The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2013, 09:52 PM   #151
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
He is a Hero, with a capital H.
So is Eddie Ray Routh, Charlie Whitman, Chris Dorner, Robert Walters, Diggs Brown, Louis Bressler, Michael Platt, and possibly Erik Scott would fall into the same category, but they also did some bad things and now have arrests and convictions, most as felonies, or are dead.

Being a war hero doesn't mean that you are without fallacy and will never do anything wrong.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; April 25, 2013 at 10:24 PM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 22, 2013, 10:19 PM   #152
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNS
Being a war hero doesn't mean that you are without fallacy and will never do anything wrong.
That is a very important part that many tend to forget... If the Army only had angels, there would be no need for CID and a buddy of mine (Army CID) would be out of a job.

Looking at this from the outside, I can see where both sides could have done things to improve the situation.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 01:05 AM   #153
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Fishing_Cabin, I agree it seems both sides could have handled things better. I still have concerns with "rude display" and the questioning of the minor, though.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 03:01 PM   #154
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
The question remains, however - what evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the arresting officers any cause to forcibly disarm him?

Whether you like him or not, is there any evidence that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the LEO's any basis to detain, disarm and arrest him? I argue no.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:21 PM   #155
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
csmsss "what evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham violated any laws or gave the arresting officers any cause to forcibly disarm him?"

Please believe me. It cringes my very soul to even write this. I think that, given the law as it is written in TX, the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop. It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. Ultimately, it would be up to the court to decide if the MSG truly violated this poorly written, horribly miserable piece of law. I don't, at this point, believe the questioning and detention of this guy to be against the law. Just think about this honestly; It could have been that, from a distance, it may have looked like the MSG was at a port of arms rather than his rifle being attached to his gear. This would have caused the officer to stop and speak to the individual rather than a simple drive-by. It is my belief that things escalated out of control form there. I think the professionalism we pay for and expect of our police was damaged by this. Still, based on that stupidly written law (really, how can you PROVE it was CALCULATED to cause alarm in the way it was displayed?), I believe the MSG could have been cited legally. As far as questioning the kid, well, I find no excuse or reason for that. I am not saying the defense has a rock solid case. The prosecutor pretty much admitted that by lessening the charges. Besides, the article that I posted earlier has an attorney that completely disagrees with his arrest. Time will tell, I suppose. Then again, rude isn't necessarily calculating...

In relation to my previous point about Rosa Parks; I say that anyone standing up for their rights is just like Rosa Parks. I am sure that there were people who scoffed at her sitting on the bus, implying that it was a trivial gesture and that she has some personal agenda to push. I am sure that if blogging was available then, she probably would have said some pretty controversial things. The only difference between her and anyone else standing up for their rights is coverage and the wining side writing history.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:38 PM   #156
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop
I disagree. If that were the case, any truly anti-gun person could scream bloody murder every time someone prints, and get them harassed for hours.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:43 PM   #157
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
I think that, given the law as it is written in TX, the 911 call from an "alarmed citizen" was probable cause for the stop. It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
I think you are misreading/misapplying the law. Read it again - "IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO ALARM" is the critical element of the crime. What evidence is there that Sgt. Grisham was carrying his rifle in such a manner? Are you suggesting that the mere use of a single point sling translates to such intent?

Btw..the 911 caller(s)' "fear" is irrelevant. It matters not how afraid they are - the only issue is whether Sgt. Grisham's open carry of a long arm was intended to cause fear. Absent evidence to the contrary, one can only conclude there was no reasonable suspicion for the arresting officers to infer such a method/manner of carry, and therefore they had no legal basis on which to conduct a Terry stop.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:52 PM   #158
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
This one has run on long after I last looked at it.

Quote:
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.
Sometimes you read something and you just know that this is what happened. It just smells right.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:
It was at the officers discretion to enforce (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
Naaa, I think the officers responded to the call like they should have. They asked the guy to put the gun down so they could talk. I think he got smart mouthed with them and that is just not the way you talk to cops, not when you have a weapon in your hands. The charge is just a better way of saying "We arrested this guy for being stupid when all he had to do was cooperate".
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223

Last edited by lcpiper; April 23, 2013 at 04:59 PM.
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:52 PM   #159
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
And in this case, precision in terminology is vital. The police are required to respond to 911 calls - that's what they do. They get 911 calls about all manner of things and, for the most part, respond in a professional manner and respect the rights of citizens. The idea is that the police officer is there to INVESTIGATE the circumstances at the scene - it is not a presumption that a crime has been committed and that, therefore, an arrest must or even can be made.

The police officer is free to speak to a subject - free to ask questions and even to ask the subject if he wouldn't mind removing the firearms from his person and, say, putting them on the trunk of his car - but the subject is free to decline to do so. Absent the LEO's reasonably articulable suspicion, he's also free to go on about his way. What was the LEO's "reasonably articulable suspicion" in this case? Ummm...something about the rifle being "rudely displayed." Try as I might, I find no reference to courtesy in the Texas statutes.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:55 PM   #160
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
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.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 04:57 PM   #161
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 05:02 PM   #162
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 05:08 PM   #163
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
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.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 05:09 PM   #164
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
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.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 05:36 PM   #165
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
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.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 05:53 PM   #166
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 202
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.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old April 23, 2013, 07:09 PM   #167
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 07:07 AM   #168
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 08:33 AM   #169
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 08:54 AM   #170
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
I think most of us understand that military personnel enjoy a much smaller shadow of 1st Amendment protection than the rest of us.
I don't think so. Anyone that gets in the news or social media doing something their employer doesn't like will suffer consequences. The Stewardess that posts a risque photo of herself in half her uniform on a plane isn't likely to be a stewardess long. http://clatl.com/atlanta/delta-stewa...nt?oid=1250876
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 08:58 AM   #171
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
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.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 24, 2013, 09:03 AM   #172
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
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?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 25, 2013, 09:36 PM   #173
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 26, 2013, 08:43 AM   #174
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 26, 2013, 02:17 PM   #175
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Sgt. Grisham's military career is entirely extraneous to the legal issues in this case.
Only between him and Texas. The Army can decide if and when they want to pursue legal action against him.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14872 seconds with 9 queries