View Single Post
Old April 23, 2013, 04:57 PM   #161
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,066
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, does this extemporizing relate to the facts of this case?

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.

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  
Page generated in 0.05661 seconds with 7 queries