Active Duty Soldier Illegally Disarmed and Arrested In Texas

Yea Temple, Texas in the United States.  A lot of police flexing going on:

Christopher J. Grisham, 39, has an issue with Temple Police after they stopped him and his son on a Boy Scout hike, disarmed and arrested him, his attorney says. Officers say he resisted arrest.  Now the U.S. Army counterintelligence agent wants Temple Police to return the rifle and handgun they confiscated from him.

So this is what things are coming to huh? Wow… Thank god for cameras.  If you’re waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop out LOL a bit and say “You’ve been punked”, you’re unfortunately going to be disappointed.

The fact the Christopher Grisham was “charged” with resisting arrest and now has to “fight it” pisses me off.  There is this video of the incident… why is this even going to cost him a penny?  Looks pretty open and shut to me.

Assault-Rifle-Because-I-Am-BlackChristopher has a indiegogo fundraiser set up where he’s already for $38,934 (at the time of writing this article) in his legal fund which you can also contributed to at the link.  The original goal was only $11,000 so I’m hoping that will easily cover it.  If it costs less than the money raised, I say the extra should be spent on a countersuit against the Temple police department for retardation unbecoming of officers.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Spectre

138 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Jake April 19, 2013 at 01:06 am

This is pathetic. I can’t believe he even needs a trial. Those officers’ behavior was pathetic.

Reply

Bryan April 19, 2013 at 01:32 am

I doubt the police officer will get in trouble; this is totally within in the scope of his authority. Seems to me you have a belligerent man openly carrying what could possibly be an automatic weapon. It’s reasonable to disarm him before ascertaining his intentions. If he’d been a little more polite, this may have gone better for him.

Reply

Ryan April 19, 2013 at 05:31 am

Did you not see the video and read the statements that was proclaimed by Chris? That Officer went up to him, AFTER pointing his pistol at him, and grabbed his rifle. YOU NEVER try to take a weapon from someone like that if you “felt threatened”. If I felt threatened and I was that Officer then I would’ve asked him to remove his magazine, clear his weapon, put it on the ground, and then walked back about 5 feet. At that point I would’ve picked up the rifle and examined it to make sure it wasn’t an automatic weapon. If not, then carry on. This Officer is ignorant. Screw that Officer…that whole force is ignorant. Overweight, ignorant, and unintelligent people, like these officers, should not be wearing a badge. If I were Chris then I would be at the low ready and tell him to not attempt to touch my rifle. If he wanted to see it so bad then he needs to ask.

Reply

john May 6, 2013 at 06:40 pm

read the description. he was asked in the beginning as per grisham’s description to his post. he only reacted after grisham avoided his question when asked what’s with the rifle. if i can’t get a straight answer from a guy i got a call about and his rifle is close to at hand best be sure i’m gonna do what it takes to protect myself and the public i swore to protect too. real kicker this guy is an nco even if you can’t tell by his civilian clothes and common sense. this guy could’ve, should’ve and if he would’ve there more than likely would’ve been an entirely different result. think the “active duty, soldier” in the post heading is a pathetic attempt for sympathy to appalling behavior unexemplory as a service man with his child there. there was nothing serving this cause because the cause is garbage and i’m not saying that about 2nd amendment just simply i’m gonna do what i want when i want where i want and you can try and stop me. he had a childish f’n tantrum and he had a timeout for it. wtf people. he didn’t just run up on him he’d (the cop) have a short career if that was his way of handling his response calls.

Reply

JohnS May 6, 2013 at 06:52 pm

Your answer presupposes the right of the officer to detain somebody for no cause other than fear.

Which violates the concept of “Rule of Law” in a big way.

Until you can demonstrate where, if anywhere, the officer had established probable cause, then the Sgt. was not obligated to answer any questions, as the officer had no right to REQUIRE answers. The officer could certainly ask them, but if refused, he is required to leave off, otherwise what you have asserted is the right for any police officer to harass any citizen for any reason.

Is that truly what you believe in?

Reply

mosinmango May 6, 2013 at 06:59 pm

He’s allowed to avoid the question because the officer had no reason to suspect that a crime had just been or was about to be committed.

If you’re not breaking the law, the extent of authority is no greater than anyone else on the street who’s talking to you. Its rude, but you can just walk away.

Reply

Laws matter May 6, 2013 at 07:02 pm

Then you’re part of the problem. Your job is to protect the rights of the citizens and to protect the citizens from each other. To automatically begin the process of disarming a citizen just because you want to make yourself a little safer, and using your opinion of what “carrying a weapon in a menacing way” is just to justify your actions doesn’t make your action right or professional. I doubt seriously that a man walking down the road with his child, with his weapon slung as he had it would be construed as a menacing action by a rational minded police officer.

And last, you chose to enter into a very dangerous career, nobody made you do it. That means you will sometimes have to uphold the law, even if it puts your life in jeapordy. That means… When a man is walking down the road with a weapon, and by all practical evidence he isn’t breaking any law, you can’t just pull over and arrest him because you don’t want to feel threatened. He has rights that you cannot trample on, not even in the name of increasing your personal safety. If you don’t want to follow the law don’t accept a position in which you’ve sworn to uphold it.

Reply

adam April 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm

apparently you didn’t watch the video, watch the video.

Reply

J April 19, 2013 at 06:18 pm

I would had shot the officer and claim self defense for police brutality :]

Reply

HSR47 April 19, 2013 at 07:11 pm

Like it or not, I’d be inclined to wager that there aren’t many courts that would accept the supreme court precedent (John Bad Elk vs US) of a case like that…

Reply

Stephen Walsh April 21, 2013 at 12:26 am

It is not illegal to walk with a legally owned gun. The officer is a moron. He said carrying a gun is illegal “if someone is bothered by it.” So each individual’s personal phobia creates a law right then and there? Laws are written and passed by the legislature. If someone is an idiot who thinks inaminate objects are terrifying he should see a shrink, not call the police.

Reply

john May 6, 2013 at 06:43 pm

if it was carried in a menacing manner. he had it fixed to him at the ready by running his chest strap through the handle. that is menacing. the rifle is inanimate… pull the trigger and see how animate the bullet gets. sit down

Reply

JohnS May 6, 2013 at 06:48 pm

“Menacing” is when the rifle is being pointed at you by a person who has the clear intention of threatening you, or the intent to shoot you with it.

Carrying is not menacing. Your post just proved Stephen Walsh’s point, really.

Time to see somebody about that paranoia . . .

Reply

Shannon May 14, 2014 at 08:06 pm

John
It is more dangerous to be a farmer than to be a cop. You are just a coward making excuses for other coward/sadists.
The police force draws sadists like a day care draws pedophiles.

Reply

Jed April 21, 2013 at 02:41 pm

Sir, are you aware that it is perfectly legal to carry an AR-15 in public? It is legal, therefore, the police officers opinion is irrelevant. Unless the police suspect a person of a crime they aren’t allowed to confiscate your weapon, and they aren’t even allowed to ask you if you have a weapons carry permit. Just because somebody is worried that a citizen might be a threat, it doesn’t change the law at all. I know you won’t see things my way, but I honestly believe you’re more dangerous to the freedoms we enjoy in this country than the man In the video. Your mindset isn’t far from that of an ancient witch hunters. You apparently either don’t know the law, or you don’t care what it states. You can’t just arrest someone because you think they might be a witch.

Reply

Whitney April 21, 2013 at 08:12 pm

Those officers were absolutely not within their right at all. People like you have no respect for anyone’s righs or your own. Could possibly?? Are you kidding me? He was within his right to carry the gun like that. It wasn’t reasonable to disarm him period. The police officers are a disgrace to the law and others who legally enforcement. It’s people like them that give a bad name and bring shame onto law enforcement that actually operate within what’s legal. And I sure do hope they get fired, and the department gets sued for standing behind officers that don’t even follow the law themselves. This country is going down the shit drain faster and faster.

Reply

Josh April 23, 2013 at 04:21 pm

So what if it was an automatic weapon? Maybe he has a Class 3 permit for a full auto. This cop was out of line. The man’s activity was legal…no probable casue to stop, search or question him. Period.

Reply

Laws matter May 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm

That whole automatic weapon excuse that police officers use is pathetic. That is the way police officers intend to circumvent the constitution, and you know it.

A man is walking down the road with his son and you’re going to use the excuse that you suspect that the weapon might be an automatic… that’s scary and and it’s unprofessional. It’s also manipulative and sinister. You’re thinking to yourself… “I’ll show these guys who are trying to make a statement about their right to uphold the 2nd amendment… I arrest him if he doesn’t do exactly what I tell him to do, and I’ll claim I suspected it was an automatic weapon.

I respect the Police Force, and I have several good friends who are police officers… and I’m stating my thoughts from a rational standpoint:

If you want to use that kind of sorry self centered, ego maintaining tactic why don’t you just go get a job that doesn’t hold such incredible importance to the security of our freedom. I honestly don’t believe you take your role seriously enough if you’re willing to so quickly trample a citizens rights using such a lie of a trick. Get a job where people don’t absolutely count on you to be 100% honest in your intent. You swore to use integrity at all times.

So you have the power to arrest someone by acting like you thought the weapon was an automatic, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t just break the law when you do it. You should be more polite toward somebody who’s peacefully protesting the push to alter the power of the 2nd amendment. You automatically see them as criminals who you can arrest on your little contrived technicality. But you’ll just rationalize away everything I just said… and that’s incredibly scary to me, the idea that if I walk down the road with my weapon on me you will FIND a way to arrest me.

Such dishonesty… how are we supposed to have faith in law enforcement, knowing this.

Reply

Dave May 19, 2013 at 07:53 pm

You’re a clown.

Reply

Mr Mike Jenkins September 8, 2013 at 11:26 am

Supreme Court says that
“Every person is purported to know the law, and unless you become a BELLIGERENT claimant of your rights, you are considered to have acquiesced because ignorance of the law, or lack thereof, is no excuse.
What that means is you have a duty and requirement to know the law. That whole presumption of law establishes an implied free-reign license for everybody and their proverbial grandmother, including and especially the State and Federal governments and all of their administrative agencies to FRAUD you until such time as you can identify the fraud and take such actions to STOP IT.

He knew the law, He wasnt in violation of the LAW.
He was ACTING AS A BELLIGERENT CLAIMENT.

And you act as if thats BAD.
Sounds like YOU dont know the LAW!!

Reply

peter April 19, 2013 at 01:37 am

The officers were pretty ignorant, or at least very poor at communicating. Yes, he had a right to be where he was, doing what he was doing, but the officer also had a duty to check on the complaint call that he received. Certainly should have been handled differently by the officer initially, but based on Grisham’s demeanor and the statement toward the middle of the video to the effect that he could have “defended himself” against the officer (read shot the officer), I don’t blame the officer for wishing to disarm him during the encounter. However, I don’t think they had any probable cause to arrest him. Once the officer finished his investigation Grisham should have been given his guns back and sent on his way.

Now, we get to the controversial part. Knowing as we all do, that we are engaged in a battle of public opinion with a vocal minority of citizens in this country, many of whom apparently hold public offices, do we really want a man such as Grisham, who acts like a jackass in the video toward those officers, as our spokesman? I think not. We need people who are able to articulate themselves reasonably and tactfully, and without using insults and profanity. This man makes legally armed citizens look like crazy people. Grisham is obviously very adamant that his rights were violated and it is very possible that they were, but it is my contention that by creating a huge scene and insulting the officers all he did was figuratively shoot himself in the foot and all of us along with him.

Reply

john May 6, 2013 at 06:47 pm

finally peter, someone i can agree with the cop not saying was perfect but he was doing a job and i’m sure he didn’t wake up and say hey i’m gonna screw with this guy. the bottom line is grisham did not behave in a way serving to a person that did not want to be hassled by the officer.

Reply

JohnS May 6, 2013 at 06:59 pm

This, again, presupposes the right of a police officer to require certain extra-legal attitudes or behaviours, as well as asserting the right of a police officer to detain any citizen for any length of time for no reason what so ever.

The precept of probable cause is not addressed in your reply.

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 01:57 pm

Peter: so was he just supposed to role over and take it? Cause they said so? You are a wimp.

Reply

Ninjavitis April 19, 2013 at 02:04 am

Sometimes a scene is what we need. He wasn’t crazy, he was angry. I would be angry too. This situation should never have happened. He wasn’t filming it so it could be some beacon for gun rights, he was doing it so that someone else could see how he was being treated. People need to see that. Who watches the watchers? We all need to. The guy is a Soldier, not a statesman. It’s frustrating because in a different situation, these two men might have exchanged pleasantries as they passed. See how you react when you are being handled physically, stripped of your possessions, and stonewalled when all you need is a simple answer to a question to make it tolerable. “Why?” If they had given him an answer, it might have calmed the entire situation.

Reply

Taylor TX April 19, 2013 at 04:36 am

Ft Hood is in the Kileen/Temple area and so basically the cops around there have developed a slow hatred over time of soldiers, or at least that is the perspective of one of my buddies who was stationed there. Sadly, this is about 2/3 of all experiences I have with TX LEO’s , most of them joined because it was an easier way to be a bully and get a guaranteed salary. That other 1/3 (some LEO’s in my family included) actually want to help people, but of course, the bad is immortalized much easier than the good.

Reply

PhoenixNFA April 19, 2013 at 07:08 am

Now let me preface this by saying I have not watched the above video yet.

I live about 30 miles from Temple. (Waco area) and my experience with the LEO around here have been great. If I have needed to talk to them I am either in the wrong place and they have directed me to the right place or I have been doing something illegal and they have caught me on it.

I have heard no stories of the local LEO around here just pulling people over at random to be bullies. This may change in Killeen where the population has grown a lot over a short amount of time or where there is a high population of service members. City of Killeen has worse problems right now, like not getting city officials who embezzle money from them.

Conversely, they just got a new police HQ in the past year, gotta pay for it somehow!

Reply

john May 6, 2013 at 06:52 pm

they asked him why he had the rifle and he stonewalled to not gonna get all combya and crap but you gotta give respect too. shoulda realized there is a reason for everything. he may have seriously not realized he may be stopped because his rifle. man got heated from the beginning and in the description he even said it didn’t start out that way.

Reply

Matt in FL April 19, 2013 at 06:51 am

I’m very, very interested to see the dashcam footage of this, if and when it’s released. If it corroborates Grisham’s story, that the cop simply walked up and grabbed hold of his rifle, then that cop needs some serious retraining. The sergeant needs some based solely what’s on the video above. He was right in backing his officer up based on what he knew at the time, because he had no personal knowledge of what had gone on before he got there. But things like him equating Temple, Texas with Iraq and Afghanistan to justify their treatment of a “man with a gun,” and his comment of “we’re exempt from the law” show he clearly doesn’t know what’s correct and not, either.

Reply

Rob.G April 19, 2013 at 08:12 am

Tell me again how gun-friendly Texas is and why gun manufacturers up in the NE should relocate their businesses there??

Reply

PhoenixNFA April 19, 2013 at 08:15 am

Oh man one event by rogue policemen and suddenly texas is as gun unfriendly as England

No state income tax, cheaper land, freer access to waterfront if needed. Great transportation network that isn’t toll roads. Politicians who want your money and actually represent you rather than bending you over.

Reply

sancto April 19, 2013 at 09:02 am

I live in Texas. Please tell me where the cheap land is. Please don’t say out by El Paso.

Reply

Phoenixnfa April 19, 2013 at 11:50 am

10k an acre where I live. 100 mi south of Dallas.

Reply

sancto April 19, 2013 at 12:59 pm

Oh, I see the problem. We evidently have different ideas of cheap. :-)

Reply

Phoenixnfa April 19, 2013 at 01:01 pm

What is your idea of cheap? I know that not too far out is cheaper. I’m 5 miles from 35. Further out is most likely cheaper.

Reply

sancto April 19, 2013 at 01:23 pm

Well, what I call cheap is the land in southern OK for around $1-2k per acre. It’s all relative though. That may sound pricey to somebody somewhere else.

Reply

CR Pyro April 20, 2013 at 11:16 am

“Great transportation network that isn’t toll roads.”

Unless you’re in one of the major metro areas. Houston’s non toll roads are a logjam at the best of times, much like Austin. In Dallas and Fort Worth we’re rapidly moving to the Houston/Austin idea of travel, that is, pay if you want to get there in a reasonable amount of time. Don’t get me wrong, it’s certainly not LA or The City, as far as I know, but traffic still sucks in the major areas where the manufacturers would want to locate.

Reply

Hans in CLE April 19, 2013 at 08:17 am

Were the officers in this video wrong? Technically yes, but there’s a point where common sense must enter the conversation. Who the hell brings an AR on a Boy Scout walk? Really? Also- if this douche was dressed like a thugged out hood rat, no one would be saying anything about it.

This is the kind of thing that makes the general public regard all gun owners as assholes.

Reply

jpcmt April 19, 2013 at 08:58 am

They had no crime or reasonable suspicion that this open carrier was committing a crime and they became a law unto themselves and violated this man’s civil rights. I have brought an AK on my chest hiking with my family in the mountains here in MT because of cougars, wolf packs, and bears. We bring guns to scout activities and we use them.

Are you going to ask next, “Why does anyone NEED an AR or AK?”

Reply

Hans in CLE April 19, 2013 at 09:34 am

I’m sorry if my comment was taken the wrong way. I certainly didn’t mean to infer that this guy did anything illegal. Quite the opposite. I am well aware that acting like an asshole is perfectly legal.

I suspect that the main reason this guy was open carrying was for no real reason other than because he COULD. Doing something that unnecessarily alarms others just because you can makes you an asshole, and by suggesting that you could have “defended” yourself from the police just makes you look worse.

I’ve actually met a few criminals who weren’t assholes, but I’ve met more than a few completely law abiding citizens who were.

Reply

jpcmt April 19, 2013 at 10:07 am

We don’t know why he was carrying it and it shouldn’t matter. And even if he was carrying “just because” is unrelated to how others may perceive him…especially going hiking. Going grocery shopping with an AR on back or up front would definitely cry out “attention starved” but going hiking seems pretty legit. Heck, maybe he was hoping to pop a feral hog on the way and cook it at the campsite! That’d be totally justifiable.

As for the alarming of others, there is nothing that could or should be done other than for those people to shut the hell up and get over it. Guns are in your country, owned by people, have and always will be hopefully. If the delicate sensibilities of paranoid MSM-teet suckers who are shaped into being scared at the sight of a black rifle are too much for them to handle, then they can go pound sand. Local PD should manage calls better for sure.

And yes, this guy was pissed and cussed at the cops and said some dumb things, I’ll give you that. If I was recording this encounter or having it encountered knowing it would help me, I’d be cool, calm, and collected. He should definitely be pissed he was being raped by his government and I think the cops recognized that and were calm under that pressure where other cops would have immediately smacked him down. He’s an idiot, but he’s still right.

Soon as it’s alittle warmer, I’m taking my fam hiking and camping with as many guns as i can carry! lol But of course where I live, I’ve taken my Ak into Ace hardware to ask for parts for it (a screw for something). Nobody cares, many compliment it.

Reply

Karina April 20, 2013 at 09:22 am

“I suspect that the main reason this guy was open carrying was for no real reason other than because he COULD. Doing something that unnecessarily alarms others just because you can makes you an asshole.”

Well then, I will use my human right to “act like an asshole” to you, to tell you that you are an asshole who apparently cannot understand that he was hurting nobody, was not breaking the law, and was not doing anything inherently wrong.

So yes, you sir, are an asshole who hates other people’s guts just because they are supposed to have the freedom to.

Reply

Roman Scott April 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Thank you Karina for saving me the breathe (or words in this case).

Unfortunately I think they will fall on deaf ears. Any one who berates another for doing something they deem “unnecessary” won’t understand why they are called an asshole.

This kind of logic only exists because one person wants to force their will onto another. The types of governments/societies these people build are called dictatorships or are totalitarian in nature.

Reply

James in Illinois April 20, 2013 at 11:20 pm

“I suspect that the main reason this guy was open carrying was for no real reason other than because he COULD. Doing something that unnecessarily alarms others just because you can makes you an asshole”

He was executing his and all of our rights. This man is a patriot through and through. For anyone to call him an asshole just shows your own ignorance. He was not breaking any laws and he was well within his rights to talk to the police officers the way he did. These police officers should be punished severly in my opinion because of violating this mans civil rights. Also, the police being “exempt” from these laws is utter bs. That shows the mentallity these officers have. The true assholes in this case are in fact the police officers and frankly the people that were concerned enough to call the police in the first place. Further more (in case any of you forgot) the right to bear arms is yes obviously for self defense and hunting but on a larger scale it is there to ensure that our government can be kept in check by the people it was MADE TO SERVE. Thats right people the government is here TO SERVE US. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Remember that.

Reply

Shannon May 14, 2014 at 08:08 pm

So we should not do anything that alarms others? Your attitude alarms me, so you should be harassed, arrested and roughed up. Jerk.

Reply

Mike From Roswell April 22, 2013 at 10:31 am

Hans, the Texas Hill country where this took place is overrun with wild pigs which are aggressive and dangerous, it is prudent to carry a rifle when hiking in that terrain.

I expect that any Texas jury that hears this will be out for about 20 minutes before finding the Police guilty of d-baggery and offering to provide the rope themselves.

Reply

Fighting4Freedom April 23, 2013 at 01:22 pm

excuse you that was a soldier who could have been carrying that weapon for the fun of it for all i care he fights for the freedoms my family enjoys everyday… in my opinion he has more of a right to carry that weapon for what ever purpose over those officers who ILLEGALLY DISARMED HIM his everyday job is to carry a weapon simular to that down range and he obviously did a good job since he is still here so i would trust him more than them with a weapon around me… and he was dressed like he was going to be walking around for a long time in the heat of the day… he also lives in an area where coyotes are around a lot and in large packs at night they run that area… he has the right to defend himself from them or would you rather have another soldier die on american soil due to ignorance… please tell me you arent as foolish as you sound…

Reply

shank April 23, 2013 at 01:41 pm

you have read up on this guy and texas law?

… just making sure …

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 02:04 pm

Speak for yourself Hans. What should he have “brought” on his hike? A musket? Would that have been more appropriate? Get of the cops nuts. The 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments were violated. People should have to compromise their rights because they might “scare” some fat ass cop.

Reply

jpcmt April 19, 2013 at 08:57 am

Even in California, a “man with a gun” call from Joe Citizen is NOT considered grounds for a detention and disarming. A casual interview, with caution, is all that can be done to find out if there is probable cause to to detain and disarm. That’s it. This is so old, even in “this day and age.” What I’d like to see done is for those people who call in the MWG to have some type of penalty or strong scolding from the PD or at the least, some education. What should have happened with the MWG call is the caller should have been asked “is the man with the gun threatening you or anyone or acting in a threatening manner?” Then when the caller says no, the police should say, “Its not illegal to open carry a rifle so we will not be responding.” If the caller did say the MWG was acting in a threatening way, then the cops could come, detain, and question..and arrest if they can have reasonable suspicion of a threat. It’s not rocket science.

Reply

PhoenixNFA April 19, 2013 at 08:59 am

In texas the law regarding open carrying of a long arm is written that it is legal as long as it is not carried “in a manner to cause alarm”

Yep big gray area. Sadly one of the few things that makes me mad about texas.

Reply

MakoGroup April 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Are you speaking from personal experience as an LEO in Southern California? I’m not justifying this Officer’s actions at all. In fact, I think he acted very unprofessionally and in a manner not representative of law enforcement officers. However, in California, even before open carry was outlawed, the only legal action an officer could take was to verify that the wepon the subject was carrying was unloaded. So, if we received a MWG call, and you ask the subject “may I verify the status of your weapon to ensure it is not loaded?” And this person says no, he has now been detained until you can verify the status of that weapon. I’ve dealt with open carriers before, some of them were polite, respectful, and not stand-offish, others were just straight dicks. But all I did was what I was legally able to do. It became so normal after a while I didn’t even ask them anything else, I just walked up, told them why I was there, and that I would need to verify the status of their weapon. I never let them do it for me. The bottom line is you just don’t know who you are dealing with. Now, I don’t know about you, but how smart would it be to let the person handle the weapon themselves and show you that the weapon is unloaded? That is not something I would trust my life to. Food for thought. Unfortunately I think this LEO got into a pissing match with the wrong guy at the wrong time. It was a case of ego. The “you’re gonna do what I say boy.” Now, is there a time for that type of attitude? Absouletely, when you have someone who has committed a crime and is refusing your lawful order to place hands behind back or something similar. In this case, I don’t think the officer had established whether a crime, if any, had been committed. I think maybe some patience on the officer’s part and better tactical communication (verbal judo LOL) would have had a very different and positive outcome for everyone involved.

Reply

jpcmt April 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm

As a Calguns educated x-Californian I am aware of the 12089 check (loaded check, i think that’s the PC # for it) and MWG calls definitely allow for that even though there’s no reason to suspect they’re loaded and it shouldn’t be lawful to check, but hey, it’s CA so there’s greater issues.

What I was saying, and hopefully LE in CA know by now is that when OCing was legal, MWG calls were met with a dispatcher asking the questions, “is he threatening you or others?” and then when told no, an educational moment would conclude that “then it’s not illegal.” But for the cops who responded to MWG calls in CA, they are not allowed detention beyond that 12089 loaded check as you’ve mentioned. no guns drawn, no yanking people from cars, yelling at people, throwing them in police cars while they run serials, etc. CA cops have come a long way. I am responsible for educating two different departments in CA on how to respond lawfully to OCers thankyouverymuch! lol But that was over 4 years ago and I’m out of the loop.

Anyway, in this situation, cop failed, gun carrier was righteous though acting a little inflammatory, hopefully something good will come for the wrongfully arrested.

Reply

MakoGroup April 19, 2013 at 01:18 pm

I get what you’re saying, but from a liability perspective, if an RP calls in a MWG who is acting a non threatening manner during the time of call, we are still obligated to respond just so we can put our “all clear” stamp of approval on it. If not, and lets say this person who was open carrying decided to commit a crime with said firearm, and it was learned that the police were notified of this person and chose not to respond, big lawsuit coming down the pipes. Although this would be an extremely fringe and rare case I hope you could see where it puts LEO’s in a tough spot. If I had my way, I would have never responded to Open Carry calls for service at all. Some guys were dicks just looking to provoke LE, but overall they were all good 2a Supporting guys.

And also RP’s (reporting parties) do not always give the best, most accurate information when speaking to a dispatcher. Most open carry call descriptions look like this: RP states numerous armed individuals standing in front of starbucks and “looking intimidating” to other customers. Or there was the usual “there is a freaking guy with a gun and I’m scared get out here right now! CLICK” In situations where I was actually given enough information to determine these guys were just doing their OC thing, it was all good. If not given as much information as I would have liked, I definitely excercised some common sense officer safety. But I never let my ego get the best of me. This officer should have done the same

Reply

concerned April 19, 2013 at 09:46 am

one thing i noticed. they never checked the son.

if this were me and my son, i would hope that he would not ever let me be taken into custody.

Reply

BBJones April 19, 2013 at 01:03 pm

Huh? Seriously? This is a case of dumb cops and even the guy who was arrested knew that. This is not the time to have your Boy Scout son shoot cops so you don’t get a misdemeanor charge.

Reply

MosinMango April 19, 2013 at 10:39 am

It’s no justification for how this cop reacted, and it’s his only SHADOW of a hope for justification for his action…

But, the rifle probably should have been slung on his back or his shoulder, not at his front in “ready” position.

Don’t read me wrong there…I’m just sayin.

Reply

Michael April 19, 2013 at 11:25 am

Ehhh… Grisham isn’t exactly the most sane person either. He’s not just any intelligence officer.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/stalking-soldier-arrested-disarmed-by-texas-police-some-facts-opinion-and-analysis.htm

Reply

BBJones April 19, 2013 at 01:17 pm

nice find.

Reply

Frank April 19, 2013 at 06:26 pm

Even then, the burden of proof is on Grisham and the police.

Grisham IS innocent until proven guilty, and defamation/character assassination can be considered a crime in some states.

Reply

john May 6, 2013 at 06:54 pm

um who posted this? just sayin’ .yeah he put his behavior on blast whatever he gets from the public he let the cat outta the bag.

Reply

Audacia77 April 19, 2013 at 01:56 pm

I’ve seen this several times over the last 24hrs and came to he following conclusion. Though I agree that the LEO did douche out, Chris will have a hard time make a case against the City of Temple. Running the rifle across his chest (sternum strap through the carrying handle) it looks a lot like the ready position and can be considered to be “in a manner to cause alarm”. If it was slung across the shoulder, I’d be inline with most everyone’s frame of thought. Just my 2 cents.

Reply

phoenixNFA April 19, 2013 at 03:01 pm

i agree with this comment after watching the video. if it was slung over his back like this picture

http://www.lacolumna.org.uk/lacolumna_files/IB%20gallery/bob%20walking%20with%20rifle%20slung.jpg

id have no problem with it. but, state law says manner to cause alarm. dude, have some common sense to know that single point in front of you might cause some alarm.

could have been handled much better on both sides of the argument.

Reply

ethan snale April 19, 2013 at 06:00 pm

that guy is an idiot he should be arrested walking down the road with an assault rifle, look at the cars driving by him in the video if I was in one of those cars id call the police too. He should have just handed the gun over to the police when they asked him too. In fact he did resist arrest and should go to prison just for being enough of a dumbass too walk down the road with a semi automatic weapon

Reply

David April 20, 2013 at 01:20 am

An AR15 is not an Assault weapon moron! And you have EVER right to carry a gun! And I guess you were not watching the video, he was never asked to hand the gun over, the cop took it! Pay attention or shut up!

Reply

dave w April 20, 2013 at 04:07 pm

an ar 15 is a fully automatic 6000 round per minute weapon of war than fires heat seeking, cop killing, railroad destroying projectiles of death! whats wrong with you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Reply

Joe April 21, 2013 at 01:13 pm

6000 rounds per min. Do you know what a round is? Do you know he diff between automatic and semi automatic. People like you are the dangerous ones. Clearly you are just throwing terms round. This version of the ar was semi automatic in that the trigger needs to be pulled for each round (bullet) o fire. So the rate of fire would be more like 120 rounds per min assuming he could pull the trigger 2 times per second for 1 min. Good luck with that.

Reply

dave w April 21, 2013 at 01:59 pm

Maybe i was too subtle, but i thought obvious troll post was obvious. Thanks for the lols

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 06:22 pm

this was a good break from debunking real stupidity lol. thanks

Reply

ethan snale April 19, 2013 at 06:06 pm

I am an avid hunter as well who owns many guns including an ar-15 and I would never walk down a paved road with slung over my chest

Reply

John S April 20, 2013 at 08:46 pm

Which is your right. It is NOT your right to file a false criminal complaint.

If someone wants to carry a weapon openly, even just to get attention, then that is their right.

And no, the police are allowed to hassle you just because someone complains about the fact that you are a rare person who is actually exercising their rights.

Before a police officer has the right to stop you, they must have probable cause; a reason to believe that you are breaking the law. Simply carrying a weapon is not probable cause. The police have neither the obligation, nor the right to “check” a weapon just because it MIGHT violate some arcane gun-control law, they MUST have PROBABLE CAUSE.

Furthermore, the police are not obligated to prevent a crime. In point of fact, they are specifically prohibited from doing so. Such an action would be “prior restraint” and is expressly prohibited in the Constitution.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 06:37 pm

so you would just watch me exercise my rights if i were walking down the street. no question where am i going. what if i was short on rent and was going to the bank or a hormonally distraught teenager going to take out his ex for leaving me for the captain of the football team. what the hell is the brady bill… a greeting card. you can choose to invoke your rights whatever way you choose but your rights do not supersede the rest of the world. the cop responded cause it was his job and a responsibility he took with the job and the government bestowed upon him. people freaked like you would if a guy was walking down a paved road (which by the way wildlife while still having a few exceptions would be staying away from the road because unlike this guy natural selection does not always win.) hey can you post a you tube of you in a bank with a gun or maybe go to a day care or even an airport and wtf are you talking about in the end there. you never heard of the charge conspiracy to commit. usually hard to stick but it exists so if he was intending on killing somebody you would actually have to wait for him to do that in order to respond am. am i on punk’d or something because that is truly the dumbest statement i heard about current evens and i remember vp quayle spelling potato with an “e” on the end

Reply

JohnS May 7, 2013 at 06:51 pm

Again: you ignore the issue of probable cause.

Absent probable cause, then: Yes, I would just watch you exercise your rights.

Would you just do nothing if you saw me driving by in a car, or would you call in a MWC complaint? After all, my car is a deadly weapon, and I’m threatening you with it, right? After all, to harm you with a gun, I have to load it, release the safety, chamber a round, cock it, then point it at you. With a car, all of the analogous actions have already been taken, so by your reasoning, every person who sees another person driving a car can call in a complaint, and the police must pull over that person and detain them.

Except you are ignorant of the law: the police are not required to prevent crime, and they bear no liability for the failure to prevent a crime. So, no, the police are not required to stop persons carrying weapons, absent probable cause.

No, my rights do not supercede any other person’s rights. But that is just a straw man. What other person’s rights, and please be specific as to person and right, was the Sgt. violating or superceding?

The rest of your post is so incoherent as to be unreadable, so forgive me for not attempting to reply to it.

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 02:07 pm

And your point is what ethan? This man’s rights were violated. He did not break a law. Why would you not walk down the road with your AR? Because you fear the Police? Do you see the problem with that? Wake Up!

Reply

Sid April 19, 2013 at 06:43 pm

The resisting arrest charge is bogus. He may have acted like a dumbass, but that is not illegal. The law as written in TX allows individuals to open carry long guns. I am only asking the police to enforce the actual, written down, voted upon, officially enacted LAWS. Not to make up shit because they encounter a dumbass. Don’t like dealing with dumbasses? Don’t become a cop because believe it or not that is a pretty frequent occurrence.

He has a concealed carry permit ad the law allows him to open carry a long gun. Sort it out. Then take the damn handcuffs off, apologize, return his guns, log the report, move on to the next call. Want to lose a job, get the department sued, and create a national scandal? Arrest him.

Reply

John April 19, 2013 at 07:20 pm

Meh, its better than that other post where the officer was less than calm
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2011/03/25/philadelphia-police-threaten-to-kill-open-carrier/

Reply

jason April 19, 2013 at 08:05 pm

Personally…….i think weve screwed enough americans, with taking, or manipulating our constitutional rights as it is. I dont really care who was right. However, the officers never asked to see his military i.d. and the fact that they pulled their barney fife shiz in front of his son is enough to make any child have a bad taste in their mouth for ANY type of law enforcement. How is this a positive impact on teenagers that would have joined the military, much less their parents who do serve ? I think this is one of many, many cases of a ” vulgar display of power”. Its disgusting!!! Where i grew up, you could shoot waterfowl rigjt on the shoreline in front of any residency as long as youb were 500′ away. Anyone that has a problem with c.c.w. armed citizens ??? When your family is getting raped, i wont be there for you. Anti gun jackasses need to question tactics like these officers pulled. Not why especially military personell is carrying. What a joke !!! And sickly disappointing. Those cops should serve real time, with real hardened state pen prisoners. Itll never happen tho. Its all part of the agenda.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 06:56 pm

i do value the 2nd amendment but it was definitely manipulated and used like a 5 dollar whore here. and the shoreline is a lot different than the road you drive to get to the local store, maybe school or even daycare. big difference since everybody is looking at badge, blue, and the cop detaining him. let’s look at grisham’s behavior. no bullshit just yes or no should the cops responded to peoples calls. complaint made needs to have a conclusion. armed man on the street. should that man be there is he allowed to carry the weapon is this person a suspicious character. you respond, according to the description on GRISHAM’s posting (this is the man who was “violated” when he explained the cop approached and asked about the weapon and he explained nothing more than not like i’m breaking the law. which is true but you also avoided answering the question which would throw flags up in my face personally. mind you while inquiring his weapon was at hand in the ready “position” although it was strapped to his chest strap to his back pack. but let’s say you are a block or more away from grisham. you can’t tell if he has hands on or not but regardless. menacing manner. had he not been a total dumbass. he might have been able to walk away with his weapon slung over his shoulder. the 2nd amendment is a beautiful thing and should not be tested like this. he should be responsible for his actions should take his punishment. still, trying to figure why he had to say in his description he wasn’t trying to draw attention when that’s all this feeble ploy looks like to me.

Reply

No one April 20, 2013 at 01:16 am

I’d like to see what happened before this clip started. I think it was edited for effect. I kinda doubt he started taping in the middle of a physical confrontation.

Reply

Bima April 20, 2013 at 05:04 am

someone had a bad batch of donuts that day..

Reply

Rico Santorelli April 20, 2013 at 09:45 am

Did I miss any input and offer of financial and legal assistance from the NRA…?

Reply

Mitch April 20, 2013 at 01:31 pm

Dang that guy needs a rifle sling. clipping it to his chest by the carry handle? stupidest carry ever.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 06:58 pm

yeah and there are “combat ready” slings that hold your rifle in the same position.

Reply

Josh Bennett April 20, 2013 at 06:41 pm

This is why no one respects the police I want to say to the man who was ILLEGALLY disarmed thank you for fighting for our freedom even though some of the people you fought for are dumb ass retarded hillbilly police officers who don’t know there job.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 06:59 pm

really? that’s retarded you need to watch the video again

Reply

Cloud April 20, 2013 at 07:02 pm

everyone needs to realize that the police force are indeed “terrible” people. they seem to lack respect in most cases. however, in the moment you are approached, handle it lightly and dont speak. it is hard to do, yes, but it is what you must do to avoid conflict. all people featured in the video were doing wrong. they all should suffer a consequence of a sort.

Reply

Joe April 20, 2013 at 09:06 pm

I’m just saying if he had a hunting rifle thing would be have been different. 30-06 or 308 would kill a man on the spot but no one would have stopped him I bet. Ar-15 233 or 5.56 it’s just an image thing. Why do people that enforce the law don’t know the law?

Reply

Jacob April 21, 2013 at 07:14 am

Now to start with my father is a cop and I know Iowa is a lot different than Texas, but as long as he was sober and was in control of his actions he has the right to do what he wants. Businesses have a right to refuse service but on public property they would cuff him and check his license as long as he has a permit he would be let go. I’m not sure why this was hard to understand unless the cop never got there G.E.D they should of known that the police academy covers this.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:02 pm

soon as the weapon was inquired about he got loud and defensive even if he has the right to carry he still now has get the police to understand he isn’t up to no good but all he wanted to fight. he shot himself in the foot

Reply

JohnS May 8, 2013 at 12:47 pm

No one has to justify their actions to the police, absent probable cause.

That is why the issue of probable cause is so important: it is the first defense against the petty tyranny of a defacto police state.

To require that actions be justified to the police is to assert that everything is illegal unless permitted. Our legal system, however, holds the exact opposite: that everything is legal, until validly defined otherwise (that whole “Valid” thing being what the Constitution is partially about).

There is no law that requires one respect, be polite to, or even acknowledge the prescence of a police officer absent a justified, valid reason (again: probable cause). The police were asked, again and again in the video, “Why!?”.

It was not the Sgt. who shot himself in the foot, it was the police, for failing to answer that question. They are legally required to have an answer for that question.

The first thing a competent officer will tell you, in any stop, is “Why”. “Sir, I’ve pulled you over because you have a broken tail light.” That is both probable cause, and the explanation of probable cause. In this video, the police studiously ignore answering that question.

Probably because they knew that what they had done violated the law, and that they were being recorded.

Reply

Dan April 21, 2013 at 08:15 am

Well… he had the right… but he acted as an asshole… I think being “righ”t doesnt gives you the right to be an asshole.
If he wouldnt be yelling to the officers, this could had a different story. Something similar happened to me, and I did not ended up arrested :)

Reply

Mike From Roswell April 22, 2013 at 10:44 am

Re read the First Amendment Dan, that is your “be an asshole” permit, it is particularly pertinent when the rest of your rights are also being violated, illegal search and seizure anyone?

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:14 pm

probable cause anyone? when he was asked about the weapon he drew suspicion by not answering the question and his demeanor. his desire to walk around on a public road and draw attention is what got the cops called because he threatened others, intended or not. cops approach and ask why (as per grisham himself) and he avoids the question by responding with a question so the police are still not sure wtf this wackadoo is up to. so now there is a reason to respond and probable cause and he continued to be belligerent every step of the way. so how many indiscretions should be pointed out before the cops had a right to do something about it.

Reply

John Stevens November 20, 2013 at 05:20 am

Probable cause does not include legal actions.

By that reasoning, if I see you walking down the street with a book, I would have the right to stop you, search your person, and check your book.

After all, that book might contain something illegal.

Reply

Dan April 21, 2013 at 08:16 am

sorry… this story could have a different ending*

Reply

Joe Decila April 22, 2013 at 02:57 am

All these open carry morons do is make the rest of us gun owners look like nuts. Ok own an AR15, good for you It’s your right. Carry one around like your Lethal Weapon or Die Hard and you look like a total tool. It reminds me of this dorky kid I went to high school with that wore this gay Trans Am jacket and drove a rusted out Sun Bird. We called him “Too Cool”. Cops have one of the hardest and most dangerous jobs there is. They get a call of a goof ball walking around with a rifle and go, not knowing if they are gonna get killed or kill someone they have a duty to respond and investigate the guy’s intentions all while maintaining Officer safety. This ‘tard has the walnuts to give them a hard time and record it. Like he just expects the police dispatcher to tell the caller “Guy with a gun? Mind your own business, I’m not sending any police!”.

Reply

JohnS April 23, 2013 at 03:17 pm

So, would the cops have an obligation to respond if they received a call of “guy digging holes”?

There is nothing in “guy with gun” that requires a police investigation. There is nothing in that call that gives probable cause for any kind of police action.

“Guy with gun shooting at me!” is a whole different thing, as is “Guy with gun walking into .” Are you saying that carrying a rifle where this man was is one of those places?

Reply

JohnS April 23, 2013 at 03:18 pm

Sorry, the post should have said:

“Guy with gun walking into place that, by law, he is not allowed to carry arms.”

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:31 pm

he’s on a public road with his weapon in what appears to be in the ready. seriously, in the amount of time your asinine statement was made you could be shot so if a person is threatened they can report it and the officers respond. what is so complicated? his behavior caused a different outcome. not saying grisham had to drop to his knees and give him a reach around but had somethings been done differently, (like if this “pro” had a sling and it was over his shoulder for instance) there would have been a different situation because had the cops done all this without his behavior to warrant their scrutiny this would be real news other than teaching a class at not being “stoopid”. dude stop arguing like the cops are trying to violate your rights. oh and to the guy with the digging holes comment. you can dig holes. on your own property but you can be fined or killed for digging up power lines hit a water main. everything has a consequence so when you act like a buffoon don’t expect to be revered as a genius. his behavior caused the consequence.

Reply

John Stevens November 20, 2013 at 05:30 am

What is so complicated? The man was not doing anything illegal, yet he was harassed by the police, illegally detained, and illegally arrested.

You keep trying to excuse this by throwing up behavior, yet none of the behaviors in evidence were illegal, nor did they constitute probable cause.

I am not “trying to argue that the cops are trying to violate my rights”, I’m arguing that this cop did violate someone’s rights.

The simple truth is that if the officer really did have probably cause, he would not have simply walked up to the man with a gun, he would have called for backup and started the contact with a drawn weapon.

The cop was acting like there was no law being broken . . . if demeanor justifies actions, then the officer’s demeanor justified resistance and belligerence.

Are you beginning to see just how silly your “demeanor” argument is?

Your response to my “digging a hole” comment illustrates your state of mind: you assumed that someone is doing something illegal until proven otherwise. Yet the requirement here is for the police to have objective, rational, reasonable cause to be suspicious. Nothing in the evidence presented so far fulfills that requirement.

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 01:16 pm

Really Joe? What seems nuts to me is someone like you who is ok with the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments being violated. This man was not an escaped felon, and look how he was treated. The same could happen to you.

Get off the cops nuts. If they cannot handle a law abiding armed citizen they need to seek employment somewhere else. This was clearly a power trip. The cops are lucky there are so many submissive weenies like you who roll over and take it.

Reply

shank April 22, 2013 at 06:38 am

everyone on camera seem pretty ignorant.

and a hike is not an eagle project

Reply

JOSHUA April 22, 2013 at 12:09 pm

Bryan what makes you think his weapon was an automatic? I highly doubt that it is a automatic. It’s more likely a semi-automatic. After visiting Texas I would carry a rifle while hiking to protect me from coyotes, hogs, and other dangerous animals. Cops by law can not arrest you without telling you are being arrested. I belive its called the called the writ of habeas corpus, but I might be wrong there. Cops arenot above the law and they have to fallow the law no matter what. Period there is no gray.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:44 pm

the part where the officer replied to being above the law was simply his reply to being able to carry a gun because it was his job. i have watched this thing a thousand f’n times to listen to everybody saying they’re pro 2nd. i’m pro 2nd as well. you don’t have to agree with the guy in order to keep from thinking we’re boned by the government. dude is seriously f’d in the head. and i want to see from a reliable source how this crap happened to begin with whether he was officially detained or arrested and if he was arrested did he have warrants that he was arrested for. and prefer to get my info by links so i can make an informed decision. but even by what i saw and what grisham explained in his description, still gotta say long live the 2nd and grisham don’t fuck this up for us an ex member of the armed forces who has also seen combat and knows how to and when to argue intelligently. and josh semi or fully either way bullets are fast and bullets hurt so the operator of the machine that puts those things in motion should be competent (not grisham)

Reply

John Stevens November 20, 2013 at 05:36 am

Sorry, no, but being a police officer does not give you special rights. Police are not “allowed to carry guns” because they are police, they are “allowed to carry guns” because we are ALL allowed to carry guns.

Quite literally, the police officer was attacking the very basis of his right to do his job armed. If carrying a weapon justifies disarming someone and questioning them about their reasons for carrying, where they are going, etc., then by your reasoning, we ought to all in a MWG complaint every time we see a police officer.

The police are not an aristocracy, nor do they have special rights. What they usually have is an exception to laws that restrict gun possession in certain places, or at certain times. This does not give them any additional rights.

Since the location of Grisham’s arrest was not a “gun free zone”, the officer had no more right to carry than did Grisham.

Reply

Dick Fitzwell April 23, 2013 at 03:19 pm

He should use the excess money for a lock on his refrigerator. What a sorry excuse for a human. He was clearly the only one wetting his panties. The guy has a damn short-man’s complex, and he’s too much of a moron to see how that video completely embarrassed his crying son.

What do you say at The Eagle Scout meeting now? Anyone want to hire a hot head like this? I’m a gun owner, I work at Crossroads of the West Gun Shows. The way this guy was acting especially after the detaining was definitely not how a rational person acts.

If you are reading this you short fuck, I think you are an instigating asshole who was in search of YouTube hits, and I can’t believe how twisted things become when what used to be the biggest pussy is now the biggest hero.

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 01:09 pm

Dude, you are a pathetic, submissive coward. You just roll over and take it don’t you? You tap dance for anyone with authority?
Your logic implies that even if the police are wrong we need to bow down and allow them to break the law and/or violate our rights. This is why these incidence continues to happen. Because weenies like you bow down and watch our rights erode away. By the way, I served this country and fought in Iraq. I too would not have allowed that fat pig of a cop grab my Rifle. Semper Fi Master Sergeant.

Reply

tom April 24, 2013 at 06:59 am

Is that officer the same one that was in New Orleans disarming little old ladies defending themselves from looters. If this is the case then what you have is a New World order cop ready to do anything to bully people into submission of the police state. Watch out for these people for they are fringe people and are ready to do anything to look good for the new world order.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:45 pm

ummm… wha?

Reply

Terry April 25, 2013 at 08:07 am

It is always a good idea to investigate scenerios that appear “out of the ordinary” or unusual. Yes, suffice it to say that you do not see a person walking down the road with an AR15 strapped to him every day. Illegal…no, unusual…yes. After the officer had made reasonable assessment that the individual carrying the firearm/firearms was not a threat to anyone, he should have noted that in his police report and let the guy be on his way, with his firearm(s). Any goober driving down the road could call in this situation to the police department, and the police have to respond. Just because a “citizen” calls into the police department doesnt mean that an arrest has to take place. There are a lot of paranoid people out there just waiting for a chance to report someone…for anything! I think most of our police know this….but again, you have some officers that arent very bright.

Reply

Me April 25, 2013 at 08:12 am

I think people from Aurora, Co. would appreciate those cops near by a movie theater. Just saying… that guy being a prick, I would believe he would shoot the cops as soon as they jump into their patrols, well done cops… well done…

Reply

Me scares me April 25, 2013 at 02:06 pm

Me, you’re not serious, are you? You think he would have shot the police? Here’s a perspective… A question first, do you think this guy would want to kill a bunch of innocent people in a movie theater? I don’t think he would. On that note, do you think that the people in the theater, when that lunatic walked in and started firing, would have wanted the man in this video to be there with his AR-15 to protect them? Because I definitely believe he’s the kind of guy that would have loved to have been there to help them.

Carrying an AR-15 while walking down the road is not illegal! Your entire premis dissolves in the face of that fact! People like you are far more dangerous than a million of these guys on a million different roads.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 07:55 pm

legal books are completely compiled with scenarios to reference. there will always be a “that’s a new one scenario” how do you think those books got so big not to mention how many years of college. he was irate didn’t answer the officer when he was asked why he was carrying and also had to make reference to how he was carrying. not to mention his service is irrelevant since he was not in uniform and for us to assume the officer can read minds is preposterous. so to sum up… the cop should’ve known he was military should’ve known despite how he was carrying, that he wasn’t ready to use it while he is the closest person in range and shouldn’t assume that when someone gets loud obnoxious and his brow line does that thing that he’s angry and may develop a reason to use his weapon in less than arms reach. started off strong but you faded fast.

Reply

JohnS May 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Absent probable cause, he was within his rights to refuse to answer the officer’s questions.

The default assumption under our legal system is that what a free man does is legal until validly and legally defined otherwise, so unless the officer has probable cause, then detaining a citizen is false imprisonment. The officer is quite literally breaking the law.

I will be the first to admit that most people will not object to answering illegal questions, nor will they file charges when illegally detained. This does not, however, mean that those rights are forfeit.

If fear that a weapon MIGHT be used against you is legal grounds for disarming someone, then the Sgt. would be just as justified in disarming the cop.

Reply

john May 7, 2013 at 08:07 pm

laws are staples but what determines if they are broken or in jeopardy of violating someone else’s rights is circumstantial. really both of your are going to extremes to get your point across. having a fire arm is not a guarantee or we would all have them and there would be no age limit. as such you govern yourself to keep from having to be governed. he dug himself a hole by making his behavior the controversy. oh and working to protect people is far different then doing just so you can hold a rifle and shoot it off.

Reply

JohnS April 26, 2013 at 08:39 am

No, the exact opposite. Or are you claiming that the people in the Aurora shooting did NOT want a guy(s) with guns to come save them?

The purpose of gun control laws is to remove the means for good people to rescue themselves or others from the baddies.

Looking at recent history, it’s working like a charm.

Reply

Me scares me April 26, 2013 at 07:18 pm

I’m saying that I wish I could have been there with my AR-15 to save the people in the theater, and the kids at the school, and anywhere else that some sorry excuse for a human being decides to kill innocent people.

I’m guessing we’re on the same page.

Reply

John S April 27, 2013 at 05:52 pm

Yes.

I seemed to have replied to the wrong comment.

“Better to die free, than live in chains.”

The chains of fear are the strongest and most effective.

Reply

BEAU May 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Liston to all you drones defend the police. Do you have the stockholm syndrone? It is very disappointing to hear people talk so cowardly, and allow their rights to be violated because it will make their dealings with the police “easier.” Bottom line: the police broke the law, violated their oath of office, violated their integrity, and erroded any trust and confidence the public has in their abilities to perform their duties. Moreover, this started as a 2nd amendment issue and quickly became a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

Wake up America! The police ARE NOT our masters. We do not “report” to them-they report to us. They are public servants. Why are people ok with the police violating a law abiding citizens rights? This was not some escaped felon evading capture. To add insult to injury, this was an Active Duty Master Sergeant. I too served my country-10 years in the USMC. I find this appalling and disgraceful.

Hope these police are removed from their positions and charged for their crimes. I also pray that this Master Sergeant is properly reimbursed for his attorneys fees as they were totally unnecessary. Good luck to you Master Sergeant. Semper Fi.

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 01:43 am

its painfully obvious that your a militant, or a has been, but with all of your “bottom lines” and ” more overs ” and quotes from the amendments that you too feel like your above the law. lets not forget that without a civil, respectful and morale guide AND A REGEMENT OF LAW there would have been no military to begin with to uphold such laws , privileges and rights! and for anyone to think that in this day and age that ANYONE can walk down the street bearing that kind of weaponery and not be questioned,well then ur no better than al quida! lets not forget that its a free country for ALL!, not just the military, and the citizens of this country have the right to feel safe! and if every joe shmo can walk down the street with an assault rifle strapped to their chest….well….i hope u feel like your family is above a bullet. cuz i gotta tell ya…. i bet your blood is as red as mine

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 01:47 am

and i gotta tell ya …..i love our military and am pro gun……but lets not get carried away ok.. in your own words….SEMPER FI…which means “always faithful”. im soo glad you feel that way…just try to remember who those words were meant for. faithful to who?????

Reply

Dylan Dahlbergh May 22, 2013 at 03:02 pm

my parents say the cops were in the right. And while I think he was being belligerent, he WAS illegally disarmed and searched. The cops only arrested him to cover there asses.

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 02:01 am

he was not illegally disarmed…..the police where called by a concerned citizen…therforethat gives them the right to question…… after that its up to the asinine person who claims to serve this country but doesnt want to follow society’s rules and i don’t know where ur from but here …..anyone carrying a gun intends to use it and are most likely NOT law abiding citizens, SOOO if u carry a gun you ARE SUSPICIOUS AND DANGEROUS!!!! because the average person does not walk around with an assault rifle!!! do you agree? well if not answer me this…….if you looked out ur front window and seen a man with an assault rifle ,bandana over his head, dark sunglasse and a pistol in front of your house who woulds u call????or is that an everyday ,run of the mill complteley ordinary , occurance where ur from?

Reply

John Stevens November 20, 2013 at 05:51 am

“Anyone who carries a gun intends to use it”.

The police carry guns. By your reasoning, then, the police should be stopped, disarmed, and arrested. After all, they are carrying a gun, so they are “SUSPICIOUS AND DANGEROUS!!!!”

Your comment: “because the average person does not walk around with an assault rifle!!!’ is an example of the “normal bias.” The normal bias has no place in policing, and it is against the law for a police officer to apply that bias, so no, I do not agree.

Another example of the normal bias is: I see a group of young black men dressed in gangsta style clothing hanging out in front of my house. By your reasoning, I should call the police, and by your reasoning the police should come and detain them and question them.

A call by a concerned citizen is not probable cause, nor does a call by a concerned citizen justify stopping and questioning a citizen who has done nothing illegal.

“if you looked out ur front window and seen a man with an assault rifle ,bandana over his head, dark sunglasse and a pistol in front of your house who woulds u call???”

Nobody. Why would I? If you saw a man with a gun strapped to his person, and both a a shotgun and a rifle in his car, what would you do?

In Wyoming, if you did anything but yawn, you’d be jumping to the phone 8 hours of every day.

Also: would it make any difference to you if thatman was wearing a uniform?

Your entire argument is based on assuming that people who wear uniforms are automatically superior to you in authority, are trustworthy and that they have special rights, but that everybody else has no rights, are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and that society has the right to extra-legally impose standards of action, dress, demeanor and behavior on them.

All clear violations of the Constitution, our state constitutions and our legal precedents.

Reply

James May 31, 2013 at 04:21 pm

The cops need to have there ass beat and fired!! You don’t do that to people who serve our country! They should have said thank you and let them on there way.

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 01:20 am

well HAD THEY KNOWN he was a soldier(which still doesn’t give him the right to scare his community)they may have. but being a soldier doesnt give ANYONE the right to act like an ass

Reply

Tim Queen June 1, 2013 at 07:47 am

The police are to uphold the law. Not make it up as they feel..

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 01:23 am

they didn’t make it up….. they were CALLED TO THE SCENE BY A CONCERNE (AND WELL WARRANTED) CITIZEN

Reply

John Stevens November 19, 2013 at 05:05 am

Sorry, but being called by a citizen does not justify illegal action.

And there is nothing “well warranted” about their responding to such a call, absent a report of illegal action. There was nothing illegal to report, thus either the citizen was lying, or the police officer made an illegal stop.

Reply

John Stevens November 20, 2013 at 05:52 am

You didn’t understand Tim’s statement. A call by a concerned citizen is not a legal justification for doing anything but going to look, and even that is not required, unless the citizen has lodged a legal complaint.

Reply

Simon in England July 10, 2013 at 02:34 am

This is a very puzzling video and incident. In England and the United Kingdom we do not have an automatic “right to bear arms” as you do in America. It is bizarre for us to think that it appears to be entirely legal to walk in a public place with an assault rifle, a concealed handgun with a partially hidden face (sunglasses, hat and scarf) and claim you are on a hiking trip with your son. The gun laws in the UK are very tight following the Hungerford massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre and Dunblane massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre and other tragic incidents. Did the cops deal with this incident correctly and legally? They claim they reacted to a call from an alarmed resident. The guy didn’t help himself and the situation by escalating the tension. The cops had to deal with a guy carrying an assault rifle in a public place. The police do not know in advance the mental state of any individual they are obliged to stop. Being ex forces (as I am – 22 years British Army) does not give you the automatic right to be treated in anyway differently. I have a lot of respect for the British police but like any organisation there are good, indifferent and occasionally poor members. If he had been calm and compliant this would not have been an incident in the first place. The cops have to keep themselves safe too. There are plenty of ex forces guys way more screwed up mentally and potentially with PTSD issues that maybe shouldn’t be carrying weapons when off duty and in civilian dress. After serving in Northern Ireland and Iraq, at times I have had a very short temper and suffered from “hyper vigilance”, I am glad that I wasn’t allowed to walk around on hiking trips with an AR15 and a concealed handgun. Was the guy looking for confrontation? The US police have a difficult job to do with so many weapons around concealed and overtly carried. Why did he need these weapons on a hiking trip in the countryside? I appreciate that you have larger and more aggressive wild animals in the US but is an assault rifle and handgun necessary? Rural police in the UK are rarely armed. British police rarely carry weapons overtly unless at airports and static security at high risk sites. Different countries, different laws and different opinions. What was the legal outcome of this case? Regards, Simon in England

Reply

John Stevens November 19, 2013 at 05:28 am

Simon,

The police did not deal with this incident legally, nor correctly.

Try to imagine this a different way: suppose someone had been seen walking down the street carrying a a book. What would justify a police officer stopping the citizen carrying the book, and harassing them in this fashion?

You are correct: the fact that the citizen was also a member of the armed forces does not give them special rights or privileges, but that is equally true of the police. By our Constitution, the police have no special rights or powers, and it is only through legislation the carves out exceptions for them that they are legally allowed to carry weapons into places that other people are not (quite questionable legislation, by the way). None the less, those laws are not what grant the police the right to bear arms; it is their simple right, as a citizen, to bear arms.

So another way of looking at this is: should a citizen report every person exercising their rights, just because that exercise scares them in some fashion? Should we report every person we see who has tools that can be used to kill? Should we report every person carrying a gun to the police? Should we report every police officer we see . . . to the police?

The UK is a Kingdom. While for many years the Monarch has had very few powers, and very few special ones, your history is one of restricting the right to keep and bear arms to members of your Aristocracy (Knights: they existed in part to have someone in who that power could be vested). This suggests that your cultural pattern is still one that is intrinsically class based, so the thought of someone else having rights you do not is normal for you. For an American, “Every Man is a Sovereign in his own Castle.” There is even a principle of law called the “Castle Doctrine”, based on this concept.

The question you asked at the end: “Why did he need to do this?” is critical, because it reveals your mindset. The implication is that people only have the right to do what they are allowed to do by their King, or Liege Lord. In the US, each man is his own sovereign and as such, that question is inflammatory to the point of being insulting (I know you did not mean it that way, of course) as it implies that someone else has the right to dictate to a citizen what they may or may not do absent a clear violation of legally established law.

The code phrase for that concept in the US is “the rule of law, not the rule of men.” So, as long as what you are doing is legal, no man has the right to gainsay you. What this citizen was doing was legal, thus a police officer (just another citizen, no different from the citizen being stopped) had no right to even stop the man.

A police officer may only interfere with you if you are performing an illegal act, or he has a reasonable suspicion that you are or have done something illegal. Since that is not true in this case, the police are the law breakers here, and should be duly punished, just as any other citizen should be.

Reply

denise torrence November 19, 2013 at 12:43 am

R U KIDDING ME???in a country where we are experiencing terrorist attacks,gang violence ,social violence and mass shootings wide spread u are gonna think that its unconstitutional and or unreasonable for an officer (who by the way was called to the scene by a CITIZEN )to stop a man walkin down the street WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE STRAPPED TO HIS CHEST! REALLLLLY? how is this officer to know that he a active duty military soldier with a permit just by lookin at him?and let alone able to carry a weapon of that magnitude??can he tell by lookin at him??? NO! remember…monsters come in plain cloths!!!and besides if he were to go by looks, as anyone looking out their window would,he would think he was guerrilla straight out of the news! then instead of just answering the mans questions he becomes all high and mighty and defensive(just as a…say fugitive might do) about”why u want to know?” or “was I doin somethin wrong?” he wants to know because its not everyday you see someone walkin down the street with an assualt rifle STRAPPED TO HIS CHEST! i dont care how “out of the way” the road is! couldnt he have just said that he was a soldier with a permit to carry?and show him his credentials and go on his way?after all there is no I in team and while this man has defended his country this officer is defending his COMMUNITY! they are both working towards the greater good and protection of the american people! so why would he be so defensive and rebellious towards the same government that he works for? that should be looked into!because he obviously thinks hes better than the average citizen . now in texas you say its legal to openly carry a rifle or a shotgun(as long as its in a manner that does not cause alarm) HEEELLLOOO, where im from ANYONE walkin down a road,and i dont care what road or how secluded ,with an assault rifle strapped to their chest IS CAUSE FOR ALARM!!! AGAIN noone knows ur a soldier just by lookin at u! and in that video all i seen was an officer .who was called to the scene by a concerned citizen,tryin to do his jib and find out if this man was legally able to carry this weapon. MORON. YOU were the one being unreasonable.all u had to do was show the man ur ID and u would have been on ur way. BUT…you turned it into nothing short of a pissing contest AND put ur son,THAT U CARE SOOOO MUCH ABOUT, in the direct middle and made him thinkthat the law in this country is the enemy! i hope your proud of yourself!!!! the way i see it…you think ur that because your a soldier that the law doesnt apply to you!and that any officer who sees a THUG LOOKIN MOFO walkin down the street should just get a pass cuz”OMG HE MIGHT BE A SOLDIER” he dont know who the fuck u are UNLESS HE ASKS! does that make any sense stupid??? you think that because your a soldier that your above suspicion or above the law? wrong!that my friend is CRAZY! and let me just say this…that day if the officerwas just driving down the road (and not called by a concerned citizen like he was) and seen you walkin down the road with AN ASSAULT rifle and he had merely let u just STROLL ON BY because he thought to himself,”oh man hes military,hes an active duty soldier (a phrase that everyone keeps throwing around like its a pass or something) and just drove off never to give it a second thought….AND THEN….that person say walks into a school and starts shooting? 28 dead.or maybe open fires at movie theatre…12 dead.or maybe drops acouple bombs at the boston marathon…3 dead 180 injured. WHAT THEN???monsters come in plain cloths my friend and YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL!!! if that officer just let u stroll by (like noone else would have) and u committed a like crime or worsethat man would suffer for YOUR CRIMES just because he didnt ask why. oh wait but hey …..he wouldnt be guilty of questioning a SOLDIER THAT HE DIDNT KNOW WAS A SOLDIER<WHO SOMEONE HAD CALLED AND REPORTED AS A SUSPICIOS PERSON and WHO LOOKED LIKE A FREAKIN THUG!!! this officer is persecuted for doing his JOB and asking a person whoi he could never known was a soldier with the right to bear arm IF HE HAD NOT ASKED! but he did and good for him!!! the soldier gets a chil on his shoulder and feels like hes above question when the rest of america isnt. AND LETS NOT FORGET ABOUT FORT HOOD! now what? then what? soldiers in and of themselves ARE NOT ABOVE VIOLENCE OR THE LAW!!! they are just as capable if not more of violence as "civilians" stop being so self righteous that u feel u cant be questioned when doing something that may or may not be construed as harmful. GET OVER YOURSELF! in todays world everyone who acts in a unusaul way is subject to question! and not just by the government but you have to answer to the people of this country,the media,and every individual state in the union. the freedom of saftey and peace that ur supposed to be upholding and defending is also a right to every american! so instead of getting defensive and unruly merely because you were "asked" and questioned if what u were doing was legal, you should have been(for lack of better word) compliant,and respectful and on the same side of the law that the government that u yourself works for!!and just for the record…i am pro gun , pro right to bear arms , and pro right to protect myself and my family….but i would not be surprised,shocked OR OFFENDED if i were walking down the street with an assualt rifle strapped to my chest and then stopped by police and questioned! id be very scared IF THEY DIDNT. eveeryone is afraid of harm, and the AVERAGE american does not display weaponry like that unless they intend to do harm and are intent ON USING IT!!! DUMBASS. also i feel like you were trying to display your authority and what u thought was an untouchable superiority as soldier. a simple "yes" im legally able to carry these weapons(more than one, all in the name of killing a rabbit or squirrel)and a show of ur ID would have have sufficed and sent you bacvk on you questof recieving abadge for your son. BUT instead what u taught him was to be rude,unwilling to work with authority and that the law officer was a threat( thew same law under which YOU are supposed to withhold and defend against threats foreign AND DOMESTIC) GREAT JOB DAD!!!u just made an outlaw of ur son. superior parenting,way to go ! and by the way…. u come off as a huge asinine fuck in the video .

Reply

John Stevens November 19, 2013 at 05:39 am

Your posting is one long screed against human rights, based on your fear. Fear makes people very controlling, and I understand that reaction, but fear does not give anybody any special rights. And security through control is an illusion. Ask Benito Mussolini if control kept him safe.

Courage is the virtue that should be cultivated here, not irrational and unreasoning fear.

Sorry, but I’m not willing to give up my rights just because you are being irrationally and unreasonably afraid.

Just one sample of your fear is enough: “In todays world everyone who acts in a unusaul way is subject to question! and not just by the government but you have to answer to the people of this country,the media,and every individual state in the union.”

No, they are not. What you posted is just not true. If it were, we would be living in a dictatorship, a tyrannical system where every right had been stripped away in favor of enforcing homogeneity in thought, word and deed.

The entire point of the Constitution is to protect my God given right to say, think and act in any way I please, no matter how rude, strange or unusual, so long as I break no valid and legally established law.

Such was the case here. A man was acting outside the norm, yes, but he was breaking no law, thus the police had no right to harass him.

Reply

Simon in England November 19, 2013 at 02:31 am

Hi everyone……still an interesting and passionate website to read.

There has just been a random shooter in Paris:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-shooting-hundreds-of-police-hunt-gunman-after-libration-attack-8948671.html

Has there been a legal outcome to the Texas case?

Regards to all, Simon in England

Reply

Matt in FL November 19, 2013 at 03:59 am

Hey Simon. The jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared back on October 18th, and the prosecutor announced his intention to retry the case with a new trial date of November 18th. You can read more here: http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/10/23/juror-speaks-to-dontcomply-com-on-bell-county-prosecution-of-grisham-case/

Reply

Simon in England November 20, 2013 at 01:40 am

Thanks Matt. Regards, Simon

Reply

Matt in FL November 20, 2013 at 01:48 am

Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, whose first trial back in October ended in a hung jury and a mistrial, was found guilty today of interference with the duties of an officer, a Class-B misdemeanor. The penalty phase of the trial, which could bring fines of up to $2000 and jail time of not more than 180 days, begins at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: