Army sergeant arrested for legal possession of a firearm

[Kimio]

I'll reiterate. Let's try to keep the personal jabs to a minimum. We don't have enough information to go off of here to determine what truly went on.

It's getting a little too passionate in here, I don't want anyone getting in trouble with the mods.

[spacemanspiff]

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.

So, you think the officer should have reacted to this call to de-escalate the situation? You think the officer escalated it by asking him to disarm and then when he refused it was wrong for the officer to resort to drawing his sidearm to get the suspect to comply?

How is the officer supposed to determine an armed person is NOT a threat? We aren't talking about an officer driving by and seeing someone armed. We are talking about an officer responding to a 911 call about an armed person. Your 'simple conversation' cannot be used in all situations of uncertainty.

[csmsss]

So, you think the officer should have reacted to this call to de-escalate the situation? You think the officer escalated it by asking him to disarm and then when he refused it was wrong for the officer to resort to drawing his sidearm to get the suspect to comply?

Your assumption is that it was "escalated" to begin with. Exactly how did you come to that conclusion? The officers responded to a "man with a gun" call. When they arrived, they came upon a citizen legally carrying a long arm in full compliance with Texas law. YES they escalated it. Instead of just introducing themselves and just establishing rapport with the guy, their first considered act was to disarm a citizen who had broken no laws in their presence, and about whom they had no reasonable suspicion that he had broken any laws.

Exactly why is it that police officers are presumed to have the authority to disarm anyone they feel like disarming? Have we come to this point where even ostensible gun rights enthusiasts believe in the unfettered power of the police to take guns away from people who have broken no laws? Sheesh. I feel like a broken record here.

How is the officer supposed to determine an armed person is NOT a threat?

First, you are making a rather unwarranted assumption - that any armed person is a threat. By this standard, police officers should be arresting each other. Is your assumption that ONLY police officers should be allowed to carry firearms openly, never mind what the law permits? Why not suggest that only police officers should be able to drive cars, or open umbrellas, or any other perfectly legal activities? it is NOT a threat merely to carry a firearm. I shouldn't need to have to make this argument.

We aren't talking about an officer driving by and seeing someone armed. We are talking about an officer responding to a 911 call about an armed person. Your 'simple conversation' cannot be used in all situations of uncertainty.

An armed person in an area where it's legal to be an armed person. Sheesh. By your standard, police officers should be able to hassle whoever they run into any time they arrive at a call scene.

[Patriot86]

I don't understand the skepticism and at times downright hostility, even amongst some gun rights folks to open carriers. When something like that Toledo incident happened we were all pretty much up in arms. Yet just about every single time a OCer, be it a rifle or a handgun is harassed, accosted or otherwise wronged by the police the immediate approach is one of skepticism. Did he have an agenda? Was he trying to force a confrontation? Why is he OCIng anyways? Cant he just CC the gun problem solved!

I don't see all those questions being asked when we are talking about a CCer who is harassed or unlawfully detained/arrested simply for CCing a firearm legally.

Call me overly simplistic but I view this as black and white.
If you are violating the law, then you can be arrested. If you are not violating the law then you cannot be arrested. If there was no violation of the law in this case they had no right to arrest him, no right to charge him, no right to take his guns of his CC permit. All of those actions are blatant civil rights violations if the man is guilty of no crimes.

Regardless of his motives the second we "let it slide" when a gun owner has his rights violated when no law has been broken is the moment we mine as well let the antis burn the 2A and confiscate all of our guns because thats where the path will eventually lead.

[JimDandy]

You can spout off all you like about whether or not it should be legal but if you don't think a LEO can legally stop and question you for open carry you'd be naive.

No, I'd be a resident of the State of Washington. With State v Casad, while unpublished, still on my side- and State v Spencer somewhat nullified by being on a rural road surrounded by wild hogs, cougars, and other meth-head boogeymen.

[Wyoredman]

I don't understand the skepticism and at times downright hostility, even amongst some gun rights folks to open carriers. When something like that Toledo incident happened we were all pretty much up in arms. Yet just about every single time a OCer, be it a rifle or a handgun is harassed, accosted or otherwise wronged by the police the immediate approach is one of skepticism.

I imagine the skepticism comes from feeling that we as gun owners don't want any bad apples to sour our whole bushel. In other words, I think the skepticism and refusal to blindly support open carriers who have law trouble is rooted in our fears that if we support someone who is loony, the antis will have more momentum with dumping all of us into the "Loony Bin", as it were.

Now don't get me wrong, I am making no judgments about ANYONE involved in this case, but I am being skeptical of the information presented thus far.

Fair enough?

ETA: Nor do I mean to insinuate that open carriers are loony!

[csmsss]

I imagine the skepticism comes from feeling that we as gun owners don't want any bad apples to sour our whole bushel. In other words, I think the skepticism and refusal to blindly support open carriers who have law trouble is rooted in our fears that if we support someone who is loony, the antis will have more momentum with dumping all of us into the "Loony Bin", as it were.

I don't think I'm blindly supporting anyone. But I completely disagree with your unique notion that we should hold OC'rs to a higher standard than anyone else. Shouldn't the criteria be that if they are breaking the law, arrest them, and if they aren't breaking the law, send them on their way and thank them for their time? Why is the presumption that the police are always in the right? How many times have we seen them behaving in a rogue fashion before we believe that is is a plausible explanation when we see an otherwise law-abiding citizen being hassled over his/her firearm(s)?

Now don't get me wrong, I am making no judgments about ANYONE involved in this case, but I am being skeptical of the information presented thus far.

Fair enough?

Everyone is entitled to be skeptical - but I would argue that you shouldn't limit your skepticism to the sergeant.

[Patriot86]

@WY: That is fair enough. If the guy violated the law, I would agree that he doesn't deserve our support.

and let me re-phrase what I said before it seems that people are MORE skeptical of OCers than CCers. Kind of like how we hold LEO's to a "higher" standard than "civilians" on certain issues.

[Wyoredman]

... but I am being skeptical of ALL the information presented thus far.

There, fixed it for you.

...your unique notion that we should hold OC'rs to a higher standard than anyone else

I have no such notion and have not presented any such idea. I simply explained to Patriot86 why I thought these types of stories are approached with skepticism. Hence this:

Nor do I mean to insinuate that open carriers are loony!

[spacemanspiff]

Why is the presumption that the police are always in the right? How many times have we seen them behaving in a rogue fashion before we believe that is is a plausible explanation when we see an otherwise law-abiding citizen being hassled over his/her firearm(s)?

Because it has been my fortunate experience that every law enforcement officer I have encountered no matter what the situation may have been, has composed themselves as polite professionals.

I do not fault Grisham for being armed. Based on the information I have at hand, I fault Grisham for his actions once the officers made contact with him, by making a spectacle of himself when it was not necessary to do so.

[MLeake]

I can't say for sure what Grisham said or did prior to the video. I can say that the officer's detention of the 15yo son, with his release contingent upon submitting to and answering questions, makes me immediately suspect the motivations, actions, and legal knowledge of the officer.

[csmsss]

Because it has been my fortunate experience that every law enforcement officer I have encountered no matter what the situation may have been, has composed themselves as polite professionals.

Lots of others, perhaps "less fortunate", have had opposite experiences with LEOs. Your adjective actually weakens your argument, since you essentially admit that it is based on chance.

I do not fault Grisham for being armed. Based on the information I have at hand, I fault Grisham for his actions once the officers made contact with him, by making a spectacle of himself when it was not necessary to do so.

It's not illegal to make a spectacle of oneself. It's not illegal to protest when your fundamental rights are being violated. You would rather he humbly submit to an illegal arrest and search? I'd argue we need more men and women who are not afraid to stand up for themselves and to make it clear to our law enforcement that we will quietly submit to the usurpation of our rights. If you want to stand mute, by all means feel free to do so. I, however, would not.

[Kimio]

Exactly, I agree with Mleake here. There are other factors here at play that we must address, the fact is, even if Grisham was in the wrong, it does not excuse some if not all the acts that followed. The dentaining and forced interrogation of his son for that matter appears to fall on the far side of the law in this case.

The fact that the Temple LEO's set a condition upon the realease of the child, whom was not authorized by his parent to answer any of their questions, and forced their authority upon the child is what casts the shadow of doubt upon the entire encounter, among many other things.

It could very well be that both parties are at fault, but the fact of the matter is, we can only speculate what he said/did and what exactly they said/did. at this time.

We need more information, it doesn't get any clearer than that IMO.

[tomrkba]

There was absolutely nothing unlawful about the LEO reaction. You can spout off all you like about whether or not it should be legal but if you don't think a LEO can legally stop and question you for open carry you'd be naive. And when he does you'd better damn well do what he tells you too. Geez, not brain science here.

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.

Apparently, you are unwilling to say that there are limits to police authority.

As I understand it, officers can only do so if there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be, has been, committed or is being committed. They can walk up and start talking to anyone on the street. No response is required if there is no crime being committed (or recently committed).

In this case, the officer needed to only observe the sergeant to determine if a crime was being committed. If the sergeant was carrying the gun safely, then the officer should have determined that he had no authority to take further action. If the sergeant was not carrying safely, then the officer would have had probable cause for an arrest.

Here in Virginia, an officer cannot walk up to someone lawfully openly carrying a weapon and detain them. They cannot demand identification and they cannot take the handgun away from the person carrying. It is assumed in law that the person carrying may lawfully possess the weapon. The officer is free to engage the person carrying a gun in conversation, but the person has no duty to respond. Doing so is beyond the authority of the office and opens up the officer, department, and jurisdiction to civil liability at the minimum.

This is well settled law in Virginia and we take it very seriously. We go after any officer that violates these rules. It's easy to prevent too; we just do some officer education on the side. Unfortunately, this usually happens after an incident, but organizations like VCDL have done outreach in the past.

[TATER]

Around here,
I think PD's are trained this way, civilian with a gun is a threat.. The gun just siting there is a threat!
It must be secured at all cost.. I do understand that it is about Safety Of The Officer but, People feed off of aggression and tend to respond in kind.
To contrast, If it had been the Sheriffs department, we may not have ever know about this.. Just my thoughts..

[MLeake]

I would also not be surprised if deputy sheriffs had handled the situation differently. My experience has been the deputies and state troopers generally seem more comfortable around firearm owners than do many (though not all) city cops.

[noelf2]

Here in Virginia, an officer cannot walk up to someone lawfully openly carrying a handgun and detain them. They cannot demand identification and they cannot take the handgun away from the person carrying.

Here in VA, I do believe we are required to give them name, but not ID.

[L_Killkenny]

I don't understand the skepticism and at times downright hostility, even amongst some gun rights folks to open carriers.

This has nothing to do with skepticism or hostility towards OC and the subsequent arrest didn't either. Feel free to OC all you want but if you do don't come on here and get all bent out of shape if you get looked at funny or if the cops stop and check you out. Also, don't go around thinkin it's unreasonable for an LEO to feel uncomfortable and ask you to set your gun aside or offers to do it for you. Don't go around thinkin it's unreasonable that if you refuse that your gun will get taken forcibly. I'd prefer it if society wasn't such that the sight of a gun made many freak out. I really wish it wasn't like that but I AM NOT IN FANTASY LAND. Partly due to society whims but also do in no small part to actual circumstances your gonna get looked at funny, you're gonna get checked out, you're possibly gonna be temporarily relieved of your gun. It's nothing new, been the same since for centuries. It's not a big deal if in fact you are doing nothing wrong.

More and more info is coming out all the time. Not only about this case but also history and background. Haven't seen anything yet that doesn't confirm my original opinion that this guy is an idiot and not worthy of out support. Good thing I'm not a cop, the more I read and watch about this guy and the case I would of tasered his butt and did it a second time for the hell of it.

[spacemanspiff]

You would rather he humbly submit to an illegal arrest and search? I'd argue we need more men and women who are not afraid to stand up for themselves and to make it clear to our law enforcement that we will quietly submit to the usurpation of our rights. If you want to stand mute, by all means feel free to do so. I, however, would not.

Was it the officers intent from the outset to arrest the suspect?
Whats the phrase we often utter? An armed society is a polite society? Had Grisham been polite and respectful and simply put the rifle down, in all likelihood there would have been no arrest at all.

("Why couldnt you just put the bunny down?")

What evidence do you have to support your opinion that the responding officers were trying to usurp the suspects rights from the start?

[Gaerek]

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.

You're probably right, but as far as that video shows, there was no reason for the Officer to ask him to do that. Him refusing was legal. Again, you're suggesting capitulation for the sake of just getting it over with quickly and easily. That's the point. From what we can see, he was arrested for not breaking the law. That, in turn, IS breaking the law.

I still can't believe that people are saying that we should just agree to give up our rights just so we don't go to jail. That's absolutely amazing to me.

[JimDandy]

I still can't believe that people are saying that we should just agree to give up our rights just so we don't go to jail. That's absolutely amazing to me.

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - Martin Luther King Jr.

[L_Killkenny]

Him refusing was legal.

I'd like to know where you found that not putting down a gun when an LEO tells you to was legal?

Legal or not, just plain dumb not to. It's not a big deal and if it moves things along quicker and keeps me from getting tossed I'm all for it. I'm not giving up rights or causing any civil harm to myself. Are you saying that if a cop asked you to set your gun on the hood while you chatted you'd refuse? If so, why? Heck, I've done it before being asked to do so and I wasn't the one being checked out. Actually it wasn't a hood, I leaned it against a tree. Just figured the Deputy would feel better about it. I was right and he thanked me. Zero, none, nada reason not to. Ya afraid the LEO is gonna mug ya?

[spacemanspiff]

Here is an excerpt from the link of the OP:

Father and son grabbed their gear and headed out on a blustery Saturday morning to hike about 10 miles. They were midway through the trip when Grisham turned around and saw a police car.
“At that point I heard him tell us to hold on a second and he motioned for me and my son to come back,” Grisham said. “He didn’t have his lights on. Everything was calm and casual. He asked what we were doing.”
Grisham had his AR-15 slung around the front of his body — a rifle he’s been using since he joined the military.
At some point the officer pulled his pistol on the father and son and grabbed Grisham’s AR-15.
“He slammed me onto the hood of the car,” he said. “I had my hands straight up and that’s when I saw our camera – and turned it on.”
For the next 15 minutes, Grisham’s son recorded the entire incident.

This is the account as Grisham is telling it. Don't you find it strange that he starts off saying how its all calm and casual, the officer wasn't screeching up with sirens blazing and jumping out guns drawn, then all of a sudden he says the officer draws down and grabbed at Grishams rifle?
Doesn't it seem like something is missing in Grishams account? Is it conceivable that the officer continued being calm and casual and asked Grisham politely to put his rifle down? Do you think that perhaps the officer did feel uneasy talking to someone whose rifle is slung and hooked on the front of their body? Do you think the officer might have been okay with talking to a person whose rifle was slung across their back rather than in a ready to fire position on their front?
Do you find it contradictary for Grisham to later say how he taught his son to respect the police yet he himself couldnt respect an officers request to put the weapon down? Do you really think Grishams rights were violated by being asked to put the weapon down?
Don't answer from blind emotions.

[Gaerek]

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - Martin Luther King Jr.

Truth.

I'd like to know where you found that not putting down a gun when an LEO tells you to was legal?

In many jurisdictions, he needs probable cause that the guy is doing something illegal in order to seize property, even a gun. He's not making a move for the gun. He's keeping his hands away from it. It's my understanding, in Texas, he would need probable cause in order to seize property (you know, that pesky 4th Amendment...always getting in the way of police work).

Granted, we don't know what happened prior to the filming, but based on what information we do have, and based on the video, what they did was not legal. Heck, even in the video, when Grisham asks why he's being arrested, the cops reply that carrying a gun like that scares people. I wasn't aware that was against the law either. They can't even articulate what Grisham is doing wrong...yet they still arrest him and detain his son? You're telling me that is within their rights? That sounds like a police state to me. I think we may be talking about different countries here...

I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched the video. I mean, in the Internet days, 13 minutes is like an eternity.

[Gaerek]

Is it conceivable that the officer continued being calm and casual and asked Grisham politely to put his rifle down?

His rifle was down as far as it could be. Forcing him to remove it, without probably cause, is against the 4th Amendment.

EDIT: Now, do I believe he's telling the 100% truth? Probably not, but no one in his position was. With what we know, he didn't do anything wrong. The police were in the wrong. If the police would like to release the dash video and audio, I would happily watch it and make my own conclusions. If that means we can clearly see Grisham did something wrong/illegal, then I will have no problem changing my beliefs on this. Without that, we have absolutely no evidence, besides conjecture (meaning...not evidence) that Grisham did anything wrong.

His intend has nothing to do with whether he should have been arrested or not. If he has a right to do something, then he has a right. Whether it's for a political purpose, or a Boy Scout Hike. I want to make it clear, I'm against using OC as a means to prove a political point, however, I would never say those guys are in the wrong and should be treated like Grisham was treated. Why? Because it's their right, and it's legal in their jurisdiction.