Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

L_Killkenny "...if anybody defending him and dissin the LEO actually read the article and/or watched the video."

It doesn't matter if he was "dissin" the LEO's. That, in and of itself, is not illegal. All we have to go off of from this point are the videos and the news reports. From the information available, it doesn't look as the LEO's have too much to stand on. The ONLY recorded reason they gave for his arrest was the way he displayed his weapon. This was not illegal as well. Search and seizure needs probable cause. At least it used to. A phone call about a man with a weapon may come close to that, however, casual observation should have rules that out as his weapon was secured to his gear. A conversation should have easily reaffirmed that. His attitude, if he wore it on his sleeves or not, has nothing to do with this.

Maybe Rosa Parks had an attitude on the bus. Would that have changed anything?
 
My comment wasn't about HIM dissin the LEO's, it was about his supporters dissin the LEO's. Nothing I saw on the video was out of line for the LEO. Didn't lose his head, didn't club him (I might of), didn't tase him (again, I might have). Of coarse I'm using the guy's BS statement, his history and his video to fill in the blanks on what happened before the video started rollin. Doesn't take a trianed monkey to figure out he was out of line with attitude well before the tape rolled. Good thing for some (his supporters) it doesn't take a trained monkey to type at a keyboard either.

And comparing having to, either voluntary or by law, TEMPORARILY set aside your gun while in contact with an LEO to having to sit in the back of a bus or use a separate bathroom or any other racist BS is appalling. Frikin genius.
 
In many jurisdictions, he needs probable cause that the guy is doing something illegal in order to seize property, even a gun. He's not making a move for the gun. He's keeping his hands away from it. It's my understanding, in Texas, he would need probable cause in order to seize property (you know, that pesky 4th Amendment...always getting in the way of police work).
Click to expand...

Being told to put down the gun is NOT the seizing of property and is not a violation of the pesky 4th amendment. Refusing to follow an officers' lawful commands (as claimed by the officers) does then give probable cause, however, for being detained and as such for the seizure of the firearms, hence not violating the 4th Amendment.
 
Refusing to follow an officers' lawful commands (as claimed by the officers) does then give probable cause, however, for being detained and as such for the seizure of the firearms, hence not violating the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't presume the commands were lawful anymore than I presume this guy wasn't out of line. A Terry stop requires a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
 
The "Terry stop" came after Grisham's refusal to comply.

The ONLY recorded reason they gave for his arrest was the way he displayed his weapon.
Click to expand...

No, the only KNOWN recorded reason they gave for the arrest was a flippant euphemism. That it was recorded does not mean it is the only statement made and that the statement was made does not make it the official reason for the arrest.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, a number of us don't live in the real world. While open rifle carry is legal (to a degree) here in Texas, it is HIGHLY UNUSUAL for someone to do so. When I say highly unusual, I mean incredibly unusual as in practically never done in any remotely urban or populated area. Even the age of rifle racks in rear truck windows has since long passed decades ago. Plus, Temple ain't "rural" anymore. You also have to know that there isn't much legal shooting you can do in this state from a roadway, if any, in any event.

Given the current state of the times that we live in with a heightened sense of mass shooter fear, I suggest that while it may be totally legal to stroll around with an AR-15 over your shoulder (it is noteworthy that he did not have it slung over his shoulder, which may suggest it was calculated to cause alarm), it is probably foolish to do so and is looking to cause commotion if nothing else. You are basically guaranteed that someone will dial 911 and the police will show up. You are also guaranteed that the police officers who show up will treat you as a dangerous individual looking to do harm until you prove otherwise (right or wrong). Non-cooperation with law enforcement in every instance guarantees that you will be treated as a dangerous, non-law-abiding individual EVEN IF YOU ARE "COMPLETELY LEGAL."

Let's consider a different "completely legal" scenario. It is absolutely positively without question legal for me to "openly" carry a handgun in my home. Let's say that something happens such as an attempted burglary during the night in my home and I call the police. If the police arrive and they come upon me carrying a firearm, they are going to treat me as bad first and good later. They are going to ask or order me to disarm myself, and if I do not comply, they certainly can, and likely will, act accordingly. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PRESUME THAT I AM COMPLETELY LEGAL AT THAT MOMENT IN MY POSSESSION OF A FIREARM. While I am "completely legal," given the context, it is prudent to comply with law enforcement. It is one thing if the redcoats are at my door demanding that I turn over my weapons, and it is another thing if I am strolling through a mall parking lot with my AK-47 and the police pull up and ask me to put down my rifle before asking questions. To think that law enforcement personnel are going to have a conversation with someone who is holding a semi-auto rifle in the ready position to determine whether or not he/she has bad intentions is completely ignorant.

The bottom line is that, WHILE HE MAY BE TOTALLY LEGAL, this guy was either looking for conflict and found it, is a couple cents short of a dollar, or just stupid. For him to drag his kid into it and make him film the thing is disgusting. This wasn't that boy's political statement to make, it was his. This man knew what he was doing and what might happen when he left the house that day, and he got it, which is what I bet he secretly wished would happen. Well, it happened, but it didn't go the way he wanted to, or maybe it did? In any event, this isn't good press for 2nd amendment supporters - it's just the opposite. Thanks, Sergeant Idiot.
 
My comment wasn't about HIM dissin the LEO's, it was about his supporters dissin the LEO's. Nothing I saw on the video was out of line for the LEO. Didn't lose his head, didn't club him (I might of), didn't tase him (again, I might have). Of coarse I'm using the guy's BS statement, his history and his video to fill in the blanks on what happened before the video started rollin. Doesn't take a trianed monkey to figure out he was out of line with attitude well before the tape rolled. Good thing for some (his supporters) it doesn't take a trained monkey to type at a keyboard either.

And comparing having to, either voluntary or by law, TEMPORARILY set aside your gun while in contact with an LEO to having to sit in the back of a bus or use a separate bathroom or any other racist BS is appalling. Frikin genius.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again, since my comment asking this got deleted, because your comment I was responding to got deleted. I'm not bickering, I just want to know what you think. Where in the video, did Grisham do anything at all to warrant the treatment he got? Where would you find probable cause in anything he did in that video? Where was he doing anything illegal?

I know, you'll say something about "his history" which 1) would have no legal bearing on his actions that particular day, and 2) would have been unknown by the cops...and even if they did know, it would have been illegal to use that as probable cause. About all you seem to be able to muster is that he had, "a bad attitude" which isn't enough for probable cause, and is certainly not illegal in and of itself.

I'm asking this because the only actual facts we have about this particular case at this point is the video. You may believe he did something wrong to garner the treatment he got, but there is nothing factual that we know of that he did to cause that.

If the Temple Police release a dash cam video with audio and it shows he did something wrong, I'll be the first in line to condemn the man for what he did. But we don't have that. All we have is one video showing a few police officers arrest a man for, and in their own words, "rudely displaying" a rifle. Huh? Are they making up laws now? My favorite part was when the officer removed the 1911, he swept the muzzle across Grisham's head, neck and back. In most states, that's aggravated assault.

The part that really amazed me about this is the people on this forum (not directed at anyone in particular) who would so willingly give up their rights just to make their life a bit easier. The, "Well, if he had just done what they told him to do, he wouldn't have gone to jail." If he was in the right, he shouldn't have to do what they told him to do.

I'm going to make a prediction. Grisham is going to go to court to fight this. He'll likely get some relatively high profile lawyer to represent him pro bono. The charges will get dropped then. Of course, we won't know why they were dropped exactly, but it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that it's like the Temple PD and the DA don't want that dashcam video getting out for everyone to see, and embarrassing them. The chief of police will make a statement, something along the lines of, "Our officers were just doing their duty, and didn't do anything wrong. However, we believe Mr. Grisham has learned his lesson, and we don't want to get into a long court battle at the tax payers expense just to prove that."

Of course, I don't know for sure if that will happen, but it really seems reasonable to me.
 
"After insisting that there could be more to this case than what’s shown on the video, Flint said it doesn’t appear as if Grisham ever resisted or failed to comply with the demands of officers. The police were within their right to investigate the situation after receiving a 911 call, the attorney explained, but an officer still has to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or could be committed at a later time before detaining a suspect in the first place."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ney-weighs-in/

L_Killkenny "And comparing having to, either voluntary or by law, TEMPORARILY set aside your gun while in contact with an LEO to having to sit in the back of a bus or use a separate bathroom or any other racist BS is appalling. Frikin genius."
"“There are certain things that one might be advised to do when dealing with police officers and you are in possession of a firearm,” Flint told TheBlaze. “I always advise people to make an officer feel as safe and comfortable as possible. But just because that’s good advice doesn’t mean that has to be done.”"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ney-weighs-in/

L_Killkenny, some people, like this MSG or Rosa Parks, prefer to fight for thier beliefs. Others voice their eagerness to simply roll over when confronted.
 
Army sergent arrested for legal possession of a firearm

I find it tragic that just over 200 years ago, one of the most intelligent men of his time advised this to his nephew:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/exercise.asp#6XxpkaAJotXA4gMX.99

How far has America slid down the slippery slope of liberty.
 
Glenn, since the incident involved the man taking a walk with his gun, the historical context actually bears directly on the incident under discussion. IE, this used to be NORMAL.
 
It did used to be normal, but not in more than a generation and so no longer is the norm. Thomas Jefferson didn't know a thing about Texas. Grisham and his son were not exercising, but working on a scout patch, just one that involved walking long distance. It wasn't like they did this every weekend to stay fit.
 
DNS, how do you know this isn't part of a semi-regular workout routine? I knew plenty of people who would hike with IBAs and issued boots, as part of home cycle conditioning pre-deployment. I have no trouble thinking somebody, in an area where legal, might do similar with weapon in normal deployment carry position.

Note, also, that one of the arguments regularly used by OC proponents is that one reason the norm has shifted is that we have become afraid of harassment over OC.
 
I have an Eberlestock Gunslinger I that I use for hunting. Every weekend I have a full pack and hike 8-10 miles. My Mauser is in the scabbard there along with everything else I need for hunting. I live at the very edge of Phoenix near a mountain preserve. Still, we are very populated. The city police drove by me this past weekend with no problems or funny looks.
 
This discussion has weaved left and right, as our discussions do.

This one is very typical, our resident "Don't like Cops" people, do their thing.

Our "We should be let do what we want Guys" They are alive and well.

Having been involved with teaching weapons, most of my adult life, I can see both sides. Reference Officer Safety, the position the Rifle was, magazine seated, would make one believe, the Rifle could be deployed very swiftly, for short range body hits. Just drop your hands, safety off, swivel body, and Rifle, fire multiple rounds.

So the verbal would be pleasant, a greeting, direction, "please do not handle your rifle" then the why of what brings me here.

I think it could have been resolved, even given the circumstances,

This ends in Court, the Dash cam video plus the Citizens video would be shown.

My take would be, as a Juror, I would most likely lean with the Soldier.
 
Also I've been told if I ever need to be disarmed for ANY reason. I am to let an LEO approach me and do it for me. I am not to reach for or remove a gun from its slung or holstered position. It could be taken as a threat or used against you. If they want you disarmed they can do it. That way if anything happens it's due to their error and not yours.
 
His actions were very unusual and warranted investigating given the circumstances. If he had been walking on the trail carrying a new flat screen TV box I bet the police would have checked him out too just to make sure it wasn't stolen. Because hey you don't see people walking along that trail carrying guns or flat screen TVs as a normal course of events. Both would be perfectly legal activities though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top