Right, so we are back to the aspect that the police do in fact have the legal ability to disarm you. We don't know what happened before the video started rolling other than Grisham's account and that is only one side of the story. Regardless of who Grisham is, we have all seen people in high positions, positions of authority, positions of respect, cops, military, politicians, CEOs, parents, etc. tell lies. That isn't to say that he is lying, only that credentials aren't proof of what he is claiming.
The cops are claiming he would not comply. To a certain extent, Grisham clearly backed up their claim and Grisham, like Ersland, may have been exceptionally stupid in speaking to the media.
On Genn Beck, Grisham states plainly he would not be disarmed,
"What the hell do you think you are doing. ... You are not going to disarm me."
At that point, there is a definite problem as Grisham is on record as stating he would not allow himself to be disarmed. What is then in question is what happened before that point. It isn't on video. Nobody here knows what happened. No doubt, it will come out in court. If the officers' actions can be shown to be legal, Grisham loses. If not legal, then no doubt the cops will lose and Grisham will likely end up with a nice settlement. However, Grisham would have been very smart to exercise his right to remain silent and not speak with the media.
However, arguing over what is going on in the video is pretty silly since the video isn't the critical part of the situation.
I did have to laugh at the indignation Grisham showed, however, that the cops should have known he a combat veteran because he had a boonie cap with his rank on it. My boonie cap says I am a Sgt. as well. It was the only used boonie cap that fit me at the Army/Navy store. I wear it when I mow the lawn.