The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 17, 2013, 09:05 AM   #51
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Funny, but the questioning of the child isn't what Grisham is upset about.
Yep.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:27 AM   #52
sundog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 1999
Location: Green Country, OK
Posts: 730
Willfully placing a child under duress, i.e., won't let him out of the car until he answers questions...

Child abuse maybe?

This whole situation SHOULD have been over after a 30 second civil conversion. In fact, the Temple officers should have offered words of encouragement to the young working to make Eagle Scout!

As it turned out, if no law has been broken, I would expect that lawyers would be lining up to represent the arrested man.

When this is over and done, if no law has been broken, these officers need to be FIRED!
__________________
safety first
sundog is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:41 AM   #53
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Then I would have claimed the meth-heads in the rural Temple area over hogs and cougars, oh my. There are plenty of reports of meth labs in Temple and in Bell County in general and problems with drug addicts are reasonably common and documentable. Problems with hog and cougar attacks in the area are not, LOL.
that works too, though I'd stick with the hogs and cougars. Meth-heads makes you sound vigilante. Not wanting to be eaten is a visceral reaction everyone understands.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 11:53 AM   #54
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,178
I've read various threads on a handful of forums about this, watched three of the videos posted, and I am left with out any sympathy for Grisham. From what I read, and someone please let me know if I am wrong or misread or misinterpreted, the officers responded to a call about a man carrying a rifle. The caller may not have known what is lawful to do in that state, but that doesn't mean that law enforcement is going to ignore the call to a 911 operator. As I understand it, when the officers arrived, Grisham was asked to put the gun down so the officers could talk to him. When Grisham refused was when the officer drew his own weapon and turned this into a three ring circus.

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.

Alaska has comparable laws to Texas. We can openly carry a long gun or hand gun. And while it is not uncommon to see handguns openly holstered, it is not common here in city limits to see people carrying long guns. You will see that when you go fishing or hiking or anywhere a person might enjoy the wilderness. What you will not see, even with all our bears/wolves/porcupines/moose/salmon is someone carrying a long gun in a ready position. It will be slung on their shoulder or back. And when the armed law abiding citizen encounters a police officer or state trooper or fish/wildlife, and they are asked to disarm for the safety of the law enforcement officer, we are obligated to comply.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:03 PM   #55
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
As I understand it, when the officers arrived, Grisham was asked to put the gun down so the officers could talk to him. When Grisham refused was when the officer drew his own weapon and turned this into a three ring circus.
-one for each ring.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:12 PM   #56
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
It will be slung on their shoulder or back.
He had it slung forward because that's how he was taught to carry it, and that's what he did on deployment. This might be an issue if the law states you can open carry a long gun, only if its slung on your shoulder and back. Yet the Texas laws make no such requirement. I lived in Alaska for most of my life, so I'm very used to seeing all sorts of people openly carrying all sorts of things. But the method of open carry is absolutely irrelevant to the case at hand.

I understand the police needing to respond to a call of a man with a gun. But when the arrived on scene, saw he wasn't doing anything illegal, that should have been the end of it. Instead, they illegally disarmed him, illegally detained his child, and charged him with resisting arrest and "interference" when he was cooperating as far as the law required him to.

BTW, I lived in Sitka, and during the first week or two of August (Sitka Blacktail season starts Aug 1) it's very common to see people openly carrying all sorts of weapons, both downtown, and out the road. It's fun watching tourists reaction to a guy walking in the middle of town in Camo, with a bolt action slung over his back, and a .44 Mag on his hip.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:14 PM   #57
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
The guy is an idiot and caused, INTENTIONALLY, the whole issue. There are so many tell tell signs they weren't out on a Boy Scout hike it's not even funny. They grabbed a camera, grabbed the gun and headed down the road to make a statement. All fine and dandy. But if anyone believes his attitude only started after things went south and the camera came on they'd be a fool.

For the severely ignorant let me tell you what's gonna happen if/when you give an LEO attitude whether you're carrying or not...... You're gonna raise eyebrows, you're gonna inflate the situation, you may get searched, any weapons you may have are gonna be taken, and if you finally straighten up your act you may get em back and turned loose. Don't straighten up your act and your gonna get tossed. Doesn't matter whether you're pulled over for a traffic ticket or for just walkin down the street. You may very well be right in what you are doing but give an LEO crap and then continuing to give the LEO crap is what takes the heat off the LEO and puts all the blame on you.

He or anyone like him is a bad example for kids and a blackmark against our military and gun owners a like.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:19 PM   #58
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
You may very well be right in what you are doing but give an LEO crap and then continuing to give the LEO crap is what takes the heat off the LEO and puts all the blame on you.
Last I checked, giving a LEO crap isn't against the law. As long as everything Grisham did was legal (and as far as we can tell, it WAS), the LEO's acted inappropriately and illegally.

If what you're saying is correct, then I guess the police have the right to infringe on the 1st Amendment also. As an example, calling a cop a "pig" might not be the smartest thing to do, but if they arrested/detained you as a result, that would be illegal. That's the point. Capitulating to Police simply because they're police might save you some immediate problems (going to jail, etc) but you might be giving up your rights just to make your life easier right now. That's why Grisham talked about the "hard right" over the "easy wrong."
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:33 PM   #59
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Last I checked, giving a LEO crap isn't against the law. As long as everything Grisham did was legal (and as far as we can tell, it WAS), the LEO's acted inappropriately and illegally.

If what you're saying is correct, then I guess the police have the right to infringe on the 1st Amendment also. As an example, calling a cop a "pig" might not be the smartest thing to do, but if they arrested/detained you as a result, that would be illegal. That's the point. Capitulating to Police simply because they're police might save you some immediate problems (going to jail, etc) but you might be giving up your rights just to make your life easier right now. That's why Grisham talked about the "hard right" over the "easy wrong."
You're right, callin a cop a pig isn't reason to be arrested. But it does give them LEGAL cause to check you out further and ask for ID and/or other such things. At that point it's illegal for you to say no, and rightfully so I might add. Same with carrying a gun. I don't buy this guy's sob story for one minute but even if I did, if/when the LEO asked or told him to disarm he should done so promptly. Heck, even if the LEO didn't ask and just grabbed for it (as the defendants BS indicates) let him have it! It's not a big deal, common courtesy, maybe the law (don't rightly know myself) and there's no frikin reason not to except to inflate the situation. At the time he inflated the situation it was all on him.

The guy left the house with a chip on his shoulder and got what he deserved. Only a fool with think he did anything but make this a 1000 times worse than it would of been.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:38 PM   #60
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Heck, even if the LEO didn't ask and just grabbed for it
Being a LEO does not imply immunity from simple assault. Asking for cooperating an disarmament during a stop is one thing Reaching in and forcibly disarming someone without discussion during a non-arrest is another. Though I freely admit, it's another that's better settled afterwards with a big fat jury reward.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:42 PM   #61
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
I've read various threads on a handful of forums about this, watched three of the videos posted, and I am left with out any sympathy for Grisham. From what I read, and someone please let me know if I am wrong or misread or misinterpreted, the officers responded to a call about a man carrying a rifle. The caller may not have known what is lawful to do in that state, but that doesn't mean that law enforcement is going to ignore the call to a 911 operator. As I understand it, when the officers arrived, Grisham was asked to put the gun down so the officers could talk to him. When Grisham refused was when the officer drew his own weapon and turned this into a three ring circus.
Best I can tell, no one in this thread has objected to the police responding to a 911 call. Just a piece of advice - when raising a strawman, it's more effective when it refers to a previously referred to argument or topic.

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.
Your opinion is, well...your opinion and not really instructive as far as evaluating the lawfulness of the sergeant's behavior nor that of the police. In Texas, it is legal to openly carry a long arm. Period. There are no stipulations upon that right other than the (hopefully common-sensical provision that the bearer of the firearm not do so in a threatening manner). You're the first person who has suggested he did so in this case, and I see no evidence whatsoever he did.

Quote:
Alaska has comparable laws to Texas. We can openly carry a long gun or hand gun. And while it is not uncommon to see handguns openly holstered, it is not common here in city limits to see people carrying long guns. You will see that when you go fishing or hiking or anywhere a person might enjoy the wilderness. What you will not see, even with all our bears/wolves/porcupines/moose/salmon is someone carrying a long gun in a ready position. It will be slung on their shoulder or back. And when the armed law abiding citizen encounters a police officer or state trooper or fish/wildlife, and they are asked to disarm for the safety of the law enforcement officer, we are obligated to comply.
Actually, Texas' laws are different in the respect that we are NOT permitted to openly carry handguns except under a sporting use exception. That being said, the footage would indicate that the sergeant was carrying his sidearm concealed, since the police officer asked him if he had a concealed carry permit (which would have been unnecessary if he were carrying openly).

And, again, Texas makes no requirement as to how a longarm be carried - the behavior of Alaskan citizens in Alaska is completely irrelevant - another strawman.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 12:56 PM   #62
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,094
Sometime before his runin with the law, Grisham appeared before the Temple city council with a "gun rights resolution". He asked the council to affirm the resolution. The mayor, a military veteran, said no.

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/0...rate-incident/
thallub is online now  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:01 PM   #63
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
The mayor, a military veteran, said no.
And the plot thickens.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:05 PM   #64
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Lots of people seem to want to hold Grisham up to ridicule. But what he's saying is essentially what the vast majority of members of this board would agree with. It may make some uncomfortable, but it's not irrational, it's not extreme, and there's a foundation for everything he's suggesting in the Constitution.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:14 PM   #65
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Being a LEO does not imply immunity from simple assault. Asking for cooperating an disarmament during a stop is one thing Reaching in and forcibly disarming someone without discussion during a non-arrest is another. Though I freely admit, it's another that's better settled afterwards with a big fat jury reward.
Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it. That he didn't ask or tell him to disarm first? Even though it's afternoon now I know the stars will be in the sky tonight, I know the local mart has beer, although I'm not looking out the window I know it's daytime and yes, I know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there.

You go walkin along the highway or in a city park with an AR (or an H&R single for that matter) and the cops are gonna show up. Simply fact of life, this ain't 1850. When they get there you are at some point gonna be told or asked to put the gun down. Put the gun down! Frikin brilliant isn't it. Ya don't say I don't have to, you don't start in on your rights, ya do it. Things get sorted out and probably in short order. If your legal no big deal, if your not you either move to where it is or don't do it.

No lawsuit, no hassle, carry on.

This guy is about the worst example of a gun rights advocate and more of a danger than any of those pinheads sitting in DC.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:15 PM   #66
Beagle45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 127
I'm not quite sure why people here are arguing against Grisham, I mean, I thought we'd all be on his side here. But also, saying that his attitude or demeanor towards the police for their unlawful actions proves that "he deserved what he got" is comparable, in my mind at least, to saying that a rape victim "was asking for it, because look at how she dressed."
__________________
I have a mild interest in guns. Actually, I think the clinical term is "obsession," but that makes me sound like some kind of gun-nut. Which is fair, since I am.

Wastin' away my future children's inheritance one box of ammo, range fee, and bottle of Hoppe's #9 at a time.
Beagle45ACP is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:22 PM   #67
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it. That he didn't ask or tell him to disarm first? Even though it's daylight now I know the stars will be out, I know the local mart has beer, although I'm not looking out the window I know it's daytime and yes, I know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there.
Your presumption that the officer was entitled/authorized to instruct the sergeant to disarm is what I find most errant. Perhaps you haven't read the numerous instances in this thread where this has appeared, but in Texas, it is perfectly legal to openly carry a long arm so long as you do not threaten anyone with it or carry it into a prohibited place. I'd love to know how you "know the defendants whole story is nothing more than BS even though I wasn't there."

Quote:
You go walkin along the highway or in a city park with an AR (or an H&R single for that matter) and the cops are gonna show up. Simply fact of life, this ain't 1850.
You are now the second poster to hoist this strawman. NO ONE has suggested the police acted improperly in responding to the 911 call. That isn't the issue. The issue is what happened once they arrived.

Quote:
When they get there you are at some point gonna be told or asked to put the gun down. Put the gun down! Frikin brilliant isn't it. Ya don't say I don't have to, you don't start in on your rights, ya do it. Things get sorted out after and probably in short order.
If a police officer, without legal justification, told me I had to strip naked and set my clothes on fire, should I comply with that order too? Are you seriously suggesting that ANY order a police officer gives must be obeyed without question or regard for my civil rights?

Last edited by Vanya; April 17, 2013 at 05:09 PM. Reason: removed snark.
csmsss is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:23 PM   #68
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
If your legal no big deal, if your not you either move to where it is or don't do it.
And what if it's illegal for the cop to disarm him without probable cause? Are we just supposed to capitulate to police because it keeps things easy? Or do we defend our rights?

What you're suggesting is exactly the same reason why we have to keep "compromising" on gun control. Gun owners are willing to give a little bit more and more. Grisham wasn't willing to give anymore.

We don't know all the facts. From what we can see in the video, he did nothing wrong/illegal. The police were inappropriate and/or illegal. That's all we have to go off of until more information is presented. And given how quickly they were to reduce the charge, I'm guess everything is going to get dropped and brushed under the rug to avoid embarrassment to the department.

Let me say again, he (Grisham) could be in the wrong...we just don't know. Based on the video he did nothing wrong, yet the police were willing to ignore his Constitutional rights. Why defend them right now, just because he was willing to stand up for his rights, unlike what you're apparently unwilling to do.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:27 PM   #69
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
FYI...some here seem to have this bizarre notion that anytime a police officer responds to a call, he's somehow required to arrest the person he encounters. Can someone please explain this presumption to me?
csmsss is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:30 PM   #70
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 892
How about we wait until more facts (from a credible judicial source) comes out before we state who's wrong and who's right.

We do NOT have enough information to deduce whether Grisham apparently went out with such an intent, or exactly what his reaction was prior to the tape started rolling from what I can tell.

I will reserve judgement on both parties until more data has come to light. As it is, I'd say, even if Grisham is guilty of inflaming the situation, that does not give the LEO' and excuse to detain his child and force him to answer questions, which by law, Grisham instructed that they are not allowed to do so without representation of a legal parent or guardian.

Right now, the evidence at hand does not favor the Temple LEO's, but like I said before, we need more data before we can say who was truly in the wrong here.

Let's keep the personal jabs and emotions to a minimum, lest this thread gets closed.
Kimio is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:31 PM   #71
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
towards the police for their unlawful actions
There was absolutely nothing unlawful about the LEO reaction.

I'll go one step further, he should of been stopped, questioned, temporarily disarmed, etc. If I see him walkin down the street I may or may not call him in. It would all depend on his demeanor. If I'm and LEO, I'm gonna check him out and I WANT my LEO's to do such. Having the right to do something does not mean that we don't have a right to make sure things are on the up and up.

Last edited by Vanya; April 17, 2013 at 05:12 PM. Reason: removed snark.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:34 PM   #72
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 854
Having spent my whole adult life dealing with people who in the area I was in, my Dad's Pub, the Clubs I worked in in Liverpool UK. Working in armed Security here in Orlando (my Sons Company) and in teaching people who carried guns on their persons (job related) for over 20 years.

One thing you get to be good at, is assessing individuals state of mind, using body language, and facial expressions. (I did get stabbed twice) so I was not perfect.

The Officer who first stopped the rifle carrying Citizen, was frightened. I could not see why. And it went down hill quickly.

I am sure there are lots of Police, and Ex Police on this Blog, who would have dealt with this situation with less drama.

Starting with "Good afternoon Sir"
Brit is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:35 PM   #73
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,435
Quote:
Do you really believe that the LEO just grabbed for it.
I don't believe either story yet.

I do believe you tried to say that series of events was OK behavior...

Quote:
Heck, even if the LEO didn't ask and just grabbed for it (as the defendants BS indicates) let him have it! It's not a big deal,...
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:38 PM   #74
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that ANY order a police officer gives must be obeyed without question or regard for my civil rights?
So your opinion is that it was unlawful for the officer to ask Grisham to put the gun down so they determine if there was any validity to the call to 911 about 'man with a gun'? How is the officer to know that the suspect did NOT threaten anyone with it? Does the officer have ESP? Can he read the suspects mind? Will he know automatically that the person who called 911 was ignorant of the law?
I would bet a shiny nickel that had Grisham calmly unsnapped the rifle from being slung across his chest and put it down, there would have been no arrest, no story at all.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 01:38 PM   #75
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Having spent my whole adult life dealing with people who in the area I was in, my Dad's Pub, the Clubs I worked in in Liverpool UK. Working in armed Security here in Orlando (my Sons Company) and in teaching people who carried guns on their persons (job related) for over 20 years.

One thing you get to be good at, is assessing individuals state of mind, using body language, and facial expressions. (I did get stabbed twice) so I was not perfect.

The Officer who first stopped the rifle carrying Citizen, was frightened. I could not see why. And it went down hill quickly.

I am sure there are lots of Police, and Ex Police on this Blog, who would have dealt with this situation with less drama.

Starting with "Good afternoon Sir"
Bingo. When faced with a situation of uncertainty, one can choose to escalate or de-escalate. Not having all the facts, it's impossible to know with certainty, but it appears to me that the officers in this case rapidly escalated the stress levels and turned what might have otherwise been a simple conversation into an arrest.
csmsss 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 02:02 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 0.15196 seconds with 7 queries