and then continuing to give the LEO crap is what takes the heat off the LEO and puts all the blame on you.

He or anyone like him is a bad example for kids and a blackmark against our military and gun owners a like.
 
You may very well be right in what you are doing but give an LEO crap and then continuing to give the LEO crap is what takes the heat off the LEO and puts all the blame on you.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, giving a LEO crap isn't against the law. As long as everything Grisham did was legal (and as far as we can tell, it WAS), the LEO's acted inappropriately and illegally.

If what you're saying is correct, then I guess the police have the right to infringe on the 1st Amendment also. As an example, calling a cop a "pig" might not be the smartest thing to do, but if they arrested/detained you as a result, that would be illegal. That's the point. Capitulating to Police simply because they're police might save you some immediate problems (going to jail, etc) but you might be giving up your rights just to make your life easier right now. That's why Grisham talked about the "hard right" over the "easy wrong."
 
Last I checked, giving a LEO crap isn't against the law. As long as everything Grisham did was legal (and as far as we can tell, it WAS), the LEO's acted inappropriately and illegally.

If what you're saying is correct, then I guess the police have the right to infringe on the 1st Amendment also. As an example, calling a cop a "pig" might not be the smartest thing to do, but if they arrested/detained you as a result, that would be illegal. That's the point. Capitulating to Police simply because they're police might save you some immediate problems (going to jail, etc) but you might be giving up your rights just to make your life easier right now. That's why Grisham talked about the "hard right" over the "easy wrong."
Click to expand...

You're right, callin a cop a pig isn't reason to be arrested. But it does give them LEGAL cause to check you out further and ask for ID and/or other such things. At that point it's illegal for you to say no, and rightfully so I might add. Same with carrying a gun. I don't buy this guy's sob story for one minute but even if I did, if/when the LEO asked or told him to disarm he should done so promptly. 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, common courtesy, maybe the law (don't rightly know myself) and there's no frikin reason not to except to inflate the situation. At the time he inflated the situation it was all on him.

The guy left the house with a chip on his shoulder and got what he deserved. Only a fool with think he did anything but make this a 1000 times worse than it would of been.
 
Heck, even if the LEO didn't ask and just grabbed for it
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top