|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 22, 2013, 09:52 PM | #151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
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 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange Last edited by Double Naught Spy; April 25, 2013 at 10:24 PM. |
|
April 22, 2013, 10:19 PM | #152 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Looking at this from the outside, I can see where both sides could have done things to improve the situation. |
|
April 23, 2013, 01:05 AM | #153 |
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.
|
April 23, 2013, 03:01 PM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
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. |
April 23, 2013, 04:21 PM | #155 |
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 |
April 23, 2013, 04:38 PM | #156 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2013, 04:43 PM | #157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 23, 2013, 04:52 PM | #158 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
This one has run on long after I last looked at it.
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. 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:
__________________
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. |
||
April 23, 2013, 04:52 PM | #159 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
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. |
April 23, 2013, 04:55 PM | #160 |
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 |
April 23, 2013, 04:57 PM | #161 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
|||
April 23, 2013, 05:02 PM | #162 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2013, 05:08 PM | #163 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
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 |
|
April 23, 2013, 05:09 PM | #164 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 23, 2013, 05:36 PM | #165 |
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 |
April 23, 2013, 05:53 PM | #166 |
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 |
April 23, 2013, 07:09 PM | #167 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2013, 07:07 AM | #168 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 24, 2013, 08:33 AM | #169 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2013, 08:54 AM | #170 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2013, 08:58 AM | #171 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
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.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 24, 2013, 09:03 AM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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?
|
April 25, 2013, 09:36 PM | #173 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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. |
||
April 26, 2013, 08:43 AM | #174 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 26, 2013, 02:17 PM | #175 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|