War Veteran Arrested for “Rudely Displaying” Rifle in Texas.

[HBARleatherneck]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/war-veteran-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle.html

this is clearly bull. comments?

[mtnhack]

F@#%

What else can you say? Arresting officer should be fired.

[Aloha_Shooter]

As always, I'd want to hear the other side of the story but I'm inclined to think both police officers should be busted down to rookie status and forced to lecture at schools and citizen groups on citizens' rights under the Constitution. It'd be more of an object lesson to others on the force if they have to see those two sans stripes daily for clear unimpeachable and egregious rights violations than firing would be. Perhaps Temple would then get more Justice and less Sheriff Buford T. Justice.

[palepainter]

Welcome to Texas ...so much for it being the last bastion of hope for us all.

[Cylinder Head]

There are some disparaging comments about Grisham being a "professional victim" in the comments section, and questioning his service. I don't think any of that is relevant. What's relevant is that this man was exercising his rights and was outright harassed by the police.

His arresting offense amounts to "scaring the liberals".

IN TEXAS.

[StagLefty]

WTF So he could have avoided this if he'd been "politely displaying" ?

[wctriumph]

What crap. That officer should be suspended if not outright fired. I bet he voted for our current president. Sheesh!

[Tinelement]

Geez.....

Bye bye free country.

[Bailey Guns]

“In this day and age people are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers told a handcuffed Grisham. “They don’t care what the law is.”

Yeah. That's the problem. Not law-abiding citizens with guns. What a stupid thing to say. Why not correct the misinformed person as to what is actually legal?

[Cylinder Head]

Yeah. That's the problem. Not law-abiding citizens with guns. What a stupid thing to say. Why not correct the misinformed person as to what is actually legal?

If you watch the videos, that's exactly what Grisham suggests to the police.

[airborneranger]

Holy crap

[Bailey Guns]

If you watch the videos, that's exactly what Grisham suggests to the police.

I couldn't understand most of what he or the officers said. But he's right.

[rockhound]

We know what is best for you, politely obey or you will be shown how to obey

[Ronin13]

Wow, that's messed up. Isn't there a supreme court decision that says you can resist unlawful arrest? With force if necessary?

[Chad4000]

thats exactly what I was thinking....... scary to think about, and in this case, he'll probably get rich, but unlawful arrest is unlawful arrest.......


Wow, that's messed up. Isn't there a supreme court decision that says you can resist unlawful arrest? With force if necessary?

[brokenscout]

Yeah but we all know how that ends
Wow, that's messed up. Isn't there a supreme court decision that says you can resist unlawful arrest? With force if necessary?

[sellersm]

Disgusting. No "official immunity" for those officers...

[generalmeow]

I just want to throw this thread back up there, to remind everyone here how certain members feel about this sort of thing:

http://www.ar-15.co/threads/91813-Policeman-gets-owned-by-law-student?highlight=law+student

If you don't want to go back and read, I can summarize:

A) This guy was a dick for carrying an unconcealed weapon
B) He's a dick for knowing his rights and arguing with a police officer
C) He's a dick for recording it
D) You're an idiot for agreeing with anything he did.

[RblDiver]

I just want to throw this thread back up there, to remind everyone here how certain members feel about this sort of thing:


At work so I can't watch the videos, but my understanding of the difference between these two cases is that there's a difference between open carry (this one), and open carry with intent to sue (the one you linked).

[alxone]

im not saying the cops are right but .... if he had his rifle slung across his back and unloaded till he was 100 yards from the highway then all this could have been avoided .......[Coffee]

[Aloha_Shooter]

There's a difference generalmeow. The law student you're talking about appeared to be trying to provoke a confrontation. In this instance, the subject was NOT trying to provoke a confrontation with the police, was NOT tossing a string of legal citations at the officer, etc. Completely different situations -- one makes the general community looks like asses (which the rest of us don't appreciate), the other makes the officers in question look like asses.

[generalmeow]

How do you know the kid was looking for a confrontation? How do you know this guy wasn't? I read on another forum that this same guy has other videos of similar confrontations with police.

[generalmeow]

The difference between the two videos seems to be that in this one, the cop didn't care that he was violating rights and continued on with the arrest, thus pissing you off. In the other video, the cop realized he was violating rights, and backed off, thus pissing you off, because who the fuck does this punk kid think he is?

They are literally identical situations, as far as the law is concerned. And if you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law, and you shouldn't get harassed.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The kid's video was typical of ambush "journalism" style videos and he was open carrying in an urban setting KNOWN to be overly sensitive. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce the obvious. In the vet's case, he was hiking through in a rural area -- clearly not a setting you expect to encounter a lot of people, particularly LEOs. Again, I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce he wasn't trying to set up a confrontation. Absolutely NOT identical situations and you have to be an extremist to take them as such.

[griebel303]

Here is the link to the full video :
http://vimeo.com/62032686

"we are exempt from the law" wow.

[T-Giv]

That dude has some $$$ coming his way from the lawsuit.

[Chad4000]

Here is the link to the full video :
http://vimeo.com/62032686

"we are exempt from the law" wow.

terrifying....

[Chad4000]

That dude has some $$$ coming his way from the lawsuit.


yup... agreed...

[griebel303]

He definitely has money coming his way. Sad to see this happen in Texas of all places. I think the full video sheds more light onto the situation then the brief 30 second videos

[flan7211]

What shit bag cops.

[T-Giv]

He definitely has money coming his way. Sad to see this happen in Texas of all places. I think the full video sheds more light onto the situation then the brief 30 second videos

I was also very sad to see this go down in TX. If it were somewhere East coast I'd stomach it much more easily. These cops were in a tough spot because the people calling were likely panicing. Reports were probably that some guy was dressed up and carrying an assault rifle. Jamming up the law abiding good guys is exactly where this country is heading unfortunately and this guy will have an arrest record now even though the charges will not stick. Such bullshit.

[generalmeow]

The kid's video was typical of ambush "journalism" style videos and he was open carrying in an urban setting KNOWN to be overly sensitive. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce the obvious. In the vet's case, he was hiking through in a rural area -- clearly not a setting you expect to encounter a lot of people, particularly LEOs. Again, I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce he wasn't trying to set up a confrontation. Absolutely NOT identical situations and you have to be an extremist to take them as such.


Tell me how legally they are not the same situation. And as far as I'm aware, the cops should only care about the law, not whether the person is a dick or not.

And again, I read, but have not bothered to confirm, that this same vet has other videos of himself in similar situations. And I bet there are no other videos of the law student.

[Ronin13]

Tell me how legally they are not the same situation. And as far as I'm aware, the cops should only care about the law, not whether the person is a dick or not.

And again, I read, but have not bothered to confirm, that this same vet has other videos of himself in similar situations. And I bet there are no other videos of the law student.
I understand what you're trying to say, an as far as you're aware you're grabbing at straws here. Aloha already explained it, no need to continue on with arguing against it. Intent is the key word you're looking for. The law student went out with the intent to be contacted by LEO(s), this guy was carrying his rifle in case of contact with an animal. Completely different.

[generalmeow]

I understand what you're trying to say, an as far as you're aware you're grabbing at straws here. Aloha already explained it, no need to continue on with arguing against it. Intent is the key word you're looking for. The law student went out with the intent to be contacted by LEO(s), this guy was carrying his rifle in case of contact with an animal. Completely different.

So you guys say it, and it's fact? No point in arguing? I know why you're arguing it Ronin - because you said it was a dick move to not give your name to the police, even if your rights are being violated.

Where are you getting your information from that the law student had the intent to get abused by the cops? You don't think he would have been happier if he didn't get abused? I'm sure he had the intention, and expectation, of never getting harassed by police, because the law says he shouldn't get harassed. And his expectation was that the police would follow the law. That would be my expectation when I'm following the law.

He had the intent that if he was harassed, he would film it. So did this guy. I know, because that's what he did.

Let me announce my intention that if my rights are ever being violated, and I have a video camera on me, I will film it. Doesn't mean I'm looking for it. I would prefer my rights not get violated. So do I now have the intent to lure the police into violating my rights?

[def90]

Yep.. Texas is the next in line for subjugation.

http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146402

[generalmeow]

Here's another scenario: Everyone tells me if I drive on this certain road at 65mph, which is the speed limit, I'm going to get pulled over and harassed for 20 minutes, because people complain about others driving the speed limit because they have kids nearby. And at that point, of course, the cop has no other option but to pull you over and harass you.

If I was going to drive that stretch, am I asking for it by going 65? If I'm filming it to prove that I'm not breaking the law, proactively, am I being a dick? Do I have the INTENT to fuck with the police? No! I'm going to drive 65, and I probably would be ready to film it. If the cop wants to pull me over, I'm going to be a complete dickhead, and I'm going to post the video online.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't know what you don't get about the intention to provoke a confrontation being different from being accosted in an innocuous situation. I open carried yesterday while I was running errands but C Springs is a different city and I don't think anyone even blinked at me. I have a legal right to wear a T-shirt saying "Obama is a Socialist dictator". I will get entirely different reactions wearing it to an NAACP meeting and a Tea Party caucus -- and honestly, I'd say anyone wearing a shirt like that to a NAACP meeting was looking to provoke a confrontation and makes the rest of the non-Obamaniacs look like dicks which is about what Mr. Law Student did for gun owners.

[generalmeow]

I don't know what you don't get about the intention to provoke a confrontation being different from being accosted in an innocuous situation. I open carried yesterday while I was running errands but C Springs is a different city and I don't think anyone even blinked at me. I have a legal right to wear a T-shirt saying "Obama is a Socialist dictator". I will get entirely different reactions wearing it to an NAACP meeting and a Tea Party caucus -- and honestly, I'd say anyone wearing a shirt like that to a NAACP meeting was looking to provoke a confrontation and makes the rest of the non-Obamaniacs look like dicks which is about what Mr. Law Student did for gun owners.

I don't get where you saw anyone was provoking a confrontation, except the police, in both videos. If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.

[generalmeow]

It's impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. And since nobody was breaking the law, nobody was provoking confrontation.

You can trick the police into thinking you're violating the law, in which case I'm sure you're violating the law somehow. There was no trickery going on.

The only people who violated the law were the police, therefore the provocation was theirs.

[Ronin13]

I don't get where you saw anyone was provoking a confrontation, except the police, in both videos. If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.


It's impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. And since nobody was breaking the law, nobody was provoking confrontation.

You can trick the police into thinking you're violating the law, in which case I'm sure you're violating the law somehow. There was no trickery going on.

The only people who violated the law were the police, therefore the provocation was theirs.
Are you just trying to continue this argument, or do you really not get it?
In case you actually are dense enough to not grasp what Aloha and I are trying to say, let's put it in terms you'll understand, or at least someone with similar capacity... Guy 1 grabs a camera, straps on his trusty .45, goes out INTO THE CITY where the potential for many anti-gun folk is. He wants to be a YouTube sensation and show that he can flex his mental muscles with the vast knowledge of case law and make a cop look stupid. He does such, uploads the video, and says "lookie here! I was harrassed by a cop that wasn't 100% familiar with 100% of the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations out there, and man, I sent him to school! HAHAHA"
Guy #2, wants to go hiking with his son, and straps on his AR-15 and trusty .45 in case of any predatory animals that may happen along the way. They're going hiking in a RURAL area, where odds are he won't encounter any people, most certainly cops. But as poor luck would have it, some cops happen upon him and his son and detain him. He has his son record the incident so that he may present to court that he was breaking no law.
Get it? And yes, it is a dick move to not even offer your name, I don't know why you single that one part out... If you were to encounter me on the street and I ask "hey, so I can call you something, what's your name?" If you refuse, then I guess I can assume you'll be okay with me calling you Nancy, or something, right?

[TheBelly]

This is the next town over from me. I've been told (reminded by my MP buddy) that open carry is illegal in Texas.

[generalmeow]

Are you just trying to continue this argument, or do you really not get it?
In case you actually are dense enough to not grasp what Aloha and I are trying to say, let's put it in terms you'll understand, or at least someone with similar capacity... Guy 1 grabs a camera, straps on his trusty .45, goes out INTO THE CITY where the potential for many anti-gun folk is. He wants to be a YouTube sensation and show that he can flex his mental muscles with the vast knowledge of case law and make a cop look stupid. He does such, uploads the video, and says "lookie here! I was harrassed by a cop that wasn't 100% familiar with 100% of the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations out there, and man, I sent him to school! HAHAHA"
Guy #2, wants to go hiking with his son, and straps on his AR-15 and trusty .45 in case of any predatory animals that may happen along the way. They're going hiking in a RURAL area, where odds are he won't encounter any people, most certainly cops. But as poor luck would have it, some cops happen upon him and his son and detain him. He has his son record the incident so that he may present to court that he was breaking no law.
Get it? And yes, it is a dick move to not even offer your name, I don't know why you single that one part out... If you were to encounter me on the street and I ask "hey, so I can call you something, what's your name?" If you refuse, then I guess I can assume you'll be okay with me calling you Nancy, or something, right?

I am trying to continue this argument, and I really don't get it.

It is impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. Is that statement accurate, or is it inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, please give me an example.

Either you are crossing the line into breaking the law, or the police are coming over on your side of the line and violating your rights. And if they come over on your side, they have chosen to have a confrontation by harassing someone who they have no right to harass.

I define "provocation" as the party that decides to step over the line. When we're all on the right side of the line, nobody is provoking anyone. One could say that the cops are provoking you if you know you're going to get detained for legally open carrying, so whether or not you decide to open carry is irrelevant. You have already been provoked if you believe the cops are waiting for you on your side of the line.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I am tired of fruitless debate with someone being purposely obtuse so this is my last on this subject. No, your thesis is inaccurate by your own definition. How so? As you note, neither citizen broke the law. However, Citizen A (Mr. Law Student) knowingly baited law enforcement into a confrontation by carrying openly in an area he knew would attract negative attention. He further provoked the confrontation with legal but belligerent responses. Citizen B was also carrying openly but reasonably had little-to-no expectation of contact muchless confrontation.

I gave you another example that you pointedly ignored. You have a right to wear a shirt proclaiming Obama to be a buffoon, a Socialist and a dictator. Wear it to your local Democratic Party meeting or NAACP meeting and stand on your right to wear it on the sidewalk outside the meeting (so you're not trespassing) and see how far that takes you. Legal? Yes. Accurate? Maybe. Confrontational? Yes. Stupidly insensitive? Yes. Go for it.

[generalmeow]

No, your thesis is inaccurate by your own definition. How so? As you note, neither citizen broke the law. However, Citizen A (Mr. Law Student) knowingly baited law enforcement into a confrontation by carrying openly in an area he knew would attract negative attention. He further provoked the confrontation with legal but belligerent responses. Citizen B was also carrying openly but reasonably had little-to-no expectation of contact muchless confrontation.

Wrong. Citizen A did not provoke the police. The police provoked him. Citizen A went out open carrying with a video camera because he had been provoked into doing so, with the belief that he would be harassed for not breaking the law.

If he had not been provoked, if he did not believe his rights would be violated, he wouldn't have done it. That's proof of provocation.

If the police are standing on your side of the line, you better go confront them or they're going to stay there and the line is going to move.

[Gman]

If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law. Period.

If someone's feelings are hurt, TOUGH. This nation wasn't founded on some non-existent right to not be offended.

You can't conceal-carry a long gun. If you have a long gun, it's always open carry. I don't believe the same carry laws apply to long guns.

Some in TX are trying to change the open carry law to allow it via HB-700.

[Colorado_Outback]

You can't conceal-carry a long gun. If you have a long gun, it's always open carry.


I beg to differ, my SIG556 Patrol conceals rather nicely on a single point sling under my hoodie :D

[Gman]

I beg to differ, my SIG556 Patrol conceals rather nicely on a single point sling under my hoodie :D
...and you'll go to jail for it. No excuses. Concealed carry permits don't cover the concealment of long guns. That includes a shotgun under a raincoat. ;-)

[Colorado_Outback]

I didn't say I do, I said its possible.

[Gman]

No kidding? What the hell has this forum turned into?

I guess I've been back too long.

[Colorado_Outback]

What the hell has this forum turned into?


I ask myself the same thing all the time..

[Ronin13]

I am trying to continue this argument, and I really don't get it.

It is impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. Is that statement accurate, or is it inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, please give me an example.

Either you are crossing the line into breaking the law, or the police are coming over on your side of the line and violating your rights. And if they come over on your side, they have chosen to have a confrontation by harassing someone who they have no right to harass.

I define "provocation" as the party that decides to step over the line. When we're all on the right side of the line, nobody is provoking anyone. One could say that the cops are provoking you if you know you're going to get detained for legally open carrying, so whether or not you decide to open carry is irrelevant. You have already been provoked if you believe the cops are waiting for you on your side of the line.
What if a cop is unknowingly stepping over the line? What if he doesn't know for sure what the law says? Is he still being provocative? I only ask because law student had to edumacate the cops on the law... And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

[generalmeow]

What if a cop is unknowingly stepping over the line? What if he doesn't know for sure what the law says? Is he still being provocative? I only ask because law student had to edumacate the cops on the law... And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

If a cop unknowingly steps over the line, you can't say that the other party provoked him intentionally. If the cop doesn't know what the law is, you can't say that the other party provoked him intentionally. There is a line, and it is not gray. You're either breaking the law, or you aren't. One party has to step over the line for there to be a confrontation, and that party is always wrong.

edit - And I acknowledge that it is possible to both be on the right side of the line, and have a conversation with a cop. I understand that they sometimes need to know what's going on if you're suspected of a crime. But seeing an open carry weapon, when it's legal, is not enough to harass someone. Then they're on your side of the line and you should push back, because they're provoking you at that point.

[Gman]

And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

In Texas, it is generally illegal to carry a handgun outside of a person’s own premises. However, a person may carry, either open or concealed, in a non-threatening or alarming manner, a shotgun or rifle.
I've been shooting at a number of open public areas in TX. There's only one way to carry the rifle to the destination...on your person. It will be very difficult to prove that this vet was carrying it in a threatening manner if it was slung on his person.

This will likely not go well for Temple PD. Temple is also not downtown Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio. The meeting of urban and rural is a dotted line.

[alxone]

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

I've been shooting at a number of open public areas in TX. There's only one way to carry the rifle to the destination...on your person. It will be very difficult to prove that this vet was carrying it in a threatening manner if it was slung on his person.

This will likely not go well for Temple PD. Temple is also not downtown Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio. The meeting of urban and rural is a dotted line. slung in front, mag in , road side ?that just screams stop me for being a dumb ass .

[Gman]

You guys have fun with this.

Out.

[Jefe's AR]

How about kidnapping and illegally holding his child hostage until he answered his questions?

[buckshotbarlow]

I understand what you're trying to say, an as far as you're aware you're grabbing at straws here. Aloha already explained it, no need to continue on with arguing against it. Intent is the key word you're looking for. The law student went out with the intent to be contacted by LEO(s), this guy was carrying his rifle in case of contact with an animal. Completely different.

Cats are a pain in the ass...200lbs of pissed off mtn lion! Elk hunting sucks when you come across fresh paw prints...As for the arresting officers, i hope they get canned. Then, I hope the dad makes his paycheck...

[buckshotbarlow]

OBTW, texas is a lost cause also...

[USAFGopherMike]

I'm headed to TX in Sep for training. Incidents like this are not what I want to see.

[spongejosh]

The law student has 2 videos on his youtube profile of him being stopped by police where he immediately becomes defensive and starts questioning the officer and refusing his requests. Also his videos start before the officers speak to him because he is planning on "schooling" them on gun laws.

The military guy has only this video of a police stop on his page that has many more videos than the younger guy. This video starts after the stop by police turns into a confrontation. His account later in the video is that if the officer approached and asked him to hand over the firearm he would have complied but instead the officer just tried to take it from him.

The second account is obviously hearsay but if everything is taken at face value, the military guy was willing to cooperate. The younger guy was not.

When the police are given reports of a person "walking around with a gun" it's usually from someone that doesn't have a clue about local gun laws. The police can't ignore these reports. Simply chatting with the officer for a few minutes and answering some harmless questions lets you walk free with your firearm after they determine the report of suspicious activity is false. Arguing with the officers opens you up to more harassment. The military guy claims the officers didn't approach him to ask some questions. They tried to take his firearm without asking and that's when he started questioning them. I see a clear difference between the 2 stops.

The main point is that people shouldn't be calling the cops on others that are legally carrying a firearm. Unfortunately the country has gone in the shitter and that's the way things are now. It's sad and I don't know if it can ever be changed back. If someone reports someone with a gun and the police just drive by and say he's not a threat then he shoots someone, the police get sued. They just want to talk to the person and see what their mindset is.

[USAFGopherMike]

I wish the video of the guy in TX would have started before he was being detained.

Edit - Check out the posts here and read all the way through:

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369723

Lots of claims that I cannot confirm, but it sounds like this guy is a real meathead out looking for attention. Apparently there's dash cam that shows why he was detained (again, haven't seen it). I was quick to call foul on the cops but it sounds like they were just being safe. That doesn't excuse the mishandling of the handgun nor statements that place them above the law.

[sniper7]

I'm very interested to see how this pans out. Won't make any judgements yet other than I thought this happened in Texas where men are men and no pansies are allowed.

[battle_sight_zero]

No kidding? What the hell has this forum turned into?

I guess I've been back too long.

I guess it became the www.co-fudd.com (http://www.co-fudd.com) forum with the all lefties that have moved into the state and the recent gun legislation. The forum is heading the CalGuns route where members will be happy talking about the cool tacticool mall Ninja 10/22 with the 10 round banna clip, or the how cool the AirSoft Scar 17 looks. Sarcasm. I just hope that you guys are not falling for the conditioning because if you are there is no hope for us to restore our gun rights here in Colorado. This guy and his son did nothing wrong.

[n8tive97]

I lived near Temple Texas for a few years, if you look at a map it is the next biggest town once you leave the Ft Hood/Killeen area. With the number of our men and women in the military in that art of the country, this shouldn't have been a surprise to these LEO's.
You can't hardly go in to a public place down there and not see someone open carrying.

[Bailey Guns]

I just hope that you guys are not falling for the conditioning because if you are there is no hope for us to restore our gun rights here in Colorado. This guy and his son did nothing wrong.

Oh, good. Someone who was there and witnessed it firsthand. It's nice to have such a definitive answer. I feel better now.

[generalmeow]

When the police are given reports of a person "walking around with a gun" it's usually from someone that doesn't have a clue about local gun laws. The police can't ignore these reports. Simply chatting with the officer for a few minutes and answering some harmless questions lets you walk free with your firearm after they determine the report of suspicious activity is false.

But you don't have to utter a word to the police if they try to talk to you, giving them absolutely no information. So in a sense, they have done no better than if they just ignored the report. Therefore it's clearly not a requirement that the police determine what is going on when someone isn't breaking the law, and therefore they can in fact ignore the report if they so choose.

The only way you can say "they can't ignore the report" is if they are required by law to determine what someone (who isn't breaking the law) is up to. And we know they aren't required, because the person can simply just not talk to them, which makes it impossible for the police to know what's going on. "But they have to know what's going on!" No, they don't.

I am open to the idea that if police get a call from a concerned citizen, that they follow that person from a distance for a short time to determine if they're just minding their own business. I do not think that the police should ever detain and waste someone's time if they're not committing a crime.

Maybe technically they can't ignore the report, if you mean they at least have to go see it with their own eyes, but they don't have to accost anyone when they see that the person is just minding their own business and not breaking the law. They don't have to go talk to the person to find out what's going on - and I believe this is what you meant with the bit about the harmless questions the person needs to answer.

[Bailey Guns]

Jeez...I thought my world was black and white.

[Prometheus]

the first cop actually had his gun drawnon the Army sergeant before backup arrived he tried to just rip the gun off his chest so the army guy backed up so the cop drew his gun and aimed it at the sergeant they said it was over 20 minutes before they started recording I don't think he went out there just to record the cops going after himif you can find the full video the cops actually have a conference and you can hear them talking about well what can we charge him withhe also was legal to open carry he had concealed carry permit on him the police didn't even ask for even after he offeredthey are also talking about having two lawsuits against the police because the cop that drove his son home detained his son for 22 minutes and told him he could not get out of the car until he answered his illegal questioning the guy has never been in trouble with the law before contrary to popular belief and he was awarded the Bronze Star by Bush in the Oval Office

[Ronin13]

the first cop actually had his gun drawnon the Army sergeant before backup arrived he tried to just rip the gun off his chest so the army guy backed up so the cop drew his gun and aimed it at the sergeant they said it was over 20 minutes before they started recording I don't think he went out there just to record the cops going after himif you can find the full video the cops actually have a conference and you can hear them talking about well what can we charge him withhe also was legal to open carry he had concealed carry permit on him the police didn't even ask for even after he offeredthey are also talking about having two lawsuits against the police because the cop that drove his son home detained his son for 22 minutes and told him he could not get out of the car until he answered his illegal questioning the guy has never been in trouble with the law before contrary to popular belief and he was awarded the Bronze Star by Bush in the Oval Office
Holy run on sentence batman... have you ever head of punctuation?

My question is this- If I'm out minding my own business, and let's say I'm OCing (I don't do it often, but it has happened before), and a cop walks up on me and tries to pull my gun out and take it away from me, would I be justified in not knowing his intentions and defending myself from unlawful disarmament? I would think common sense (yeah I know, not common these days) would tell you to announce your intentions before just grabbing something off of someone. Anyone else but a cop is getting shot with no hesitation.

[USAFGopherMike]

he was awarded the Bronze Star by Bush in the Oval Office

You have pics of him getting the decoration? How about a copy of the dec? Some dude that doesn't like him (see the link I posted above) reported the guy was a slacker and received his Bronze star for admin. That would mean no valor. Lots of hearsay and unknown facts. Still, I side with the law, not the cops.

[Cylinder Head]

You have pics of him getting the decoration? How about a copy of the dec? Some dude that doesn't like him (see the link I posted above) reported the guy was a slacker and received his Bronze star for admin. That would mean no valor. Lots of hearsay and unknown facts. Still, I side with the law, not the cops.

I've seen a pic of the guy with GW Bush.

[Prometheus]

yeah sorry no punctuation because it's on a cell phone and yes you can find pictures of him being awarded by Bush in the Oval Office just google his name with Bush and Bronze Star and it will pop right up he is a 18 year veteran with multiple Wars
and for a soldier that carried a gun for a living I'm sure it was just a reaction to back up when someone grabs his gun I don't know if he was resisting arrest or just trying to figure out why a person was trying to rip a gun off of him

[BigDee]

Those cops are f*cked. Regardless of this guys credibility or his "valor" the video speaks for itself. This man was unlawfully detained, the cops clearly stated they are "exempt" from the law and this was bullshit.

So much for Texas being awesome.

[tmleadr03]

Not how I would have carried a rifle on a hike with my kids. But I honestly don't see the harm. And seriously, how much of a danger does someone look like when they are rucking with a little boy?

[sellersm]

Yes, I'm re-awakening an old thread. Grisham was charged & fined & lost his case. They brought in a judge who would try this case, none of the locals wanted anything to do with the case.

Yesterday, the entire video from the dashcam from the officer's car was released on YouTube:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM

You can now decide for yourself what happened & whether Grisham is innocent & treated fairly or not. Listen carefully to what the other office says after he's arrived & starts discussing...

[BushMasterBoy]

Corrupt cops, DA's, judges etc. Obama, Bloomberg, Giron, Morse, blah blah

[hatidua]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/hatidua/w84k4k_zps8440bdeb.jpg

[Ronin13]

So I have a different perspective from back in April- although not much- thanks to being almost done with a LE academy... First, the cop just grabbed for the gun- that motion provoked resistance from the man who didn't know what the officer's intentions were, something I would never do- I would always advertise what I intend to do, if I actually do anything at all- such as, but not word for word "Sir, for safety reasons during this contact, I ask that I may secure your weapon. I am not seizing it permanently, just for my safety I would like to remove it from your person until this contact is complete." Then again, this goes along with state law that "A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene" (CRS 18-12-214(1)(b))- however, if the guy seems like a law-abiding, good citizen, odds are, I won't disarm, but would ask that he keep his hands away from the weapon. If ever the need came up where I chose to disarm a contact, I would do it a much more professional and respectful way than what that officer there did. However, if the person refused, sorry, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse- the cuffs are going on for mine and his safety and he would be disarmed... but not arrested unless an offense had been committed. Big difference between being detained and placed under arrest, most do not understand this.

It would appear that a lot went wrong in this case (on both sides- the cops and the citizen- disrespect on both accounts)- I would do things much differently if faced with an identical situation... especially a traffic contact with a lawfully armed driver. Just be careful out there, I guess that's my point.

[cstone]

You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Never yell at the police. It will be used against you in court.

That cop should review the dash video and then thank God that he was not dealing with a criminal.

[BushMasterBoy]

Or a bonafide terrorist...last comment I read said the Temple PD still has the guys firearms! I bet that is what they wanted anyways. If you have really nice guns, somebody will always want to get them for free if they can. EVEN SOMEBODY FROM THE .GOV!


You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Never yell at the police. It will be used against you in court.

That cop should review the dash video and then thank God that he was not dealing with a criminal.

[bryjcom]

The video just confirms that the cop is a DB. He acts like he's God Almighty, walking right up to a person minding their own business, starts finger fucking their rifle,then tries to take it away from them with out any approval or verbal exchange, other than "whadda doing?" Then when the person, obviously, gets defensive about the douchebaggery being displayed by a public servant, that "public servant" decides to get all authoritarian on him and slams him on the hood.

I hope he wins his appeal.

[mrghost]

Yes, I'm re-awakening an old thread. Grisham was charged & fined & lost his case. They brought in a judge who would try this case, none of the locals wanted anything to do with the case.

.

What's the source for that? What I've found is that it was declared as a mistrial.

"The six-person jury in Belton was deadlocked after two days of deliberations Thursday and Friday. Prosecutors did not immediately reveal whether they intended to retry him."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/18/small-legal-victory-for-military-veteran-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-on-hike-with-his-son/

[TheBelly]

What's the source for that? What I've found is that it was declared as a mistrial.


http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131121/NEWS06/311210013/Fine-no-jail-Texas-soldier-gun-rights-case

[bryjcom]

What's the source for that? What I've found is that it was declared as a mistrial.

"The six-person jury in Belton was deadlocked after two days of deliberations Thursday and Friday. Prosecutors did not immediately reveal whether they intended to retry him."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/18/small-legal-victory-for-military-veteran-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-on-hike-with-his-son/

They re-tried him. He lost. He's saying he's going to appeal.

[brutal]

The video just confirms that the cop is a DB. He acts like he's God Almighty, walking right up to a person minding their own business, starts finger fucking their rifle,then tries to take it away from them with out any approval or verbal exchange, other than "whadda doing?" Then when the person, obviously, gets defensive about the douchebaggery being displayed by a public servant, that "public servant" decides to get all authoritarian on him and slams him on the hood.

I hope he wins his appeal.

^^ This ^^

What a douchenozzle cop.

[Ronin13]

What's the source for that? What I've found is that it was declared as a mistrial.

"The six-person jury in Belton was deadlocked after two days of deliberations Thursday and Friday. Prosecutors did not immediately reveal whether they intended to retry him."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/18/small-legal-victory-for-military-veteran-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-on-hike-with-his-son/
This makes a lot more sense than him losing his case... A blind man can see that the officer was out of line and the man did nothing wrong. [Beer]