CJ Grisham Found Guilty

[Double Naught Spy]

After a long discussion here over Grisham's arrest and ending with wonderment about the possibility of a new trial...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522584

...there was a new trial and Grisham was found guilty of interfering with the duties of an officer after a 2 hour deliberation. It is a Class A misdemeanor.
http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/grisha...a4bcf6878.html

[dakota.potts]

CJ told us on Facebook (I assume it was him and not a person acting In Absentia) that he was ordered to pay a $2,000 fine, the max monetary amount for the charge, but no jail time.

He plans to appeal the decision.

[BarryLee]

So, he was found guilty of interfering with the police when they investigated him as he engaged in a legal activity. Am I correct?

I am no fan of folks who seek confrontations with police simply to video the encounter hoping the LEO will making an error, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It concerns me that the police can detain you for no reason and then charge you for not cooperating in the investigation. I’m I missing something here?

[Double Naught Spy]

Dash cam released. I would say the cop was way out of line.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...n-waiting-for/

However, apparently the cop was not acting illegally, at least not yet that has been determined.

[David13]

I see an unlawful assault and battery by the cop upon a citizen.
Just no reason for that attack whatsoever.
dc

[Double Naught Spy]

I believe where you are seeing the A&B happens at the point the jury determined Grisham was interfering, hence would not be A&B.

[Strafer Gott]

I thought the Lone Star State was firearm friendly. I don't really feel that way anymore. No gun tourism for me(paid hog hunts), thank you very much! I might screw up and walk down a road, costing me my privileges. Who would have thought...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Can we not go off for denouncing a state because of one incident?

If this is a rant fest in the making, it gets closed.

Say somebody substantive about the incident, if you please.

Glenn

[orangello]

I am disappointed in that result.

Given this decision, what should a person do when they feel they are legally carrying a rifle or shotgun and then encounter the police? (reasonable suggestions for avoiding incarceration)

[dakota.potts]

Glenn, what's your take on the opinion? You're a person pretty in-the-know (to make an understatement).

I feel like they tacked on the charge because it's rather vague. In doing research on it, I found that the prosecutor had told the jury to charge him with a misdemeanor like this to "let him know he can't do this" because he "still doesn't get it."

Does he have an option at successful recourse? He is trying to get the NRA involved from what I know.

[Double Naught Spy]

I was emailing with JohnKSa about this and he brought up a good point and I will add to it. The cop was sort of being a jerk from the start (at least where he takes hold of the gun without permission) but with that said, Grisham reacted badly to this as well.

Yes, I know how we all don't like the idea of our rights being violated and we are often viscerally upset by such things happening, but had Grisham worked to de-escalate the situation and then just filed a complaint later, he probably would have just been on his way like the cop said.

If you think your rights have already been violated, then what good does it ever do a citizen to be confrontation with the cop that the citizen feels just violated the citizen's rights? Have we ever seen the incidents where the cop all of a sudden says, "You are right. I am not allowed to do this. I have violated your rights and I am sorry. Here is the paperwork so that you can file a complaint against me." Of course not. Along the same lines, they get people with some regularity proclaiming that their rights have been violated when they have not been violated. It is a useless argument to make with the person you think is doing you wrong.

I am not saying that what the cop did was right, certainly not after seeing the dash cam video. What I am saying is that of the ways in which Grisham could have responded, he picked one of the more non-violent but confrontational ways. As we have seen time and time again on various videos, there is a poor percentage in things going well with the cops when the person gets confrontational, especially when they start raising their voice, making demands, making proclamations of lawsuits and rights violations. In other words, just because you can raise your voice and do like Grisham did does not mean that it is the most appropriate response to the situation.

It certainly may have been much cheaper and without a conviction on his record had Grisham just filed a complaint and/or lawsuit after the fact. He probably still will, but he will now have a different and likely more difficult battle ahead of him.

[Al Norris]

It's been said before, and it bears repeating: Never argue your case with a police officer. You simply won't win. Save all your arguments for the courtroom.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not being privy to all the evidence, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

I agree that you never argue with the law.

I know it is PC in the gun world to denounce the cop. I see it as a risk analysis
problem.

You approach a person with a gun - perhaps you shouldn't have because of the law. However, when you do - the guy starts to argue with the cop.

The crucial thing from the video is that the guy starts to touch the AR, if I see it correctly. The officer touches the AR and the guy grabs it also.

As an officer and given the loons in the world, you really can't trust a spontaneous or uncontrolled movement with a gun - no matter how you got into the situation. Everything flowed from that.

I might criticize the officer for tactics - he let the kid move in an uncontrolled manner. That was quite a risk. He should have disengaged to cover both.

Given the responses of the guy - he would probably start to posture with the gun and got shot.

[Salmoneye]

The saddest part of this situation to me is the 'citizen' that called LEO because some guy was walking down a rural road with a gun...

The horror...

[Mr. James]

A cop friend of mine says, "you might win in court, but you'll never win at the curb." There were a whole lot of shenanigans going on here, including the BS charges eventually filed. But Mr. Grisham didn't acquit himself well, especially in front of his son. I'd be ashamed of myself.

We can advocate for gun rights without ambushing cops and acting the ass. Once Grisham reached for his weapon, all bets were off. Now, let him file his civil suit for redress. Of course, that misdemeanor conviction doesn't help his case any, does it?

And Salmoneye is spot on. That's the saddest part of this. in Temple, Texas, for crying out loud.

[leadcounsel]

Ya know, I'm as pro-2A and pro-gun as they come.

I will say that I am 100% in support of open carry of long guns and handguns. For the repeal of nearly every gun law. For the repeal of the various GCAs and assault weapon bans in all of the states. For the repeal of background checks. ETC. In fact, I just argued on another forum for the right to carry long guns openly without being hassled.

But, I expect people, especially smart, educated, and/or experienced people like a decorated military veteran, a senior enlisted at that - to use some bloody common sense.

Grisham was exercising his right. I understand that. But like in Iraq he would presumably disarm an Iraqi citizen who is exercising his right to have an AK47 for the safety of US servicemembers until a cordon and clear mission is complete, so too should he understand that an officer will absolutely want to disarm him until questioning is completed. Briefly disarm, do your job, give them their guns back.

Grisham handled himself very poorly; shockingly poorly as a matter of fact. First, he should know that even though legal, open carrying an AR15 with a magazine in the well is GOING to draw attention and result in confrontation with a cop. Perhaps that's why he immediately had the camera on. I cannot fault him for exercising his right. I wish more people would. I can fault him for not immediately setting the officer at ease with hands up, a smile, and offering his carry permit, license, and a 'howdy - do.'

Now, we know cops are on alert for any suspect activity. In fairness, with all of the mass shootings, seeing a guy walking around with a loaded AR15 is going to draw attention, even in Texas. Say a cop saw the shooter walking to the school with an AR15 right before Sandy Hook and failed to stop and see... there would be a ton of liability in the cops not investigating. Columbine. Sandy Hook. Fort Hood. Texas bell tower shooting. Aurora movie theater. The list is growing of unhinged guys with carbines going on shooting rampages.

Imagine YOU are a cop. Things like this happen all the time:Cop stops a car, and a guy with and AK47 hops out and riddles the cop car with bullets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ililCtp0Bk

Cop rolls up on the scene. Grisham has an AR15 with magazine in well, at the low ready. 30 rounds of immediate firepower, available in 1 second, faster than the cop can draw a sidearm. He doesn't know if Grisham is the next Adam Lanza. Any cop would be apprehensive seeing a guy carrying an AR15. But in addition to being immediately combative, next, Grisham failed to inform the officer that he had another gun on his person, and a concealed carry permit until a few minutes into the altercation. Texas law requires notifying the LEO of your permit and carry status and voluntarily surrendering his firearm(s). What did he possibly hope to accomplish by jumping around, arguing, and shouting at the cops?

Sec. 411.206. SEIZURE OF HANDGUN AND LICENSE. (a) If a peace officer arrests and takes into custody a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter, the officer shall seize the license holder's handgun and license as evidence.

(b) The provisions of Article 18.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the disposition of weapons seized in connection with criminal offenses, apply to a handgun seized under this subsection.

(c) Any judgment of conviction entered by any court for an offense under Section 46.035, Penal Code, must contain the handgun license number of the convicted license holder. A certified copy of the judgment is conclusive and sufficient evidence to justify revocation of a license under Section 411.186(a)(4).

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, if the law enforcement agency provides a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun. The peace officer shall secure the handgun in the locker and shall return the handgun to the license holder immediately after the license holder leaves the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility.

We all complain that cops don't prevent crime enough. Here is a cop doing what I would expect a cop to do when he sees someone with an AR15 and a magazine in the weapon walking down the road. Stop, disarm the gentleman for the cops safety, and ask a few questions. I don't see how his journey would have been infringed, nor his freedoms trampled, by simply complying for a quick and reasonable Q&A to make sure all is good. After all, that's part of the roll of a police officer.

If they have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, then they stop, disarm, and ask questions. For instance, it's perfectly legal to sit outside a bank and watch it with binoculars, take notes, pictures, etc. But we can all agree that this behavior would draw scrutiny and questions from the police. Same is true here.

Did the cop handle himself poorly? Were the cops lacking in their knowledge of the law, and their love for the 2nd Amendment? Yes, he failed to communicate very well nor did they know the law well. But the cop wasn't a complete jerk. He didn't go up commando with gun drawn yelling 'get on the ground.' He went up very casual and non-threatening. I believe Grisham could have totally diffused the situation had he been polite, hands away from gun, and cooperative.

BUT... Bottom line, Grisham handled himself poorly. When the police officer tried to take custody of the rifle, instead of Grisham offering to help and being non-threatening, he immediately started hostile quick movements and arguing. Wrong thing to do.

Especially as a trained Soldier, he should have simply complied with reasonable requests, disarmed, and then he would have been able to go on his way. But instead, he was extremely combative, edgy, threatening, "I'm gonna sue you.... this is on video...". Almost like he's just itching for an argument.

And arguing with cops when you're in cuffs on the hood of the car is fruitless.

I cannot fault the cop(s) for stopping people walking around with rifles. I can fault the guy who pushes the envelope, then behaves poorly. And, frankly, his behavior also put his son in danger. Danger of being shot by a nervous cop. Danger of being assaulted for the video camera. Danger of a host of things. He didn't know if that cop would get jumpy and light them both up, or shoot Grisham and sick a K9 on his fleeing son. Just really poor decision making. When he saw the cop, he should have put his hands up, offering zero threat, and complied 100% with a smile on his face. He'd have been on his way in 5 minutes with a positive interaction with the peace officer.

I'd say he got what he was looking for. A conflict. He's lucky he didn't get shot out of the deal. In fairness, that could have happened, even if unjustified. You don't come back from dead even if the cops were wrong to shoot.

CJ told us on Facebook (I assume it was him and not a person acting In Absentia) that he was ordered to pay a $2,000 fine, the max monetary amount for the charge, but no jail time.

If he is in the military, this could cost him a lot more than the $2K. He could lose promotability, be reduced in rank, removed from leadership positions, receive a permanent reprimand in his file (a career killer), etc...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Reasonable analysis.

After a recent car accident when a kid ran a stop sign into me, the deputy approached. I had my CHL ready and told him there was a gun on my left hip and another in a bag in the car. He was very polite and told me to open the trunk and slowly remove the carry gun and put it down. He then competently unloaded it and then checked the bag gun. He then said he would like to keep the guns in his car till we were done.

This didn't bother me a bit. Car accidents can be high stress and with disputes about who did what. Another deputy rolled up. It was very professional and I didn't mind a bit. The kid took the blame and that was that.

I didn't feel it was a rights violation or that the deputies should have trusted me, etc. It was sensible. Road rage can be quite evil.

[Madcap_Magician]

One good rule for both Mr. Grisham and the officer to remember is: "Would this situation improve if I stopped being an ass?"

If the answer is yes, then stop being an ass.

Doesn't matter if you were the first one to be an ass or the biggest ass, if you want the situation to improve, STOP being one!

[leadcounsel]

Glenn, I had a similar experience.

Probably 15 years ago, I was living in a lower class suburb. I heard a shooting in my back yard or back alley neighbor area. Pop pop. And a dog yelp. I went out to investigate. Foolishly. I would NOT recommend this. I took my 12 gauge loaded with slugs.

Located my neighbors and their shot dog. Some jerks randomly shot the dog with a .22.

I was standing there with my shotgun, talking to my neighbors when about 4 patol cars screeched up, and the cops step out and within an instant I had 4 guns drawn on me.

I had a decision to make. I could be a jerk, protest, talk about my rights to have my shotgun in public, etc. Or I could simply set down the gun carefully, raise my hands and let the cops do their thing. The former may have gotten me shot. I did the latter. A professional officer took my shotgun, unloaded it, and held it until the situation was resolved. After the confusion was figured out, in about 10 minutes, he have me back the shotgun and shells and I was on my way.

I felt treated with respect, and thought that THEIR behavior was reasonable and I was the one that was foolish IN MY ACTIONS to be standing around with a long gun on a public street after a shooting. What did I expect would happen?!

Of course the cops are going to come, and they don't know me from Adam (Lanza). I would expect them to draw on me, disarm me, and figure out the situation for everyone's safety.

[m&p45acp10+1]

To help eliminate creating a new thread I am going to post this update here. I am a local, and the case is still talked about in the local papers.

Yesterday's paper of the Temple Daily Telegram had the small front page headline that the guns while logged in as evidence could not be located after Grisham filed to have them returned. He taped a call to the DA about getting them, and the rest of his property that had been seized back.

Long story short was they did not know exactly where they were. Also they would not release them without an order from the judge. The reporter called around asking where they were, and got the run around treatment.

Update to today's paper. The guns have been found. They were turned over to the stenographer's office, as they are responsible for documents, and evidence keeping in this case.

Also stated was the fact that the weapons will not be returned until the outcome of the appeal is final, as they are considered to be evidence in the case.

There is more to it. I am just paraphrasing a quick cliff note version. Google the Temple Daily Telegram if you wish to read up on it yourself.

[Double Naught Spy]

So to summarize your summary. The evidence is being properly handled and will not be released because of the appeal process.

LOL, what a lot to do about nothing. Grisham's lawyer KNOWS evidence in a case will not be released in a pending court case, not without a judge's order.

FYI, you can Google Temple Daily Telegram all day long, but unless you are a subscriber, you don't get to read the articles. You can subscribe for as little as $3 for 7 days.

[Ben Towe]

Lesson to be learned: don't be an idiot when you're carrying a gun. If they want you to disarm, be polite and do it. We were recently were stopped in Missouri by a trooper for a DOT inspection and two of us were carrying. We immediately informed and he asked us for our handguns and we handed them over. He was obviously nervous but very professional. The only part that made me a little uneasy was his unfamiliarity with the 1911 platform; I had to talk him through clearing my weapon. I don't like handing a loaded weapon off and certainly not to someone unfamiliar with it. That said, short of making a scene, there wasn't much choice, and he wasn't unsafe with it. He checked to to make sure they weren't stolen, did his inspection, handed our pistols back and sent us on our way. If we had pulled a stunt like this guy did we might have ended up in a Missouri jail, or worse. As it was, we got let go on a couple DOT violations (and I'm certain the fact we were armed citizens is why) and were on our way in a few minutes.