Exactly, I agree with Mleake here. There are other factors here at play that we must address, the fact is, even if Grisham was in the wrong, it does not excuse some if not all the acts that followed. The dentaining and forced interrogation of his son for that matter appears to fall on the far side of the law in this case.
The fact that the Temple LEO's set a condition upon the realease of the child, whom was not authorized by his parent to answer any of their questions, and forced their authority upon the child is what casts the shadow of doubt upon the entire encounter, among many other things.
It could very well be that both parties are at fault, but the fact of the matter is, we can only speculate what he said/did and what exactly they said/did. at this time.
We need more information, it doesn't get any clearer than that IMO.