Whether in a car or on a horse / We don't mind using excessive force

Print This Post

221 Responses

  1. kapitan kaiju says:

    "For every unbelievably heroic event, such as the recent Boston Marathon Bombing, 9/11, or countless others… there are literally 120,000 events like this, where some dude waves a badge and gets his asshole on."

    FTFY.

    OT: I get that this is a legal blog (and I applaud in particular all the Prenda coverage) but I've come to the conclusion that in the absence of old school beat cops vigilance societies may well have a place.

  2. Stumble says:

    Honestly an AR-15 is one of the most common weapons used to hunt wild boar. They come in large packs, and can be very dangerous and agressive. I can certainly see wanting multiple shots when dealing with 10+ large agressive animals who have a history of attacking people.

    I have no idea what he was really arrested for, but his gun selection is pretty reasonable for those circumstances.

  3. a_random_guy says:

    I've seen this case discussed in other blogs. It seems pretty clear that MSgt Grisham was a bit rude to the cops. Which brings up the really key question: do cops have an expectation of politeness? Or are they allowed to rough you up and arrest you for failing to show them respect?

    Inner city cops really do have a problem in this area. However, Temple, Texas is not exactly a center for gang warfare. On top of that, this is Texas, where there are more guns than people. It may be a bit unusual to see a guy hiking with a rifle outside of hunting season, but it's hardly worth a call to the cops.

    I suppose Temple is too close to Austin, and some progressive pantywaist got all offended at the sight of a gun. The cops should have checked it out, seen a guy handling his weapon responsibly, and left him alone. Instead, they got drawn into a totally unprofessional macho pissing contest.

  4. Insularis says:

    Aww, I was really looking forward to talking to Ken at the furmeet.

  5. David Lang says:

    For an Army Master Sgt to opt for a AR-15 and Colt .45 pistol as his weapons of choice is hardly surprising. He probably has years of experience and training on those particular weapons. Both weapons are perfectly legal (especially in Texas :-), so if someone is going out into an area that has dangerous wildlife, carrying this combination should not be a shock to anyone there.

    Even though the article doesn't say anything about it, I'll bet that he was also wearing his military field gear (harnesses, canteens, etc), after all, he has the equipment, and it's designed for exactly this sort of use (walking around in the middle of nowhere). As a result, even a lot of people who have never been in the military purchase this equipment.

    so how he was dressed and equipped is not at all aurprising.

    I would also be very surprised if a Master Sgt was waving the gun around or doing much of anything with it other than carrying it. With the years of experience he would have, the weapons are probably something he is about as used to carrying as most people are their cell phone, car keys, or tablet computer, not something to make a big deal about.

    That being said, I can definitely see a MSgt getting rude to people who he thinks are harassing him, and since I have no idea what actually happened, I am not saying he isn't in the wrong there.

    But I agree with the initial premise of the post, how do you carry a weapon "rudely"

  6. Dave says:

    You know, feral hogs actually are a dangerous invasive species. These aren't the singing Disney boars you're probably more familiar with; feral hogs cause a crapload of property and livestock damage across the southern states and are a threat to people due to their razor-sharp tusks. Texas doesn't have a hunting season for them, they have a bounty program. The cop probably would've had no problem if the rifle involved was an old fudd hunting rifle instead of a modern defensive rifle.

    "Which brings up the really key question: do cops have an expectation of politeness? Or are they allowed to rough you up and arrest you for failing to show them respect?"

    They have power, so be polite. It's like the old saying, "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." Only, the ride now involves painful electric shocks.

  7. Basil Forthrightly says:

    @a_random_guy Austin, like all other Texas cities, gets most of its peace officers from rural communities, and a lot of them continue to reside there. And a large cross section of Austin police officers are ex-military.

    And here in Texas, lots of the progressives have guns too.

  8. dfbaskwill says:

    There are absolutely no redeeming qualities in a wild boar. An AR-15 is a suitable answer no matter what Senator Squishy might say. Give her a choice of being put in a room with a wild boar and an AR-15 or a room with just a wild boar and see what she does.

  9. Tarrou says:

    I watched the video, and I think I know why they acted like tards. Ol' Master Sarge had his NCO voice on. Now, I had to develop one, but mine is weak and pitiful next to what a career guy with twenty years in like a MSGT has. And civilians aren't used to being addressed in a tone of voice that exudes command. Especially cops. Go watch the video, and you can hear the moment when his voice changes from incredulity to "listen up, you fuckstick private". Poor cops never had a chance. They had to drum up some sort of bullshit to save face!

  10. Tarrou says:

    @David Lang – The MSGT wasn't wearing any web gear. He had his military issue boonie cap on, with rank, and a civilian version of the Camelback we carry, but his, as you can see from the picture, has neon orange all over it. The cap was the only military item, not that it matters much. He'd have been familiar with the AR, of course, but the Army switched from the .45 to the 9mm Beretta back in the '80s, I doubt if anyone currently serving was trained on them. A lot of gun buffs just like the .45, and frankly on wild hogs, I'd take a larger bullet every time.

  11. It also chills me to the bone what they did to the kid- telling him he can't get out of the police car until he answers their questions. So illegal…and what is a kid going to be able to do? Cops CANNOT be allowed to get away with this.

  12. Merissa says:

    Oh, Texas. You're just so…Texas. Get your shit together.

    ".45? Meh, only newbs bring that. The low fire rate means you'll get maybe one, two guys before you get pegged. And there goes your kill streak. The sidearm is a desperation weapon anyway. In almost all cases unless you're achievement hunting, you're better off just picking up some random's gun. I like to go for the rapid fire pistols, but then I tend to like the weapons that just spray bullets all over place. I refer to them as 'guns that go THBBBBBT'. I'm good at Call of Duty."

    Wherever you are, I will find you and pinch your cheeks.

  13. Windypundit says:

    "do cops have an expectation of politeness?"

    Misdemeanor Disrespect of Cop. It will get you arrested in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Also comes in Felony sizes.

  14. a_random_guy says:

    Cops CANNOT be allowed to get away with this.

    They may not, in this particular case, because it's on video and all over the Interwebs. Unfortunately, in the other 119,999 cases they will get away with it. If it comes down to the word of a cop against the word of an average citizen, the citizen loses every time.

  15. Aaron Spink says:

    The issue of this incident revolves only peripherally around the type of gun he was carrying in that it caused reports to the police. The real issue occurs during the initial contact with the police and the master sgt's initial behavior.

    When publicly carrying a loaded firearm and approached by a police officer, the smart thing to do is to assume a non-threatening neutral position with your hands as far away from the firearm as possible. If you see the officer approaching, it is even better to safe and set down the weapon. In the case where that can not be done, it is of utmost importance to be as passive and polite as possible.

    In this case from the testimony of both the suspect, the police officer, and the video and audio evidence make it clear that this did not happen. Police are within their rights to temporarily disarm an individual while investigating a matter. The Master Sgt was from all evidence rather rude and confrontational.

    If the Master Sgt had acted wisely and cooperatively, this would have been a complete non-incident. Instead, the suspect assumed that everyone knew both his training and his intent which for someone so trained is obvious ludicrous. It is unfathomable that the suspect wasn't at some point trained to handle running into an unknown armed individual. In such case, if he ran into someone acting like himself, it is likely he would of shot him.

    When you encounter law enforcement, it is not the time to get uppity or assume you know their job better than them. You can state you don't comply to searches, you can state you are following their orders under protest, but be peaceful and respectful and your life will be a lot better.

    As far as cops being able to "rough" you up and arrest you if are not polite… Yes. Happens all the time. The reality is that it is almost unfathomable that everyone hasn't done something that violates some law. And even in the unlikely event that you haven't done something, they can always hold you temporarily for a variety of reasons or no reason at all. Running into a cop as part of an investigation isn't fun, and it is idiotic to do anything that would cause the situation to prolong or get worse. Unfortunately, in this case, the person of interest did just about everything he could to make the situation worse.

  16. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    One of the problems is that there is seldom any real punishment for cops who exceed their authority, or make blatantly illegal arrests through stupidity, or raid the wrong house and shoot somebody. That needs to be fixed, badly.

  17. Scooby says:

    @dfbaskwill "There are absolutely no redeeming qualities in a wild boar."

    Except, of course, that they are made of pork, right?

  18. Leon says:

    "In this case, the person of interest did just about everything he could to make the situation worse."

    As did the officer, which is the whole point. The leo may not have liked his tone, but physically he did everything that was asked of him and cooperated fully. He complied with the law and officer fully, yet was still arrested for essentially walking down the road while minding his own business.

  19. Aaron Spink says:

    "It also chills me to the bone what they did to the kid- telling him he can't get out of the police car until he answers their questions. So illegal…and what is a kid going to be able to do? Cops CANNOT be allowed to get away with this."

    First, we have no idea what those questions actually were. There are actually certain questions that actually need to be answered. Let me set this scenario… You have an armed man and a child walking down a rural road. Are you saying that the cops shouldn't ask the child any questions?

    Second, we don't know the actual voracity of these statements. We do know that the actual article linked is factually inaccurate based on the video evidence.

    Third, police officers are fully permitted to lie as part of their questioning. In fact, we encourage it and support it as citizens. It is overwhelmingly common and leads to the majority of the convictions from questioning and interrogation.

    Fourth, all of this is the actual fault of the father. Sorry to say but he handled the situation about as badly as possible.

  20. TomB says:

    "As far as cops being able to "rough" you up and arrest you if are not polite… Yes. Happens all the time. The reality is that it is almost unfathomable that everyone hasn't done something that violates some law. And even in the unlikely event that you haven't done something, they can always hold you temporarily for a variety of reasons or no reason at all. Running into a cop as part of an investigation isn't fun, and it is idiotic to do anything that would cause the situation to prolong or get worse."

    I'm sorry, but I don't agree that complete capitulation to authorities because they'll rough you up even when it isn't necessary (and is, in fact, unlawful) is the right way to go. It should be up to officers of the law to practice that law at all times.

    Hopefully, with the proliferation of videos of police routinely violating people's rights, there will begin to be more push back, and people will begin to demand the police act as the are expected to.

  21. Aaron Spink says:

    "As did the officer, which is the whole point. The leo may not have liked his tone, but physically he did everything that was asked of him and cooperated fully. He complied with the law and officer fully, yet was still arrested for essentially walking down the road while minding his own business."

    While the officer could of handled the situation better, the suspect did not in fact get arrested for "essentially walking down the road while minding his own business". He got arrested for impeding a perfectly reasonable investigation of the situation, which the officer was well within his rights to investigated even if they hadn't received a complaint, which they did.

    The first thing anyone who acquires a gun and certainly anyone who has a CC permit should know is that the first thing you do when approached by a police officer while armed is declare and offer to disarm. Not only did he not declare and offer to disarm, he kept his hands near the weapon and impeded a disarmament. At that point, a police officer is going to treat you as hostile, he is trained to do that and for good reason. This whole entire incident is firmly because of the actions of the master sgt.

  22. Aaron Spink says:

    TomB, it isn't about complete capitulation or about any ivory tower ideals. It is about reality. You can and should refuse searches and refuse to answer questions. You should however not be belligerent, rude, or confrontational, and certainly not when armed with loaded firearms.

    It is about the best way to get the best outcome possible. You don't have to answer questions nor submit to searches, and you shouldn't ever, but being polite and courteous will provide the best possible outcome. Many many police officers are good people, but even the best people do not react well to rude and belligerent people.

    If you have a legal issue with the way the police conducted themselves, the time to handle it is after the outcome with the officer through either a lawyer if you are arrested or by a police conduct complaint if you are not. You gain absolutely nothing and have no chance of improving your outcome by trying fruitlessly to become both a court of law and judge while within a police interaction.

  23. MattS says:

    Aaron Spink,

    "First, we have no idea what those questions actually were. There are actually certain questions that actually need to be answered. Let me set this scenario… You have an armed man and a child walking down a rural road. Are you saying that the cops shouldn't ask the child any questions?"

    It doesn't matter what the questions were. My understanding is that except under extraordinary circumstances (and this case wouldn't qualify) it is flat out illegal for the police to question a minor without at least one parent or guardian present.

  24. Leon says:

    "Not only did he not declare and offer to disarm, he kept his hands near the weapon and impeded a disarmament."

    When the video starts, he has his rifle strapped to his chest in a single-point sling and is bent over the hood of the car. How exactly was he supposed to disarm himself or even get his hands away from the weapon?

    Oh right, he couldn't.

  25. TomB says:

    It is about the best way to get the best outcome possible. You don't have to answer questions nor submit to searches, and you shouldn't ever, but being polite and courteous will provide the best possible outcome. Many many police officers are good people, but even the best people do not react well to rude and belligerent people.

    If that kind of "belligerent" causes you to not react well, you shouldn't be a police officer.

    It is utterly ridiculous that the officer allowed this to escalate into a situation where an arrest occurred. There was no suspicious activity, no laws being broken and no initial reason for an arrest.

    In this situation, it is the LEO that is the professional, he needs to start to act like one.

  26. JR says:

    @Aaron Spink

    He got arrested for impeding a perfectly reasonable investigation of the situation, which the officer was well within his rights to investigated even if they hadn't received a complaint, which they did.

    What was the probable cause that made the officer "well within his rights" to investigate when there was no complaint?

  27. dsd says:

    I stopped reading after "Assault level rifle to kill some wild boars? Why not?! FUCK wild boars."
    An AR15 is a sem-auto .223 rifle. It is the appropriate caliber for boar hunting. Your theme here seems biased as "guns are scary" and ignorant. How about I won't criticize your choice in legal techniques and you stay out of firearms discussions.

  28. Lucy says:

    As a parent, I would like to see heads publicly roll for the questioning of the minor in the way that they did. More than just incompetent police officers fired, the police force needs to repair the damage with the family, and the public.

    As for the arrest; this is clearly an issue of the ongoing power struggle that officers perceive is happening, whether it is actually there or not. As the "authority figure" in the roles that are at issue, it is the responsibility of the police officer to prevent escalation of the matter the best he can. Instead, these officers continued to press the issue physically, rather than just explain and ask questions before slamming him on the hood of the car. These cops in this video are beyond training for people skills, and just need to find another line of work.

    Cops who are threatened by cell phones (as possible weapons) and guns in the context that we have here, have no place in protecting the public from perceived threat, as they have no perception in context, but instead twist and manipulate… ah never mind. Vile. These cops are what's wrong with the world.

    I vote for the Master Sergeant in this one. I hope he gets an aggressive and competent lawyer.

  29. Lucy says:

    Also, is there a way he could have carried his AR-15 less threatening?

  30. princessartemis says:

    It is unfathomable that the suspect wasn't at some point trained to handle running into an unknown armed individual. In such case, if he ran into someone acting like himself, it is likely he would of shot him.

    I imagine a Master Sargent is better trained than to shoot on sight anyone unknown openly carrying a rifle in a non threatening manner while walking around with a child.

  31. En Passant says:

    In Soviet Texas boar country wild pigs rudely display you!

  32. totstroc says:

    The resemblance IS uncanny: http://goo.gl/xtxVt

  33. naught_for_naught says:

    Grisham said his boy was traumatized by the incident.

    “Every time he sees a police officer he has a panic attack,” he said. “That’s unfortunate because we always taught our kids to respect police officers. My wife and I are angry about it.”

    TROLL ALERT: Put a dress on the kid then.

  34. Aaron Spink says:

    @JR

    There was a complaint into the police about a suspicious individual with weapons and a boy which certainly provides enough of a reasonable basis for a Terry stop.

    @princess

    An armed man with his hand on a weapon of unknown disposition acting in a hostile manner…

  35. azteclady says:

    @ dsd: I think you should read the whole piece before posting a comment.

  36. azteclady says:

    @ Aaron Spink: I may be wrong, but you seem to be advocating subservient behaviour towards cops, regardless of how they behave towards you.

    Obviously YMMV, but you don't need to read too much in this one blog (let alone follow links elsewhere) to find plenty of instances in which cops grossly exceed their authority and commit plenty of abuses, moved by the fact that they can arrest you, frisk you, touch you inappropriately, violate your rights and physically hurt you, and all they have to do to justify this is to claim that they suspected something illegal.

    Terry stops are all good and well as long as there's reasonable suspicion–in many cases, there's nothing reasonable about it.

  37. princessartemis says:

    @Aaron, why do you append "acting in a hostile manner" to the description and then trail off with an ellipsis as if the conclusion should be stunningly obvious? Do people out on Boy Scout hikes with their sons *usually* act in a hostile manner? If not, then the unknown person who you believe Grisham would have shot on sight would not have been acting in a hostile manner either. I find it exceedingly hard to believe a Master Sargent would just up and shoot someone walking about with a child just because they were unknown and had a rifle slung across their chest.

  38. Phelps says:

    It is unfathomable that the suspect wasn't at some point trained to handle running into an unknown armed individual. In such case, if he ran into someone acting like himself, it is likely he would of shot him.

    I'm not sure what you are fathoming, but I guarantee that a senior NCO would not have shot him, because it would far, far outside any modern Rules of Engagement. He will always follow the Rules of Engagement.

    In fact, because of our CoIn doctrine, he would have been cognizant of his own impact on the local opinion of US forces, and remained polite but firm even as the unknown individual got more and more verbally indignant, as long as that individual did not do anything physically threatening.

    Frankly, our 19 year old freshly deployed troops are much more professional than the average 10 year veteran cop.

  39. JR says:

    @Aaron Spink

    Hiking with your son is not an expression of hostility. Even if you are visibly armed where it is legal to be so. Nor is it an act of hostility to question an officer's actions in the course of duty.

    I am very interested in learning the probable cause you are privy to which makes it reasonable for an officer to start an impromptu investigation.

  40. Aaron Spink says:

    @azteclady

    The simple fact is there are only three things that you can do in your interactions with police that can be beneficial to you: refuse searches, refuse to answer questions, and be polite.

    The first two are pretty boiler plate that you will get from any competent lawyer. The last gives you the best chance of avoiding any abuse or unpleasant results.

    The place to deal with any abuses is post incident. There is no benefit to you trying to deal with any abuses while the incident is ongoing and plenty of downside. I'm well aware that there are abuses and other issues with the police. The reality is in general you can only make it worse by not being polite while the interaction is occurring.

    @princess

    I append acting in a hostile manner in this case because the suspect did not immediately disclose his handgun nor offer to voluntarily disarm (two things that anyone with a CC should know to do in any interaction with the police) and prevented the officer from disarming him.

  41. Aaron Spink says:

    @JR

    There was a complaint to the police. The officer was investigating the subject of the complaint. There was no impromptu investigation.

    As far as questioning an officer's actions in the course of their duty, while depending on tone it may or may not be hostile, it is generally rather stupid. There is basically nothing to be gained, and much to lose.

  42. Phelps says:

    There was a complaint to the police. The officer was investigating the subject of the complaint. There was no impromptu investigation.

    Here's the problem. The complaint was for something that is not illegal. If I called 911 complaining that someone was walking his dog down the street, you shouldn't expect the police to arrest the dog walker. If I complain that McDonalds is charging too much for hamburgers, that doesn't give the police the authority to go and ID everyone working there.

    The police are expected to know the law, and tell the complainant that the "alarming" activity is in fact perfectly legal.

  43. azteclady says:

    Aaron Spink: "best chance of avoiding any abuse or unpleasant results" — yeah, because expecting officers of the law acting in their professional and official capacity to respect your rights is clearly stupid. We should instead take it for granted that, since they can, they will abuse their authority, and therefore it's better to cower before them rather than to assert your own rights.

    How, pray tell, will this change their behaviour?

  44. NM says:

    I can't watch the video here but was he refusing to temporarily disarm during a lawful detention? If so, I'm not sure I see the issue, even as a veteran cop hater.

    Regardless, and this is not to say what happened to him was correct (as I have not seen the video), but if he'd been a bit darker (or in Maricopa County), he likely wouldn't be alive to complain about it. However, anything that teaches the average fox viewer (or any middle class white person) that the police aren't their friends, and that even if it was only 1% that were the bad apples, that 1% spoils the whole barrel is a good thing.

  45. MattS says:

    Aaron Spink,

    "I append acting in a hostile manner in this case because the suspect did not immediately disclose his handgun nor offer to voluntarily disarm (two things that anyone with a CC should know to do in any interaction with the police)"

    1. Where do you get the idea that the handgun was concealed? He's open carrying an AR15, why wouldn't he be open carrying the handgun? None of the linked stories give any indication that the handgun was concealed.

    2. He did NOT resist being disarmed. He pulled back in surprise when the officer made a sudden grab for the AR15 without warning or asking him to disarm. The rifle was strapped to his body and his hands were NOT on the rifle.

    The only one acting in a hostile manner in this incident is the police officer, who is clearly unfit for the job.

  46. Shane says:

    I carry a gun in Texas. I have a permit to do so. Two weeks after I received the Texas sanction to do so, I went to training that I paid a pretty penny for. My response to this article before I went to training would have been very different. My response now is that Mr. Grisham doesn't need to learn manners, he needs to learn the law.

    When Johnny Law rolls up on you, it is VERY unlikely that they left the comfort and safety of the donut shop to deal with some potential nut job that might want to let his insides see the light of day all on his own damn initiative. So some concerned citizen in all likely hood called. That said, Johnny Law has probable cause. Thirty seconds of casual conversation with any LEO will confirm how this works. So as a gun owner WITH training, I automatically assume that if a LEO is pressing me about my gun then something is up. Next, training taught me that the officer is not your friend (duh) and more importantly the real fight will not be on the side of the road where you were arrested.

    THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO GET A FUCKING CLUE THE FIGHT IS IN COURT AFTER THE FACT … ALWAYS!!!!!! This is justice. This is the role that Ken plays this is the role that every lawyer plays and this is how in the face of alternatives that society wants justice served. LE may not be your friend but it is also not your enemy. They are there to collect facts, that is it. The lawyers will use those facts for or against you, not the officer that collected them. In my training I talked to cops and a jailer, the human element is definitely at play here. They have leeway in what they do. Just like a judge has some leeway in his sentencing. There is no need to exacerbate the situation. If the cop was and unprofessional douche, then rofl stomp his ass in court. On the side of the road is not a place to vent your frustrations.

    My suggestion for Mr. Grisham is to get some training, not because he needs to learn how to clear load or shoot a gun, but because he needs to understand how to properly use a gun as a citizen not as a soldier.

  47. Scooby says:

    @MattS- Open Carry of handguns is not legal in Texas, so if the MSgt was carrying the .45 legally, it was concealed.

  48. Shane says:

    @MattS it is technically illegal to open carry a handgun in TX. You will be charged with brandishing if you do so. Just wanted to clarify.

  49. Aaron Spink says:

    @MattS

    1) because I've actually both seen the video and know texas law. Open carry of handguns is illegal in TX. AKA, if it was open carried…

    2) The officer obvious has a different impression of the incident. Given the suspects behavior in the video evidence, I'll wait for the court to make any determination if any is relevant for his behavior prior to the video evidence.

    @Phelps

    Police investigate complaints of suspicious individuals all the time, even more so when they are carrying a rifle. The complain has a significant public safety possibility and the cops doing their jobs probably performed a perfectly legal Terry stop.

    @azteclady

    Expecting a police officer to be an angel when you are being rude and abusive and potentially threatening their life is at best a wish. If I'm rude and abusive to a police officer, I certainly don't have any expectation that they are going to be awesome about it. Neither should you. And in the case of this incident, being rude and abusive provides nothing but probable cause for a search.

    @NM

    Basically. People spotted a man in combat gear with an AR15 pattern rifle with a young boy walking down the side of the road and were concerned (which could be for any number of reasons). Suspect was less than pleasant at first contact and then impeded with a disarmament of the open carry AR15 at which point the police officer drew and directed the suspect to the car. And called for backup. At some point suspect started video recording the encounter. Suspect delayed notifying authorities for a significant amount of time that he had a concealed handgun and he was a concealed carry holder. The whole incident wouldn't of occurred if the suspect had any training or common sense.

  50. Everyone saying how Grisham shouldn't have been rude, should have been compliant, he brought this on himself, etc. is starting to sound eerily like telling a blogger it's better to just take down an article that someone's upset about because they might sue you for defamation, or telling women not to wear short skirts or drink at parties because they might get assaulted.

    Only this is worse: it's not litigious asshats or douchecanoe frat rats, it's officers of the LAW. They *should* be held to a higher standard of behavior; but they never will be if people keep blaming the victim and preaching "appeasement" of the police.

    (I keep picturing a self-help manual, "The Care and Feeding of Law Enforcement: What to Do if You Come Across a Wild Police Officer in it's Natural Habitat.")

  51. JR says:

    I'm sure he is pursuing every avenue possible in the courthouse. I wish him well in his endeavors.

    Texas Concealed Carry Rules and Regulations

    The pertinent sections start at §411.207 and §42.01

    At no point is there anything saying you have to disclose and/or remove a concealed weapon.

  52. Dustin says:

    By his own admission, the man grabbed his weapon back when the officer tried to take it during the stop. He says this is due to his military training.

    Cops get shot in Texas. It happens, and it's hard to imagine a cop won't be afraid of a person who is openly armed and refuses to disarm.

    Is carrying a weapon with a child enough reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop? I think so. It's fair to make sure the child isn't being kidnapped. Those saying that it turns out there was nothing unlawful are correct, but we're talking about a stop, not an arrest. The cop could have handled it a lot better, but the man being stopped should have behaved like he's an armed man in public… politely.

    Those saying only the officer has a duty to be professional are completely wrong. If you're going to walk around with a loaded gun outside, you need to act as courteously as possible. That's not a legal argument; that's common sense.

    Temple Texas is the Baltimore of Texas. It is pretty dangerous. It is very poor. Cops often are concerned for their safety during stops.

  53. @Aaron Spink: what evidence do you have that he was being rude, abusive or threatening when the officer first approached him? You keep referencing actions that happen *before* the video starts to make your arguments.

    And I'm sorry, but subjective rudeness is still no reason for being arrested, having his guns seized and not returned, having his minor child detained and questioned without a parent present, and having his military career put on hold. Unfortunately, being a double-dunking dickbag is still legal, even here in Texas. ;)

  54. Shane says:

    @Paige how might you carry out having officers of a higher caliber? Pay them more, maybe provide them with better equipment, how about improved and more training? If you work for somebody, do they do these things? And what about the people that might be your coworkers? Are they there to be held to a higher standard? Do most of them even like their jobs? At the end of the day this is a job for these folks. Some will like it some will not. They will have varied reasons as to why they do this job as opposed to another. They are after all like us human.

    That we wait till after something has happened to mete out justice is for a reason.

    As to the comment about bloggers, please post offensive comments. Please post the comment or rant that might be controversial, but don't expect that everyone will be on their best behavior and not try to do things that might be illegal or unconstitutional. This is precisely why we have courts. Knowledge of the law is soooo beyond important I can't find the right words to emphasize it. How many times has Ken posted funny take down notices that he responded to. And does he respond to these notices something to the effect of "fuck you fucking fuck" … no. He uses his big law brain and shows him that he knows what he is doing and that he won't take any of their crap. Mr Grisham's knowledge of the law would have allowed him to respond to his situation as Ken responds in his. Politely and with edge. Remember that take down notices are threats backed with consequences. If I was a tiny blogger and I didn't know the law (or not have been a follower of this site) and I got a take down notice I would do one of two things, be totally pissed off or peeing my pants. Either one is not a good way of dealing with the threat.

    It is not cowardly or in any way unpatriotic to work this stuff out in courts. Ask yourself, does it make any sense to file a suit against everyone that files a take down notice on your blog? Think about what that means in the case of Mr. Grisham. That is why you act polite when you are dealing with the police.

  55. Rob says:

    Scooby • Apr 24, 2013 @7:02 am

    @dfbaskwill "There are absolutely no redeeming qualities in a wild boar."

    Except, of course, that they are made of pork, right?

    Not even that, in many cases. The older, tougher, meaner boars are damn near inedible.

  56. Brian Trosko says:

    "So some concerned citizen in all likely hood called. That said, Johnny Law has probable cause."

    What?

    A citizen calling and saying "I saw X" where "X" is a legal activity isn't probable cause for anything, it's just an annoying phone call. What, you think this scenario would work:

    "Your honor, I move that the 50 pounds of marijuana found in my client's trunk be excluded due to the fact that the police had no probable cause to pull his car over and search it."

    "No, see, your honor, a concerned citizen called us and told us that they saw an individual fitting the defendant's description driving down the road in the correct lane while observing the speed limit and all traffic laws. So we clearly had probable cause to pull him over and search his vehicle."

  57. MattS says:

    Shane,

    "@Paige how might you carry out having officers of a higher caliber?"

    How about starting with firing officers that abuse their badge. On the first incident, no second chances for abuse of their authority.

  58. Phelps says:

    And in the case of this incident, being rude and abusive provides nothing but probable cause for a search.

    Rudeness is probable cause to believe which crime has been committed again? I'm starting to wonder if you even know what these words mean.

    Suspect was less than pleasant at first contact and then impeded with a disarmament of the open carry AR15 at which point the police officer drew and directed the suspect to the car.

    Please cite which offense this is probable cause for. Open carry is legal in Texas. Being unpleasant is legal in Texas. What is the offense?

    And called for backup. At some point suspect started video recording the encounter.

    The right to record the police during the course of their duties is Well Established.

    Suspect delayed notifying authorities for a significant amount of time that he had a concealed handgun and he was a concealed carry holder.

    Texas requires notice being given to a LEO when also ordered to produce ID. [GC §411.205]. There's no requirement to notify them at any other time.

    The whole incident wouldn't of occurred if the suspectpolice had any training or common sense.

    FIFY

  59. Scooby says:

    @Dustin- "Temple Texas is the Baltimore of Texas. It is pretty dangerous."

    You should have put that in your first paragraph, instead of the last. That way, everyone would know up front that your message was of no value. Compare and Contrast.

    Temple is a small city/big town of around 65,000 people adjacent to a huge Army base with around 90,000 soldiers and officers billeted. This is a townie cop swinging his dick around, not Homicide: Life on the Street.

  60. Chris R. says:

    Aaron Spink, allegedly the officer grabbed for the weapon without asking Grisham disarm himself. It is even referenced in the video when Grisham is questioning that very fact. If a LEOs first reaction is to apply physical force to a situation, he has already set up the conflict. You're advice above is basically the same advice you are given when dealing with an armed robber, which is not how citizens should have to act with their police force.

  61. Shane says:

    @MattS your job just instituted a new rule if you make any error on your TPS report you will be fired no second chances. How many people would work at your company? And what kind of people would still want to work there?

  62. Shane says:

    @Brian I saw a hooded man riding around your neighborhood on a bicycle at 10:00 pm.

  63. Shane says:

    One thing to note also, is that the encounter was on video, and not once did the officer ask that the video be terminated or that that the camera was confiscated, please compare that with the incident in San Diego.

  64. Brian Trosko says:

    "I saw a hooded man riding around your neighborhood on a bicycle at 10:00 pm."

    Probably saw some cars driving around too with their lights on. And possibly someone carrying a backpack of some sort. He was heading…off in the direction of that place that sells chili. Suspect is hatless, repeat, hatless.

  65. Phelps says:

    @Paige how might you carry out having officers of a higher caliber? Pay them more, maybe provide them with better equipment, how about improved and more training?

    Require professionalism and politeness of them in every stop. Have the supervisors enforce it. Get rid of the paramilitarization. When you have officers who won't respond to the supervisor's management, fire them.

    When you have officers who perform a Terry stop without any articulable offense, they need to be disciplined or terminated. In the entire video they never expressed a single specific and articulable fact supporting a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

  66. Bill says:

    @Shane – sorry bro but your response is lame and invalid. @MattS didn't say "making any mistake" or anything of the sort – he said First 'mistake' for abusing your authority. If that's something one can easily slip up and do, there's something very wrong with the situation especially since they are trained to handle 'combative' (which is a code word for 'did anything the cops didn't like') people. People at @MattS's company don't have a blue line protecting them, a police union or the inherent assumption of legitimacy and truthfulness either – let Officer Friendly get into a fist fight with @MattS or anyone at his company where there are no witnesses and let's see who gets arrested, let's see who most jury members believe. Honestly, one could spend an afternoon calling out the differences.

  67. Bill says:

    @BrainT – brilliant response, you made my afternoon

  68. Patrick H says:

    Ah the old "officer safety" canard. Sorry, but the last duty of a cop is officer safety. The first is respecting the rights of the citizens.

    This guy was arrested for contempt of cop. Fight it in the courts? Not bloody likely. The system is extremely favorable to the cops, and even with video, the cops will likely get a slap on the wrist at most.

  69. Patrick H says:

    @Shane: "your job just instituted a new rule if you make any error on your TPS report you will be fired no second chances. How many people would work at your company? And what kind of people would still want to work there?"

    Who cares? Guess what an error on a TPS report does not mean the violation of rights and/or death of a citizen. We need to hold cops to HIGHER standards, not lower.

  70. Phelps says:

    @MattS your job just instituted a new rule if you make any error on your TPS report you will be fired no second chances. How many people would work at your company? And what kind of people would still want to work there?

    Let's try something else. Let's try something that involves force and violates the rights of another. If you worked at a company where:

    If you slapped another worker on the ass
    If you take another worker's property without consent
    If you locked a coworker in a room without their consent

    then you got fired on the spot, no second chances. You know what? We already work in places like that. Violating someone's rights is in NO way a "paperwork mistake." It's a serious offense.

  71. TomB says:

    All this discussion and the best the supporters of the police in this instance can come up with is that the citizens need to learn how to be nicer to the police.

  72. Bill says:

    @Shane – are you freaking serious?

    When Johnny Law rolls up on you, it is VERY unlikely that they left the comfort and safety of the donut shop to deal with some potential nut job that might want to let his insides see the light of day all on his own damn initiative.

    Let's see, quick list on ones I've personally experienced, either as the driver or a passenger….Cops get bored just like everyone else, one very likely and possible reason Officer Law rolls up on people. Another is that you're out past normal workin' folk's operating hours. Another reason is the car you drive. Another reason is skin color and don't even try the crap about how that's all or mostly BS. Another common one is you leaving or heading toward a neighborhood/house of someone they don't like. Bumper stickers on your car, from grateful dead stickers to political slogans they don't like will all get you hassled by many cops absent any other legit reason. Boning a cops wife/ex-wife/girlfriend/ex-girlfriend usually gets you moved to the top of the list. Family court disputes with cop or friend of cop works. Having a personal dispute with the cop or one of his buddies is common enough. Driving a high end German sports car with Dade County Fla license plates will do the trick. Driving to the track at Byrnes high school at night to go jogging will do it.

    Cops have all sorts of reasons to head out of the donut shop but even that is based on the erroneous assumption that they are actually spending all their time at a donut shop not randomly driving around.

    A guy with a gun, even a CWP frequently viewed with hostility by many cops and I'd posit that in your scenario, if a guy was spotted walking by the isolated nothing aroudn it donut shop and the cop saw a guy with a gun, short of being told the guy was a cop or cop's kid, he's going out there to hassle him MOST of the time, probably all of it. I'll grant we live in different states and I live in a pretty small southern town so that might account for a difference of perception – but cops can and do hassle people for BS reasons all the time.

  73. naught_for_naught says:

    Watch the video and two things become clear: (1) Dad wants the camera on him; and (2) Dad really wants the camera on him.

    I'm left with one question. How large of a problem are wild boars when you're hiking on a frickin' paved road?

    C'mon man!

  74. Phelps says:

    I'm left with one question. How large of a problem are wild boars when you're hiking on a frickin' paved road?

    I saw one driving down a paved CO road in Llano county just last week, actually. Ran across the road in front of the car and off into a field.

  75. Phelps says:

    I saw one WHILE driving. The boar was on foot.

  76. Bill says:

    @Patrick – ahh good old officer safety. It's a corollary of how every single person that cops ever beat up are described as 'combative' and charged with resisting arrest – every time and twice on Sunday. The officer safety thing absolutely cracks me up – just like the people at that goofy consortium hassling Perrington – if they get scared by such small innocuous things, why are they defending anyone? In the consortium's case, they can claim they're just nerdy wimps, but for cops to constantly be threatened so easily… how can someone that's so scared for their safety adequately protect others and assess threats accurately – seems a contradiction in terms.

  77. Shane says:

    @Brian and who will call those in? Ya know that a cars lights were on? And gee I saw a kid at the Temple Texas marathon with a backpack that he left along side the road.

    @Bill generally just making dismissive comments without refuting the argument is well … I will let you decide.

    @Phelps lets get the bad ones out. Now that we agree, how will we know which ones are bad and which ones need some better training?

    @Patrick you have defeated my (probably poor) example, but what say you on the broader point? That point is that human beings populate all endevours and we need to deal with them as such. Yes get rid of bad officers, but who will determine that? You? What would you do if you were the chief of police in Temple TX how would you handle this situation, in context with all of the other situations that come up every day. We are quick to judge when we don't know.

    If you want to make a difference in something … do it. But most of us don't want to get involved we want to sit on the sidelines and say what should be done, without ever having to lift a finger, or do any honest research. When I was young I was full of all kinds of good ideas that my manager should do. I knew exactly what that person was doing wrong. Then I managed.

  78. Bill says:

    @naught_for_naught I've lived in two different places where I've come way too close with them (not at home, but not very far away either). I was on a paved road in Jackson SC (it's a 12 mile flat stretch many bicyclists use because most of the traffic is during the week to and from Savannah river site) and we saw three of them running and I'm just really glad we were all on bikes. Same in Miami on a large loop that's on the edge of the glades – both roads paved and had moderate to high traffic at times. Just guessing that if I've had 2 close encounters, I'm not the only one.

  79. James says:

    A couple of things that I think have been missed in this particular discussion:
    At one point on the video, one of the police officers can be heard saying, "We are exempt from the law," in response to a question about whether the roadside search of Grisham was illegal.

    Grisham reportedly told his son not to answer any questions until his mother arrived, and instructed the officers not to question his son without his mother present. Holding the son in the back of a police car and telling him he can't leave until he answers questions seems to go against certain laws about questioning minors.

    Also in the video, when the police officer takes Grisham's gun, he does so without following basic firearm safety. He doesn't verify that the safety is on; he doesn't verify that the chamber does not have a round; he does not remove the clip; and (revealing his utter lack of ability and/or training) he passes the muzzle of the weapon across the back of the "suspect," and in the process of handing it to the backup officer, he points the gun at his fellow officer!

    theblaze.com (A Texas nline newspaper, of sorts) has an update: the local police department and the county attorney have declined to comment.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/texas-police-dept-provides-statement-to-theblaze-on-vet-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-plus-a-texas-firearms-attorney-weighs-in/

    I agree with previous posters about the condemnation of carrying an "assault rifle" in boar country – the entire writeup here reeks of "guns are scary; people with guns are idiots."

    As for the son being traumatized (and being to told to wear a dress: really?) … this kid's father has been in combat on three continents, and has returned home in (mostly) one piece. While Dad was in active fire zones, the possibility that Dad might get shot was at best an abstraction for the child. Now, on a casual Boy Scout hike, Dad is being threatened, with a drawn gun, by a police officer. Suddenly, the son is faced with the very real possibility that his Dad will get shot, and die, right before his eyes. Seeing that actual threat can easily "connect the dots" and reveal the danger his Dad had been in so many times before. (Source: military brat)

    No wonder the kid is traumatized.

    But he'll be OK: according to Mr. Spinks, the next time the cops do something that might not be right, he should Be Polite and Don't Resist, and fight the matter afterwards, in the court of law.

    After all, the duty of the citizenry is to not resist tyranny or oppression. Except in court, like a civilized human being.

  80. Bill says:

    @Shane – back atcha – in both of my responses, I refuted things quite specifically no? In teh first one I specifically showed how your analogy wasn't applicable and in the second, I showed several reasons, not hypotheticals as to why cops pull people other outside of some true perceived threat. Unless I completely misunderstood the points you were making, I'm not sure I follow. Further, I guess opening with "Are you freaking serious?" could be more polite, but in the context of the whole thing I'm not seeing what was dismissive about the post – it wasn't my intent. This place is usually pretty lighthearted with a generous serving of snark so I was just letting my hair down or whatever the male equivalent is – but I'll mind my manners. I think your wrong about me not addressing the points – but like I said, if I missed something I'll gladly stand corrected.

  81. marco73 says:

    @Scooby – as soon as you noted that Temple was right next to a large military base, then this entire incident made sense to me.

    Anyone who has served more than about 2 weeks knows that arrests and harassment of military personnel by the locals is just part of the cost of doing business, sort of an extra perk to the local economy.

    Some local donut jockey was just letting the army boy know who was boss. This time, instead of exchanging some hugs, kisses, and cash, the locals are going to have to justify this arrest.

  82. Phelps says:

    @Phelps lets get the bad ones out. Now that we agree, how will we know which ones are bad and which ones need some better training?

    That don't lack training. That's BS. It's a "let's throw money at the problem" solution. They have the training. They also have a poisonous, militarized culture that has forsaken Robert Peel's principles of policing. You can't "train" a culture away. You cut the ones propagating the culture out like a cancer and replace them.

  83. Phelps says:

    What would you do if you were the chief of police in Temple TX how would you handle this situation, in context with all of the other situations that come up every day.

    Initial stop officer rides a desk for a month, and makes a public apology to Grisham (who will likely reciprocate, but that is on him.) Supervisor that was on the scene gets demoted (and quietly promoted back up in the next promotion cycle now that he's learned his lesson.) Settle the lawsuit with Grisham for a nominal amount (like $10-25K) and make it clear to the force that this budget hit is why overtime is being cracked down on. I've never met a cop who wasn't in constant dire financial straits, despite generally making more money than the people they police, so taking OT from them is the harshest punishment. Collective punishment like THAT changes culture, and it means that they have skin in the lawsuit game.

  84. Shane says:

    @Bill using (sic) could have noted light heartedness :)
    As for the place you live … why? If the cops are bad vote out the sheriff? Demand accountability. Do you think it was safe for three black men to sit at a counter that was posted as white only? Did those black men go full postal when they did it? Changing things is difficult, putting the burden on someone else to fix them is a waste of time.

    My point about the man on the bicycle is this. If the cops did nothing and it turns out that he robs one of the houses in your neighborhood, then what will the people in the neighborhood say? If the po po stops Mr. ScaryMan then what will he say? If you are the person that has to carry this out how will you feel about either response?

    @James one point that you make I think is super relevant. Most cops are really not that well trained, the MSM likes to make it out like they go through extensive training and blah blah blah and they are superior to you in dealing with conflict and firearms … that is simply not true.

    @marco73 I think that this is the real reason that they gave him a hard time, but not why they stopped him.

  85. Shane says:

    @Phelps you now have a plan of action. Now go get elected.

  86. MattS says:

    Shane

    "@MattS your job just instituted a new rule if you make any error on your TPS report you will be fired no second chances. How many people would work at your company? And what kind of people would still want to work there?"

    In over 15 years with my current employer (I work in IT doing application programming) I have never once even been asked to fill out a TPS report. I don't even have a clue what a TPS report is.

    I am an at will employee. I have no union and no personal contract. I and all my co-workers can be fired at any time for any reason or even for no reason at all. My employer has no difficulties finding employees.

    It's time to start holding those who are charged with upholding the law to a HIGHER standard. And not just a higher standard than they are currently held to, but a higher standard than the rest of us are held to by the law.

    Until cops start aggressively enforcing the rules against their own, they should be allowed no mistakes, no second chances.

    If you and the rest of the asshats defending the ABSOLUTELY unreasonable conduct of the officers in this case don't like it:

  87. Phelps says:

    @Phelps you now have a plan of action. Now go get elected.

    Chief of Police is not an elected position.

  88. Shane says:

    @Matt … OMG … you are a programmer and have never seen Office Space. Go now, stop writing on this silly blog and fulfill your destiny! :)

  89. MattS says:

    Phelps,

    Not to mention that you would pretty much have to kill the local police union to implement what you outlined.

  90. MattS says:

    Shane,

    I didn't need to see Office Space. I could tell from the trailers that it was going to be an abomination.

  91. TomB says:

    My point about the man on the bicycle is this. If the cops did nothing and it turns out that he robs one of the houses in your neighborhood, then what will the people in the neighborhood say? If the po po stops Mr. ScaryMan then what will he say? If you are the person that has to carry this out how will you feel about either response?

    I don't understand your point. Given your example, what do you want the police to do? Someone is riding a bike at 10PM wear a hoodie, and you want a police response? For what?

  92. MattS says:

    Shane,

    Movie wise I generally prefer fantasy & science fiction, and a good TBU movie seldom fails to entertain even if the plot is atrocious to non-existant.

    Things
    Blowing
    Up

  93. Phelps says:

    Not to mention that you would pretty much have to kill the local police union to implement what you outlined.

    Oh, I'm all for breaking up and abolishing public sector unions too.

  94. Shane says:

    And really @Matt calling me an Asshat is not nice.

    Here is something to ponder @Matt what if the young child was Elizibeth Smart? Would the cops know that before the fact? Cops like you and I have to make decisions without all of the information. In these situations we usually make what would be poor decisions is light of all of the information that we did not have available to when we made them.

    @Phelps, but Sheriff is. My point is, that it is what it is, if you want to DO something about it then do it, I will thank you, but until then it won't change. Are some cops "bad" … sure, are some cops in need of training … sure. Will you or I doing anything about it. Not likely.

  95. TomB says:

    My point is, that it is what it is, if you want to DO something about it then do it, I will thank you, but until then it won't change. Are some cops "bad" … sure, are some cops in need of training … sure. Will you or I doing anything about it. Not likely.

    Here's an idea, how about we start by not excusing the behavior of the bad cops?

  96. TomB says:

    And really @Matt calling me an Asshat is not nice.

    Boy, are you on the wrong site…….

  97. MattS says:

    Shane,

    "Here is something to ponder @Matt what if the young child was Elizibeth Smart? Would the cops know that before the fact?"

    Irrelevant, the cops could have questioned him without creating a physical confrontation. Even if the man was rude, that is NO excuse for the cops to escalate to a physical confrontation.

    You say he refused to voluntarily disarm. This is also irrelevant unless the cops EXPLICITLY asked him to disarm and gave him the opportunity to do so voluntarily.

  98. MattS says:

    Shane,

    "Here is something to ponder @Matt what if the young child was Elizibeth Smart? Would the cops know that before the fact?"

    One more point. The facts of the situation don't amount to probable cause to even investigate this possibility.

  99. Bill says:

    @Shane – point conceded -I can see why it seemed rude and evasive – not my intent though. I don't disagree with your point about the counters, at all – in my case, I have a slightly more involved problem. I live on the border of two counties but have to be in teh adjacent county pretty much constantly – that's where my problem is – we got in a personal dispute with a federal agent who made it her life's mission to make my life miserable – the agency she works for leads to interacting with local cops a lot and that's at the core of the problem – I realize everyone sings the 'my case is different' . Much of my attidude came from the cops when I was in Miami and we had hella serious corruption problems and I know two of the guys were ultimately fired. However in the meantime, they can make a lot of trouble. Truth is, bad cops will continue down the path so time is their worst enemy – but it takes a lot of complaints and ironclad evidence before anything's done – which actually makes things worse – things bad enough to be acted on are bad enough for everyone to circle the wagons.

    As far as standing up – I'll say this – i have and I'm very glad I did – however retainers and attys fees aren't cheap. Standing on principle is expensive as hell and I'm sure it varies, but many attys don't like hard line approaches however valid they might be – it tends to irritate judges and their peers who like settlements. There's a lot of, umm, I guess the polite word is pragmatism with many attys.

  100. earthclanbootstrap says:

    I'm curious about something:
    Is anybody that is coming down hard on these cops (who, to a certain degree, certainly deserve it) and screaming "Come see the violence inherent in the system, I'm being repressed! I'm being repressed!" willing to concede that this guy was, in fact, being deliberately provocative and an utter douche nozzle? Can you understand that walking down a residential road with an AR-15 strapped over your shouldler in the ready position is openly provocative to some people? It seems to me that most of the pro-gun folks out there seem to get pissed off and offended that *gasp* not everybody in the U.S. loves them for strutting around with high-grade weaponry. Was he in the wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Were the cops in the wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Don't act like the victims, it just comes off as pissy; you're the ones packing heat and you're the ones that can do a whole lot of damage if you lose your temper and you seem totally unwilling to concede that there are a whole lot of very valid reasons for a whole lot of other people to not trust you. None of you are Paul Fucking Revere, you are just a bunch of people with dangerous weaponry that the rest of us have no particular reason to trust, so please spare me the "We are just poor little persecuted afficianados" line. Hell, you're the ones who insist on concealed weapons because you don't trust other people having weapons. See the contradiction there?

  101. Phelps says:

    Can you understand that walking down a residential road with an AR-15 strapped over your shouldler in the ready position is openly provocative to some people?

    Sure. So is burning an American flag or protesting an abortion clinic. That doesn't mean that the cops have the authority to interfere with any of these things. When people are being provocative is when the cops need most to be on guard to abide their rights.

    Hell, you're the ones who insist on concealed weapons because you don't trust other people having weapons. See the contradiction there?

    No contradiction, actually. It's the anti-gunners that insisted on licensing. Most pro-RKBA people I know are for constitutional carry like in Vermont or Alaska, where if you are legal to own it, you can carry it however you like, no "mother may I?" from the state required.

  102. Bill says:

    @earthclanbootstrap Well, I'll meet you most of the way. I think he was being a jerk about it and he could have stood his ground much more diplomatically – I don't know his history with those cops or anything about the situation so I can't necessarily say he was being a douche about it – all else being equal – I'd say he was being douchey but he was also standing up for himself which on the whole, outweighs doucheyness. I'm more a fan of the Flex your Rights approach to dealing with cops – but I can also easily conceive of many things that would de-douchify what I'm seeing.

  103. Shane says:

    @TomB you "excuse" the behavior of @MattS calling me an asshat, but then turn around and exclaim the we NOT "excuse" the behavior of bad cops … what gives? Bad behavior is bad behavior.

    @MattS it is frustrating for me that you put words in my mouth. I suspect that you are debating someone other then I. I never said that he refused to voluntarily disarm. I made no point about the specifics of Mr. Grisham's run in with the law other than he could have handled himself better.

    The most important point that I am trying to make in all of this is that the final outcome of what happened to Mr. Grisham will be handled in a place other than on the side of the road in Temple TX, and for him to argue his case there was stupid, pointless and dangerous (regardless of whether the cops were "good" or "bad"). What Mr. Grisham did made him look bad and if the cops in question were really bad then this incident will not get them off of the beat.

  104. Chris R. says:

    naught_for_naught, if you've ever driven through Texas you'd know that you can see almost any animal on the side of the road (usually roadkill). The guy is a blogger too, so I don't doubt that once this situation created itself he wanted to publicize it. When Texas allows open carry of rifles, it's law officers shouldn't be able to use a legal activity for a Terry Stop. Arguing that following the law is reasonable suspicion of a crime is pretty ridiculous.

  105. Shane says:

    @Bill I applaud you, not many will stand up in the face of corruption, because of the serious costs involved and the enormous social pressure.

    If you have been following the Preanda law case on this site you can see just how much it takes to finally bring the corrupt scum to justice. But it is because a few good people in the right place with the right attitude that the scum do finally fall. I am thankful that those people did what is right.

  106. Shane says:

    @earthclanbootstrap … there is some fine filth over here … lol. That made me laugh hard :)

  107. TomB says:

    @TomB you "excuse" the behavior of @MattS calling me an asshat, but then turn around and exclaim the we NOT "excuse" the behavior of bad cops … what gives? Bad behavior is bad behavior.

    What?!

    The guy in the story was arrested, had his concealed carry license taken away, his guns seized, and his son illegally detained and questioned.

    You, on the other hand, had to suffer a very minor case of butthurt.

    If you don't see the difference, please don't drive, operate heavy machinery or vote.

  108. Phelps says:

    The most important point that I am trying to make in all of this is that the final outcome of what happened to Mr. Grisham will be handled in a place other than on the side of the road in Temple TX, and for him to argue his case there was stupid, pointless and dangerous (regardless of whether the cops were "good" or "bad"). What Mr. Grisham did made him look bad and if the cops in question were really bad then this incident will not get them off of the beat.

    Not necessarily. This video (the whole video) will be used in any jury trial, civil or criminal. And frankly, I think he won the argument with the last thing on the video. "These guys are good guys… as long as they aren't embarrassed."

    That's the perfect tone for the jury argument, and he said it at the time, which carries a ton of weight with the jury.

  109. MattS says:

    Shane,

    "Temple TX, and for him to argue his case there was stupid, pointless and dangerous"

    The behavior of the cops was INEXCUSABLE before it even got that far.

  110. Shane says:

    @Phelps you support my point then. In front of a jury. And honestly if I sat on that jury I wouldn't have a very positive view of Mr. Grisham. Mr. Grisham could have made that view better had he had training and an understanding of the law.

    @MattS, but it did. I don't want to be robbed, but when I am being robbed keeping my cool is the only thing that will make the outcome less bad.

  111. MattS says:

    earthclanbootstrap,

    "willing to concede that this guy was, in fact, being deliberately provocative and an utter douche nozzle?" No.

    "Can you understand that walking down a residential road with an AR-15 strapped over your shouldler in the ready position is openly provocative to some people?" Can you understand that some people think that claiming a perfectly legal activity is provocative makes you either an ass or an idiot.

    "Was he in the wrong?" No, what he was doing was perfectly legal.

    "Were the cops in the wrong?" Absolutely. The fact that he was doing something that the cops knew or should have known was perfectly legal doesn't give them probable cause to so much as ask him the time of day. That some idiot who doesn't know that law called the cops to complain about perfectly legal behavior doesn't change this.

    "Don't act like the victims, it just comes off as pissy; you're the ones packing heat and you're the ones that can do a whole lot of damage if you lose your temper and you seem totally unwilling to concede that there are a whole lot of very valid reasons for a whole lot of other people to not trust you."

    I am not acting like a victim I am just sick of people excusing bad behavior by cops. The cops are packing heat too and can lose their tempers just as easily as the rest of us. The fact that someone was stupid enough to give them a badge doesn't make them any more trustworthy than you think we are.

  112. TomB says:

    Mr. Grisham could have made that view better had he had training and an understanding of the law.

    Training and understanding of the law is the job of the police, not civilains.

  113. MattS says:

    Shane,

    I find it sad that you think the only way to make a bad situation less bad is to bend over and take it.

  114. Shane says:

    @TomB so you go to and from work ignorant of the traffic laws?

  115. TomB says:

    Can you understand that walking down a residential road with an AR-15 strapped over your shouldler in the ready position is openly provocative to some people?

    Residential? From the video the road looks pretty rural to me.

  116. TomB says:

    @TomB so you go to and from work ignorant of the traffic laws?

    No, but I expect the police in my area to have at least the same, if not more, understanding of traffic laws. And I also expect them not to pull me over for a completely made-up offense, i.e. "rudely" carrying a gun. And I'm not going to get special "training" on how to not piss of the local cops.

  117. Chris R. says:

    Hell in Houston as a kid, we were shooting off pellet guns that looked like real 9mm (back before the orange painted tip) and the cops came by on reports of "gunfire" and just asked what we were doing, and told us to head home because it was late. No making a big deal about anything.

  118. TomB says:

    I find it sad that you think the only way to make a bad situation less bad is to bend over and take it.

    This.

  119. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @Phelps
    I completely agree with you that provocative behavior is when police should be most careful to abide citizens rights; I'll even go you one further and say that in those instances they should not only abide, but protect those rights. However, I see an important distinction; burning a flag or picketing a clinic isn't in and of itself lethal. A gun is, by its very nature. It is designed for nothing but killing. It is capable, in an instant, of irrevocably robbing any citizen of their right to "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness", and yet any yahoo with a temper can stroll into a gun show and pick up pretty much whatever he wants and then, apparently, stroll around anywhere he feels like in any fashion he wants. Why should I not distrust that setup?

  120. Shane says:

    @MattS, if it involves my life then yes I will "take it". I think Bob Marley said it best, "… he who fight and run away, lives to fight another day". Remember Mr. Grisham is not the only armed person in this situation.

    Fortunately Mr. Grisham got cops that were actually pretty calm. If the dice roll had been different we might be discussing the death of a man along a rural TX road. @Matt you seem to think that waiting to choose the location of your battle is somehow "taking it". How would have things been better for anyone had Mr. Grisham not "taken it".

  121. Shane says:

    @TomB and how will you know if they have pulled you over for a legitimate reason if you have no knowledge of the law. Law is a two way street.

  122. JR says:

    @earthclanbootstrap Apr 24, 2013 @2:11 pm

    screaming "Come see the violence inherent in the system, I'm being repressed! I'm being repressed!"

    It seems to me that most of the pro-gun folks out there seem to get pissed off and offended that *gasp* not everybody in the U.S. loves them for strutting around with high-grade weaponry.

    "We are just poor little persecuted afficianados"

    I can't find any of these sentiments in this comment thread. If anything, I am saying that the cops violated his rights by searching and seizing without any sort of probable cause. The complaint they cited alleged no illegal activities. Obstructing an investigation of your obstruction of the investigation is laughable.

    @Shane
    This man quite likely has more knowledge of firearms than all of the cops present in the video combined. And he demonstrated a knowledge of the laws and regulations on the video when he was asking them to figure out which law he had broken.

  123. JR says:

    Wow. I messed those blockquotes up pretty bad. I apologize for any retinal damage sustained in the reading.

  124. Shane says:

    @earthclanbootstrap because anyone with the intent of malice can at any time carry out that malice. He doesn't need a gun to do it with.

  125. Shane says:

    @JR sadly you are right, police have a poor understanding of the law. But here is how it works if he calls them out that they don't have a right to arrest him, by simply asking "Am I being detained". And they arrest him anyway. What should he do? What would you do?

  126. MattS says:

    Shane,

    Except your not bothering to fight before running away. You might survive if you never fight back, but I wouldn't call that living.

    I was responding to your robbery example. If you don't even try to fight back they might kill you anyway just so there aren't any witnesses, so not fighting back won't necessarily improve your situation any.

    "Fortunately Mr. Grisham got cops that were actually pretty calm."

    The cops that arrested Mr. Grisham were not anywhere near something I would call calm. That you can say that they were pretty calm for cops is a huge part of the problem. In my opinion people who can't keep their calm better than those officers did in dealing with someone whom they have ZERO probable cause to believe is doing anything illegal shouldn't be cops.

    "@Matt you seem to think that waiting to choose the location of your battle is somehow "taking it". How would have things been better for anyone had Mr. Grisham not "taken it"."

    He didn't just take it, He objected to their behavior without being violent. That is a large part of your criticism of his behavior. I am not convinced that things would have gone one whit better for him had he behaved in the manner you have suggested he should.

  127. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ MattS
    I completely disagree with your contention that he was not being provocative and a douche nozzle. Just because something is legal does not make it by definition unprovocative; see my exchange with Shane about flag burning and clinics. And to take it further, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is not wrong. I'd say those are both pretty self evident.

  128. JR says:

    @Shane
    You say "Here is how it works" and then proceed to ask me how it would work.

    I would have done the same as he did. Continue asking the question until they respond, not resist, and hope I had someone there to video it so they don't get any ideas. Also like him, I would then fight it in court. I believe he is scheduled to go before a jury.

    If they had continued the escalation even though I was not resisting, merely asking questions and asserting relevant passages of the laws, that would be additional evidence of their thuggery. Asserting my rights is not against the law. Violation of those rights on the other hand, is.

  129. TomB says:

    @TomB and how will you know if they have pulled you over for a legitimate reason if you have no knowledge of the law. Law is a two way street.

    This is a cut-and-paste of what I wrote:

    I expect the police in my area to have at least the same, if not more, understanding of traffic laws.

    As I plainly stated, I know the law. It's just in this case, the police didn't.

    You are just trolling now.

  130. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ Shane
    Sure, anyone with malice in their heart can find a way to carry out that malice. I could strike someone dead with a banana if I really felt motivated, or I could move on to pears if I was bored. What is the likelihood of that, though? What use does a gun have other than killing? That is an important distinction, and one that bears careful scrutiny.

    BTW- We all take turns acting as a sort of Executive-Of-The-Week.

  131. Shane says:

    @JR please read my poor english again. The questions should really be another paragraph. By calmly asserting his rights he does two things, one he deescalates a situation that could be incredibly bad with other men with guns (let me re-emphasize that point WITH GUNS). Two, he lays the ground work for the battle ahead. He did not do this.

    As I have said in a previous post, if I was a juror in his trail I would take a very jaundiced view of how he handled himself.

    Gun owners are always seen by most people as hot heads with a power tripping problem. Mr. Grisham did not allay that fear on bit. Does he need to legally … no. Will this cause him grief in the future … yes.

  132. Shane says:

    @earthclanbootstrap what about a pressure cooker? Would that be likely?

    We don't trust strangers because we don't know there motives and we assume the worst. That is normal. Don't think for one second though that you will know how evil will enter your life. The armed guy that you know about might be the least of the possibilities that could hurt you. Just because you know that he is armed makes you suspicious … only because you know.

  133. TomB says:

    Gun owners are always seen by most people as hot heads with a power tripping problem.

    Where the hell do you get that statistic?

    At least you let slip where you are coming from, ideologically speaking.

  134. Shane says:

    @TomB Mr. Grisham did not have knowledge of the law. Here is a video of where knowledge of the law is displayed correctly

  135. Shane says:

    Ok @TomB you have an agenda and you have obviously not read all of my posts. I will not be responding to you any more.

  136. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @JR
    No worries on the block quotes; it's taken a bit of time to get used to the format for them here, but no retinal damage was sustained.

    I would argue that there is at least a touch of "What? Who, us?" implicit in most of the defenses of Master Sgt. Grisham. That is not to say that the LEOs didn't stretch Probable Cause to or past its legitimate application, but the fact of the matter is that SCOTUS has given them incredible ( I might even argue ridiculous) leeway in that regard, so the argument that he should have been allowed to behave in the manner that he was is dubious, given the LEOs duty to maintain public safety. I just don't see him as an angel in this situation and I think to paint him so is disingenuous at best.

  137. TomB says:

    @TomB Mr. Grisham did not have knowledge of the law.

    He had a better knowledge than the cop did. To wit, he at least knew that there was no law against "carrying a gun rudely".

  138. TomB says:

    Ok @TomB you have an agenda and you have obviously not read all of my posts. I will not be responding to you any more.

    Don't go running away before telling us where you got the groundbreaking statistic that "Gun owners are always seen by most people as hot heads with a power tripping problem."

  139. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ Shane
    Pressure Cooker? Hell yeah, that was a documented IED even before the marathon. As far as distrusting some random person that I know is armed with a gun? Of course I will; quite frankly, why should I blithely give him the benefit of the doubt? He's got a fucking gun. Grief and misery from him is a whole lot more likely than from some inter-dimensional being with a piece of fairey cake hooked up to a Finite Improbability Generator.

  140. Shane says:

    @earthclanbootstrap guns kill. But can we make a distinction, from a gun that kills robbing a liquor store and one that kills stopping a rape.

    Here in TX we had some fucktard walk down a school hallway stabbing people with an exacto knife. What if Mr. Psychopath had had real knife like the fucktard in China did?

    I don't fear guns, I fear Psychopaths.

  141. JR says:

    @Shane
    I think you are giving the guns credit for some kind of mind control. Holding a gun does not make you dangerous. As Mr. Grisham was not breaking any laws, it is unreasonable to put some onus on him to prove that he would not start doing so at any moment. Nor is it reasonable to believe that cops draw and fire on somebody for the simple act of asking questions. For the purpose of probable cause, which statistical probability or common behavior suggests Mr. Grisham might have been breaking a law which is required for the search and seizure of his property to be legal?

    Also, the video you link to is PA law, not TX. Not all states have the same laws, which is a matter of concern for those traveling across state borders. I posted the CC laws way back. Here are the rest, if you want to have a look.

    @earthclanbootstrap
    I'm not saying that he is an angel. I am saying that they did not have probable cause that would have justified their treatment of him.

    Also, guns are not solely for the purpose of killing and more than the internet is solely for the distribution of porn. I started target shooting with a .45 at the age of 5. My father, a marine, taught me proper gun safety and technique. Even though I haven't held a gun in several years, I would never mishandle one the way that officer did.

  142. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ Shane
    I absolutely agree that there is a distinction between a gun used for evil and one used to prevent evil and I absolutely agree that otherwise innocuous objects can be used to cause grievous harm. I don't necessarily fear guns in and of themselves, and I do fear psychopaths. OTOH, psychopaths with guns scare the shit out of me, and they seem all too common these days.

    Pardon an experiment:
    If this sentence is in italics, I will be stoked!

  143. Shane says:

    @JC … this is a strange and unique place for me. I am actually being assigned as anti-gun even though that is so far from the truth as to be hilarious. I guess I will just give up now. :) Please read back over my previous posts. I think you came in late and didn't follow the whole thread.

  144. Phelps says:

    It is capable, in an instant, of irrevocably robbing any citizen of their right to “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness”, and yet any yahoo with a temper can stroll into a gun show and pick up pretty much whatever he wantssit through a few weeks at the police academy and then, apparently, stroll around anywhere he feels like in any fashion he wants. Why should I not distrust that setup?

    FIFY

  145. TomB says:

    @JC … this is a strange and unique place for me. I am actually being assigned as anti-gun even though that is so far from the truth as to be hilarious. I guess I will just give up now. Please read back over my previous posts. I think you came in late and didn't follow the whole thread.

    JC, how dare you label Shane as "anti-gun". All he did was say that "Gun owners are always seen by most people as hot heads with a power tripping problem." There's nothing anti-gun there!

  146. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ Phelps
    <blockquote cite="It is capable, in an instant, of irrevocably robbing any citizen of their right to “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness”, and yet any yahoo with a temper can stroll into a gun show and pick up pretty much whatever he wants, OR through a few weeks at the police academy and then, apparently, stroll around anywhere he feels like in any fashion he wants. Why should I not distrust that setup?">

    FIFY

  147. JR says:

    @Shane I was not implying that you were anti-gun, but responding to the emphasis added by you in your previous response to me. The later portion of my comment was addressed to earthclanbootstraps declaration that the only use for guns was to kill.

    I have been following this thread closely almost from the beginning. Your position seems to be that officers of the law are very likely to respond irrationally to speech which they might find offensive, thus turning an inquiry regarding a complaint that was filed into trumped up criminal charges and the illegal search and seizure of property. Therefore, you believe such speech should be left unspoken for fear of consequences.

    If that seems the best way for you, then by all means do so. But you are also trying to impose that philosophy on Mr. Grisham, who is not required to follow your lead. You may disagree with his method, but so long as no laws are broken, he is free to do as handle the situation as he sees fit.

  148. earthclanbootstrap says:

    Well shit, that didn't work the way I thought it would…

  149. MattS says:

    earthclanbootstrap,

    "And to take it further, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is not wrong."

    True, but it IS reason for the police to ignore it.

  150. kayfox says:

    I would totally fly down for a Furmeet in LA with Ken at it.

  151. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @JR
    I would argue that target shooting is only a means to an end, that end being able to more accurately hit what you are shooting at in other situations. Thus, ultimately, it really is only for killing. Unless the argument is that guns are just for deflating the Duke Boy's tires?
    I am not saying that guns are in and of themselves evil, but they are essentially killing machines, quite literally and expressly so.

  152. Merissa says:

    *pinch pinch*

  153. JR says:

    That argument falls on its nose when you consider that I spent almost two decades target shooting and never once wanted to kill something with a gun. You arguments seem to imply that a gun is solely for the purpose of either killing or long distance hole puncher. You also fail to differentiate between killing during the commission of a crime, in self-defense, for food, or sport. unless you object to killing anything, for any reason.

  154. Shane says:

    @JR you are pretty close to what I think. If confronted with a man with a gun no matter what the situation is, you need to be respectful of that fact. Because I have a gun doesn't mean that pulling it RIGHT NOW is a good idea. My position is that getting your wits about you before you start to act is a better proposition no matter who is on the other side of the gun. And specifically in the situation of a shitty cop, mouthing off is only likely to invite rofl stomping, and in the extreme being shot. Should we as citizenry stand up to corrupt/power tripping cops … absolutely 100% yes. But my quibble with Mr. Grisham is the way he chose to do it, not that he chose to do it. Because in the end all sorts of folks will sit on the jury that will either punish Mr. Grisham or punish the cops, and wouldn't it be best if Mr. Grisham is viewed in the best possible light.

  155. earthclanbootstrap says:

    I'm not assigning any moral or ethical value, or gradations of those, to the act of killing in stating that it is a killing machine or a hole puncher. I simply mean that as a statement of fact. The gun was created as a killing machine, and by the method of it killing, happens to be a very good hole puncher. It is what it is.

  156. princessartemis says:

    It's also an equalizer of force, earthclanbootstrap. The weak and the small, once prey to the large and the strong who could wield swords, knives, batons, etc., list of weapons made to kill goes on and on, can, thanks to the existance of guns, have access to a force equal to that of the large and the strong. Does that in any way figure into your views? If there weren't any guns around, there would be swords, spears, bows, ad infinitum.

    Just curious, it's not a debate I really want to have.

  157. JR says:

    @Shane
    You would see a man convicted of a crime officers charged him with after they failed to follow due process, provide adequate probable cause, and violated his 4A rights. For no reason other than you disagree with the way he talked to the officers, even though he violated no laws by doing so? That is seriously harsh.

  158. @Earthclanbootstrap- I understand your dislike of guns, and you have every right to feel the way you do. But I'll tell you this: if he was walking around rural Texas wild boar country with an AR-15, he was packing light.
    I'm not a gun aficionado, but my ex-military ex-husband is, and he has an AR-15. One day last summer, my 8 year old son was at his house, playing in the front yard of his nice little neighborhood right off the highway, when a 200 POUND wild boar came charging out from some bushes across the street. I shit you not. My ex UNLOADED his rifle on that thing before it finally stopped it. And that is far from the first time I've heard of them roaming around neighborhoods around here (I live 15 mins from Austin) and they are AGGRESSIVE. I saw one recently on the side of the road that was bigger than a cow.
    I'm just sayin', don't judge too harshly; sometimes people have a very good reason to be carrying a gun.

  159. MattS says:

    Paige,

    Messed up the html. Trying again.

    Red Jacket made some custom rifles for a feral hog control company. They took an AR 15 platform and converted it from 5.56mm NATO to .458 SOCOM

    Now that's the kind of rifle you would want to take feral hog hunting.

  160. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ princessartemis
    Equalizer of force is just a subset of killing machine/hole puncher. It would not be an equalizer of force if it didn't do either.

  161. Shay says:

    "Decorated Vet Arrested…"

    Hell, I'm a decorated vet. It would never in a million years occur to me that this distinction gets me anything but seven middle-aged dudes with M14s and a flag at my funeral.

    And if I were to walk around with an AR15 over my shoulder and a .45 on my hip I would expect a county mountie to stop me. Also to kick my ass up around my ears if I gave him a ration of shit about it.

    MSgt Grisham is a douchebag.

  162. earthclanbootstrap says:

    @ Paige
    It is not a dislike of guns; I was raised with family and Boy Scouts that taught me to shoot. I just challenge the proposition that all guns are appropriate in all situations.

  163. Paris S says:

    I don't like gun very much and I'd be happy to see a Constitutional Amendment passed to seriously restrict guns.

    That said, I think the cops were totally violating the citizen's rights and should be canned. One thing I found really telling is that when he challenges them on what he's being detained or arrested for, they have no answer. But then in the end they charge him with resisting arrest. But the supposed resisting happened before they were unable to even answer if he was under arrest or why he was being detained. So I think it is obvious that the resisting arrest charge is both false and malicious.

    Also they take his wallet over his objections and refuse to give it back, also before they decide he is under arrest. The video, and his "aggressive" questioning of their activities provides strong evidence of exactly when they determined he was under arrest. Based on that, I'd have to say his rights were really trampled on.

    I also have to add, on a "this is why we can't have nice things" note, that all the, "you gotta be polite and subservient" stuff is why we're never getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, or even updating it. If everybody was bold and confident in standing up to their rights, without fretting over if their speech was aggressive (in asserting American rights, no less!) or made people uncomfortable, then maybe we could have that discussion. But when so many, apparently educated, people are willing to freely discount the freedom as speech as soon as the police arrive, which is exactly when it is supposed to take effect most strongly… ugh. Just, ugh. I hate guns but with neighbors like that maybe I should bury a few in a time capsule somewhere.

  164. Shane says:

    No @JR I never once implied or said that I would see a man convicted of a crime for speaking on constitutionally protected speech. I am trying desperately say that on the side of a rural road in TX is not the place to do it. If there are violations on the part of the police, then those need to be worked out in a court of law not a two lane highway.

    Come face to face with someone with a gun. It changes you, it changes how you think. The constitution is paramount for our freedoms, but as a citizen under the constitution you need to be smart about how and when you exercise your rights. And when men have guns or maybe just lots of other men, then standing and reciting your rights is your perogitive, but in my mind a dangerous one. If you are being robbed and you are armed, the law is on your side. Do you whip out your weapon and shoot dem baddies down? You can. The law is on your side. But if they already have guns trained on you, do you think that this is really the best course of action?

    Just because the constitution (a piece of paper) says something, doesn't mean that everyone will follow it. And it doesn't mean that you will be safe from the people that don't follow it. Act smart, not like a jackass even if you are right. Choose the time and place for the battle and emerge victorious.

  165. azteclady says:

    Shane at 02:23

    @TomB you "excuse" the behavior of @MattS calling me an asshat, but then turn around and exclaim the we NOT "excuse" the behavior of bad cops … what gives? Bad behavior is bad behavior.

    Are you serious?

    Are you honestly comparing behaviour in a private blog to the behaviour of on duty police officers?

    If you are, then there's really little point in replying to pretty much anything else you say.

  166. princessartemis says:

    @earthclanbootstrap, Yes, this is why I said also rather than instead of. I suppose I wasn't clear; I didn't ask if you took that into account in the "they're made to kill" thought, but more in the "None of you are Paul Fucking Revere, you are just a bunch of people with dangerous weaponry that the rest of us have no particular reason to trust" line of thought. Perhaps I misunderstood you when I interpreted that statement to indicated that there was a great deal of mistrust on your part for the weak and the small having access to and wielding an equalizer of force.

  167. Jack says:

    If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms while being rude to a cop, then you don't have a right to keep and bear arms

  168. JR says:

    @Shane
    >Because in the end all sorts of folks will sit on the jury that will either punish Mr. Grisham or punish the cops, and wouldn't it be best if Mr. Grisham is viewed in the best possible light.

    I may have overreacted after reading this sentence. But it does sound like you would be OK with a juror coming down one way or the other based on the way Mr. Grisham went about exercising his free speech.

    >Come face to face with someone with a gun. It changes you, it changes how you think.

    There you go substituting personal responsibility with some sort of "the gun made me do it" argument. I have been shooting a long time and have not experienced this "change" to which you refer. Having a gun increases your available options, but certainly does not force you to choose one response over another.

    I have already stipulated that you are entitled to your go-along-to-get-along method of dealing with authorities abusing their power. But he is entitled to responding in his own style so long as there are no laws broken. It is also known that he is taking the fight to the courts. And we are getting involved by discussing the events in a court of public opinion. Exposing and denouncing those who abuse their authority is one way to effect change.

    If your objections to Mr. Grisham's actions remain those of style, I think we can stop the discussion here. If you would like to discuss matters of procedure or possible laws he may have broken, then I will gladly continue the debate.

  169. Clark says:

    @Jack:

    If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms while being rude to a cop, then you don't have a right to keep and bear arms

    Wonderfully said. Anything that's a privilege based on kissing the asses of your "betters" and which can be revoked when you fail to be energetic enough at it isn't a right.

  170. Phelps says:

    If you don’t have a right to keep and bear arms while being rude to a cop, then you don’t have a right to keep and bear arms

    Jack wins.

  171. Ohhh, MattS, you know just how to turn a girl on. ;)

  172. perlhaqr says:

    Aaron Spink: I append acting in a hostile manner in this case because the suspect did not immediately disclose his handgun nor offer to voluntarily disarm (two things that anyone with a CC should know to do in any interaction with the police) and prevented the officer from disarming him.

    Except, of course, he wasn't concealed carrying. And he didn't prevent the officer from disarming him. He argued that the police officer had no right to disarm him. There's quite a difference.

  173. Phelps says:

    Except, of course, he wasn't concealed carrying. And he didn't prevent the officer from disarming him. He argued that the police officer had no right to disarm him. There's quite a difference.

    He was carrying concealed. There are two weapons involved here, the rifle and the pistol. The rifle he was carrying openly, in accordance with state law. The pistol was carried concealed, also in accordance with state law, because the state prohibits open carry of handguns.

    While voluntarily disarming is something that virtually all instructors teach that you should do, there is absolutely no legal duty to do so. The only legal duty is to hand your CHL over with your DL when you are required to ID. That is the sole legal duty. There's no requirement to affirmatively say anything to the police — just to hand over the license when required. Until they demanded his ID, there was no requirement.

    Doing perfectly legal, non-threatening, non-violent things does not constitute "acting in a hostile manner."

  174. Shane says:

    @JR the people on that jury may not be as enlightened as the rest of us and they will have a say in Mr. Grisham's fate. There is the world we want and there is the world that we live in.

    To those that think that all cops are bad, and that they aren't human then this. The officer in this video was recently warned that his approach was too heavy handed, and that he needed to be more balanced in his approach to people.

    Be warned watching this video is graphic and heart wrenching.

  175. perlhaqr says:

    Phelps @12:08 — I wish this site had voting just so I could vote that comment up.

    Jack @12:50 — Also this one.

    earthclanbootstrap: As far as distrusting some random person that I know is armed with a gun? Of course I will; quite frankly, why should I blithely give him the benefit of the doubt? He's got a fucking gun.

    I hope you include the police in that distrust. Honestly, given the stigma the practice has these days, someone open carrying is likely to be someone I'm more likely to trust than your average cop.

  176. perlhaqr says:

    Phelps: Yes, but the point of "informing the officer that you are carrying concealed" is so that he knows you're armed, and isn't surprised by the fact that you're armed.

    I was referring to the fact that he had a full size rifle strapped across his chest, which hopefully the police were capable of interpreting to mean that he was armed.

    But you are correct that I would have been better served by phrasing my–in hindsight admittedly confusing–verbiage as "he wasn't only concealed carrying".

  177. Big Brother Shane: "There is the world that we want and there is the world that we live in."

    The world that we LIVE IN is NEVER going to be the world that we WANT if people keep counseling others in public forums (such as in blog comments) that the best course of action, when our rights are being violated by those in authority, is to bend over and take it. Period.

  178. Shane says:

    @Paige never once have I stated that bend over and "take it" is the right approach.

  179. JR says:

    @MattS Apr 24, 2013 @3:03 pm
    >Shane,
    I find it sad that you think the only way to make a bad situation less bad is to bend over and take it.

    @Shane Apr 24, 2013 @3:18 pm
    >@MattS, if it involves my life then yes I will "take it". I think Bob Marley said it best, "… he who fight and run away, lives to fight another day". Remember Mr. Grisham is not the only armed person in this situation.

    You did not state it directly, but your accepted his implication.

  180. J_Canuck says:

    I understand what Grisham was doing was perfectly legal, but I think he should have used a little common sense and realized that walking down a road with an AR-15 strapped to his chest might have sent off some alarm bells. Especially with all the recent mass shootings. I also think a previous poster hit it on the head: if he had been carrying an ordinary hunting rifle he probably wouldn't have been stopped. It comes down to a question of optics; lets face it, the AR-15 is derived from a military combat rifle, and even though people may use it for hunting, its not a hunting rifle.

    The only good thing about this is that, except for some feelings got ruffled, no one got hurt. One over reaction and it could have been much, much worse.

  181. azteclady says:

    I think that the only truly good think about this is that there is video, that we live in an age where these things go viral and people everywhere can see what happened, as it happened and not as witnesses remember it–particularly after said witnesses may have been coached to remember it, one way or the other–so that, once it goes to court, it's harder for the court to dismiss it.

  182. Shane says:

    @JR

    Is this "taking it"?

    … "By calmly asserting his rights he does two things, one he deescalates a situation that could be incredibly bad with other men with guns (let me re-emphasize that point WITH GUNS). Two, he lays the ground work for the battle ahead."

    Is this not "taking it"?

    … "If you are being robbed and you are armed, the law is on your side. Do you whip out your weapon and shoot dem baddies down? You can. The law is on your side. But if they already have guns trained on you …"

    Because the first quote results in a court battle and the second results in a gun battle.

    And what I am getting that you are saying is that you would rather have a gun battle than a court battle. If that is your idea of "taking it" then you got me, I capitulate, I would rather "take it".

  183. Shane says:

    Sorry @JR I can't edit post let me fix last paragraph …

    And what I am getting is that a gun battle is superior to a court battle. If that is "taking it" then you got me, I capitulate, I would rather "take it".

  184. JR says:

    @Shane
    To what gun battle are you referring? Nothing of the sort has been suggested as a viable approach to the situation. In fact, what the video shows him doing is cite his rights and relevant passages of Texas gun law to the officers in an attempt to find out why they were treating him as a criminal. He is now fighting in the courts and will state his case before a jury of his peers.

    On what grounds are you requiring me to compare the events caught on video with an imaginary gun fight in order to determine whether a description of your methodology given by somebody else is accurate? Especially after you responded to his description, and my pointing to it, by posing a condition that, if true, you would agree with his description of your methodology.

    Final offer. If you would like to debate who was following/breaking which laws and/or procedures then I welcome it, but you will have to make the arguments for your side. Not me.

  185. Shane says:

    @JR a gun battle didn't happen (thankfully). But a gun battle could have happened. Pissing off cops by being rude tests the limits of human emotion. Your having a gun one hundred fold exacerbates this. And arguing your case with the cops on the side of the road won't change one damn thing, not one. But it certainly puts you in a very dangerous situation.

    You are trying to push me into the position of arguing who is following/breaking the law … here it is. The cops were probably breaking the law. But as I have said before that is not much comfort when you are dead. Get it … DEAD. Because you have a gun and you are being loud and rude and combative. But gawd dammit you are not breaking a law. Do you see, he was provoking those cops and he is lucky that they didn't just drop his ass and make some shit up and call it a day. Yes, yes the damn cops were probably wrong, but that has never been point in any of the posts my point is be safe around people with guns. Being right, and NOT "taking it" is sometimes not worth it.

  186. azteclady says:

    Shane And the more people who take it because "it's not worth the hassle" not to take it, the more effective power cops have–and the fewer actual consequences for them from violating citizens' rights.

    Whether you see it or not, and whether that is you intent or not, you are effectively arguing for a society in which human/individual rights are nothing but words on paper, which no one dare speak out loud–because gee, what if the cops hear you?

  187. JR says:

    Why do you keep posting links to videos that have no bearing on the matter at hand? First you cite a video about Pennsylvania gun laws even though the topic of discussion occurred in Texas. And twice you linked to a video depicting behavior that in no way resembles the actions of Mr. Grisham.

    Yes, I was trying to get you into the position of making arguments based on reality. Even though the police department has not made a public comment on the subject, we have the article telling this man's side of the story and a 13 minute video record of it.

    It seems to me that you have allowed your emotions to overrule reason and this will be my last response to you in this thread.

  188. Trent says:

    There are a lot of comments in this thread that make me very sad.

    Guns aren't evil, I don't see someone open carrying as dangerous. I live in a state that recently received publicity from a guy walking around shopping (the video was taken inside a store with him waiting in the checkout line) in a major urban area with an AR-15 strung exactly the same as Grisham. The cops were called, they talked to the guy then drove off. The national press played it up like it was this huge deal, the cops comment to the story I think was appropriate, "he wasn't doing anything illegal". He wasn't detained, they simply did minimum due diligence to verify he wasn't nuts because his behavior was abnormal.

    Shane you keep saying you aren't arguing to bend over and take it but there are at least 3 people who believe that is exactly what you are saying. You might consider that what you think you are saying and what you are actually saying are different things. At some point when everyone in the room things you are saying A but you think you are saying B, the chances are that you are saying A but haven't realized it.

    One other point I would like to make as I saw it several times in the thread with no challenge. Carrying a Rifle slung crosswise across your back pointed at the ground is NOT in the ready position. If you think that's the ready position you don't know anything about guns. (I've never been in the military but I believe the official designation of "ready" is held chest level by both hand with the capability to bring to shoulder level and aim within fractions of a second, slung crosswise pointed down is stored for hiking) No one is taking a gun from that position and shooting at someone so quickly they will surprise them. Not only that but the officer attempting to take the gun (by grabbing the strap) from him while strapped crosswise across his back was not only dangerous but incredibly stupid.

    Though I disagree with everything Paris said about guns being dangerous and revoking the second amendment I agree with almost everything else he wrote about how Grisham's rights were violated, and I hope he crushes the criminal charges and has the financial capacity to launch a civil suit against the department. What I saw was abuse under the color of authority and he deserves restitution and an apology from the department for their actions.

    And finally, "The Blaze" AFAIK is not a local Texas publication unless Glenn Beck moved to Texas. The Blaze is Glenn Beck's new internet publication that he moved to when Fox fired him for being a crazy nutbag. Though I don't discount the facts I dislike the source because it's a highly biased publication that promotes conspiracy theories IMO.

  189. Phelps says:

    @JR a gun battle didn’t happen (thankfully). But a gun battle could have happened. Pissing off cops by being rude tests the limits of human emotion.

    If you really believe that the cops will kill someone just because they are pissed off, then you have an even lower opinion of their professionalism than I do, which is saying a lot.

  190. Shane says:

    @JR, ok I will make the doucher move and post back to you even though you won't post on this again. You were the one that wanted to argue the rightness or wrongness of this situation with me. I didn't not take a position on the legality of this stop, the courts will do this. I pointed out possible reasons as to why the police made the stop. I pointed out that it was certainly possible that they had a right to make the stop. I also pointed out that Mr. Grisham was rude and combative. I also pointed out that in being rude and combative with police while armed was dangerous for Mr. Grisham. That is all. Will Mr. Grisham be vindicated in court I don't know. Was he within his rights, a court will decide. Should the cops be punished, a hearing or their surpervisor will decide. Will any of this be decided on the side of rural TX road … NO!

    I posted the first video because it showed a citizen who knew the law albeit PA law, dealing with an officer. The point of the video was to point out how to hold your own with an officer without provoking him. Not the nuances of state law. I posted the second video because having a gun is relevant in a stop. Do you not think that damn near every police officer hasn't seen the video I posted in some form or another? Don't you think that when they roll up on a guy with a gun that they might not worry that this will be their last traffic stop. If you can't understand this then you don't carry a firearm.

    @Azteclady I posted a video of a women in PA not "taking it". I did this as an example of how to deal with the police in a manner that asserts your rights but minimizes the provocative nature of doing so.

    @Trent the rifle was slung across his chest.

    @Trent when 90% of country thinks that slave ownership is ok, then I must be wrong to think otherwise.

  191. Shane says:

    @Phelps, what I am saying is that they are human, and if they had a bad day that can contribute to an escalation that could result in bad things. I am sure that you have experienced this, in a far safer situation.

  192. martinh says:

    Interestingly, Mr.Grisham may have had an axe to grind – see here . According to somebody (ostensibly) local in the discussion bellow the article:

    " The truth is that Mr. Grisham’s “hike” took him right past a school that was full of children and then right past our local municipal airport. I should add that he was walking with his rifle in the “ready” position. Now, what are we supposed to think when we see someone walking in our town and past our school with a gun in the ready position!?!?! He was trying to cause a scene. Shame on him and shame on the media for telling such a half cocked version of this story."

    While it is not clear whether this is true or not, the whole situation may not be so black-and-white as reported originally. The possibility that Mr. Grisham may have exposed his 15 year old son to the potentially very dangerous confrontation with the cops by design to advance his political agenda is fascinating, no matter how legal his gun hike was or not (and it may not be true etc.etc.).

  193. Phelps says:

    The truth is that Mr. Grisham’s “hike” took him right past a school that was full of children and then right past our local municipal airport.

    It's a lie. The incident happened on a Saturday.

  194. Scooby says:

    @martinh- Any video of MSgt Grisham carrying his rifle in the "ready" position? Or is it just allegations from a pseudonymous Pot calling the Kettle MSgt black by saying he has "an axe to grind".

  195. Phelps says:

    Any video of MSgt Grisham carrying his rifle in the "ready" position? Or is it just allegations from a pseudonymous Pot calling the Kettle MSgt black by saying he has "an axe to grind".

    Just allegations from the same sort of people who were claiming that he was walking past a school chock full of kids (on a Saturday.)

    Grisham's own words (desc at the video) was that he kept it slung, and was not holding it in his hands. That's not a ready position.

  196. @Big Brother Shane: "@Trent when 90% of country thinks that slave ownership is ok, then I must be wrong to think otherwise."

    NO!
    Stop. Just, really dude…just, stop. That's not even close to the argument Trent is making. It would instead read "when 90% of the country thinks THAT I'M SAYING slave ownership is ok, then I must be EXPRESSING MYSELF POORLY."

    Can you spot the subtle, yet INCREDIBLY CRUCIAL difference?!? /facepalm

  197. Trent says:

    @Trent the rifle was slung across his chest.

    Yes, the strap was across his chest and the rifle was across his back. I won't believe for a minute he had the rifle in front without picture evidence, for one simple reason, it would be so uncomfortable you'd have to be a masochist to carry that way. I've carried enough rifles to know that. Consider for a moment that if he was carrying it like that the butt of the rifle would be hitting him in the chin as he walked.

    @Trent when 90% of country thinks that slave ownership is ok, then I must be wrong to think otherwise.

    This has not one thing to do with what I said, I don't know why you even brought it up other than to deliberately confuse the issue.

  198. Shane says:

    No @Paige please explain, and insult me constantly while you are doing it cause that will help me see the light.

  199. Shane says:

    @Trent in the video 1:23 to 1:35 you can clearly see Mr. Grisham with the gun on his front side and at 1:43 you can see the officer unhooking the hooks from the harness on the front side. And honestly @Trent if you have ever bought harnesses for AR-15's you would know that the commercial harnesses all attach on the front. If you can miss this in the video, maybe just maybe you may have missed other things too.

    I clearly see now how agendas cloud people's thinking. You and the others that are attacking me aren't so much interested in getting to the truth or seeing alternate views as pushing an agenda. You label me based on what you want to see and then proceed to attack the label. A few key words taken out of context in my post is all that you need to attack the label that you have given me.

    I am done with this post, with a huge lesson learned.

  200. Aaron Spink says:

    @Scooby and all others that don't think it was across the chest…

    Have you watched the actual video? Any of you? Cause it is obvious as can be that it was strapped across his chest. The position of the rifle was in front and chest high.

    The rifle was held on via the front chest cross strap between the shoulder straps. The gun could reasonably be fired from that position. Anyone saying it was slung over his back or over his shoulder is either not actually investigated anything about the incident or is willfully ignorant about the incident.

  201. princessartemis says:

    Yeah, you don't need picture evidence it was across his chest, you have video evidence. Possibly he had it that way so he could reach it fast in case of wild boar, since he wasn't transporting it. He had it with him because he thought he might need to use it; not knowing much about AR-15s, I don't know if that is typical.

    Slung across his chest is not the same as ready to fire, Aaron (so Scooby does not appear to need correcting on that point), but it's definitely in front.

  202. Aaron Spink says:

    While it wasn't on a single or multi-point sling that would easily allow it to be shouldered and aim, it was certain in a viable position to be immediately used and fired pseudo hip style (and given both the amount of ammo carried and the realistic rate of fire, it would of certainly be a potential life threatening danger in that position).

    So we can go back and forth on if it was in a "ready fire" position, but it was certainly could be fired and aimed in that position albeit not fully optimal for it. It certainly is a far cry from a 2 point sling carry position with the weapon on the back pointed up for down.

  203. JR says:

    How consequential is the position of the gun and the speed with which he might have fired the weapon to the conversation? His method of carry was not illegal for either gun and thus not justification for the search and seizure of his weapons.

    This would be like confiscating someone's H2 Hummer and driver's licenses because of how likely the police think they might get road rage and how easily they could ram other cars off the road.

  204. TomB says:

    How consequential is the position of the gun and the speed with which he might have fired the weapon to the conversation?

    It isn't. If you've noticed, the conversation has been "nudged" away from the behavior of the police toward the behavior of the citizen. I'm still, after over 200 posts, waiting for someone to tell me what law prohibits someone from carrying a gun "rudely". That is the issue here.

    Instead we get people trying to tell us how an individual is supposed to act in order to defuse a potentially dangerous situation with a trained police officer.

    As was said earlier, if I'm forced to tailor the way I lawfully carry a gun in order to not be hassled by police, I've effectively had my right to carry a gun taken away.

    Draw your own conclusions about the motives of certain posters, to me, they're crystal clear.

  205. princessartemis says:

    A concealed gun in a holster can be quickly aimed and fired, too, Aaron. That's…kinda the point. That doesn't make carrying that way hostile, terrihorribad, illegal, or sin against police and society in the state of Texas.

    Being a Californian, I can almost see how some would feel that going out in public with a gun in any position other than unloaded, trigger locked, safety on, locked in a safe, in a locked closet with the ammo locked in a different safe so the ancient Sith inhabiting the gun cannot tempt anyone to the Dark Side would be "rudely displaying", but it just isn't so.

  206. azteclady says:

    TomB, most of the people commenting agree with you and it's only a couple, by my reckoning, that's blaming the Sgt for the cops' behaviour. You do the less vociferous majority (in this thread) a disservice by implying otherwise.

  207. TomB says:

    Azteclady, I'm perfectly acquainted with the number of posters who don't agree with my side of the issue. The only indicators as to numbers I used were the terms "people" and "certain posters". At no time did I indicate there were an excess of posters who believed the officers were in the right. However, I never considered Argumentum ad populum a particularly effective debate tool, considering it's a logical fallacy in the first place.

    (Was I sufficiently fatuous and smarmy in that reply? I think I exploded my thesaurus.)

  208. azteclady says:

    TomB

    I'm still, after over 200 posts, waiting for someone to tell me what law prohibits someone from carrying a gun "rudely".

    Forgive my arrant stupidity, for I thought this has been answered by more than a handful of people, in several ways, throughout the comments.

    No law against rudeness anywhere and no law broken by Mr Grisham that we can see.

  209. Aaron Spink says:

    @TomB

    The location and position of the weapon is important as far as the amount of alarm that the location and position causes. While Texas law allows the carry of rifles, it does require that they aren't carried in a manner that will cause alarm. To many, carrying a rifle in what appears to be a ready fire position while walking down a road would cause alarm.

    Thus giving probably cause for at a minimum a Terry stop. As part of a Terry stop, it is perfectly legal for the police to temporarily disarm you while they investigate.

    Hence the manner in which the weapon was carried is actually pretty central to the actual issues and law in this case. Remember that this case will likely be decided on the actual facts and law, not on peoples emotions.

    @princessartemis
    The issue in this case isn't about the suspect's CC weapon. It is about the rifle and the alarm that his method of carrying it caused in at least two people which is central to the probable cause for which the stop was made. Once the stop was made, the cops were well within their rights to temporarily disarm the suspect while they investigated. At that point the case focuses on the response of the suspect to the police interaction.

    my only motive is the facts of the case, the responsibility of gun owners to other gun owners to present a good example, and the law of the case. As someone who supports the rights of gun owners and finds many of the federal gun laws (civ select-fire ban, transfer restrictions, bore size, etc) unconstitutional, people like the one in this case do nothing but actual harm to the cause of public gun ownership.

  210. princessartemis says:

    *scratches head* @Aaron, what did I say, after so many comments in this thread talking about the rifle, would give you the indication I thought the issue was with his CCW?

    Really not sure the cops were "well within" their rights, not to speak of within them, or near them, to disarm a guy who was carrying legally. They don't need to remove his rifle to determine that. In a state where open carry of rifles is legal, all they have to do is look.

  211. JR says:

    @Aaron Spink
    I'm not certain of legal nuance that a lawyer might know, but Terry Stop is described on Wikipedia with the following passage:

    To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]

    Note: There is no clause stating that the police have the right to disarm the subject of a Terry Stop, with the possible exception of being armed and dangerous. And ALL of it hinges on having reason to believe that a crime is being, or about to be, committed.

    You make claim to be supportive of the rights of gun owners, but your argument here reads to me as sacrificing those rights to anyone that feels threatened by them. Fear is a terrible reason to do anything.

  212. Patrick H says:

    @Aaron:

    The location and position of the weapon is important as far as the amount of alarm that the location and position causes. While Texas law allows the carry of rifles, it does require that they aren't carried in a manner that will cause alarm. To many, carrying a rifle in what appears to be a ready fire position while walking down a road would cause alarm.

    That is just disorderly conduct:

    Disorderly Conduct includes… display(ing) a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm

    The keyword is "calculated". Walking down the road, in hog territory, with an AR-15 in front on a sling, is not "calculated" to cause alarm.

  213. Aaron Spink says:

    @JR

    Police have the fight to disarm you while asking questions if they believe that not disarming you may endanger their safety. This has been repeatedly confirmed. So much that it is standard procedure to temporarily disarm someone when they are involved into a Terry Stop or investigation with someone and they are visibly armed. The 2nd amendment provides no protection against this except to limit duration if the weapons are legal and legally owned.

    As far as sacrificing rights, that is done all the time. Rights are not absolute, there are enormous volumes of case law on this concerning everything from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The reason is that ones personal rights tends to run into infringement with others personal rights. One should expect some scrutiny if walking down the side of a pubic road with a weapon in what appears to be a ready fire position.

    One of the reasons that concealed carry is generally more supported than open carry is exactly that it tends to cause less alarm.

    As far as "calculated", the officer cannot know if it is calculated until he investigates. Thus for the purposes of probable cause, if the weapon is carried in a manner that could cause alarm, the officer is within his rights to investigate the matter. Appearances matter, they always have and they always will, anyone arguing otherwise is tilting at windmills.

    There does not appear to be anything about the initial stop that is illegal under either Texas nor Federal law. At that point, it is perfectly legal for the officer to temporarily disarm the suspect. Considering that temporarily disarming a suspect is and has been a common practice going back at least 100 years, anyone arguing it isn't legal will have the burden of proof.

  214. Scooby says:

    Anyone know any case law on what is "calculated to alarm" in Texas?

    What would alarm the typical no-gun-experience-having East (or West) Coastal urbanite wouldn't phase a reasonable Texan in the slightest. With the massive influx of Californians to Texas, I can imagine that any display of an evil talisman could be considered "calculated to alarm" by some.

  215. Phelps says:

    What would alarm the typical no-gun-experience-having East (or West) Coastal urbanite wouldn't phase a reasonable Texan in the slightest. With the massive influx of Californians to Texas, I can imagine that any display of an evil talisman could be considered "calculated to alarm" by some.

    I don't know of any case law, but just on the face of its construction, "calculated to alarm" would go to the intent of the person carrying the firearm, not what a particular individual who witnesses it thinks.

    It's also part of the Disturbing the Peace offense (not a separate offense) so I would think that you would have to get into issues of intent to intimidate and such.

  216. JR says:

    Repeatedly doing something that is appropriate in one circumstance does not make it automatically appropriate in all circumstances. Also, the guns were legal and legally owned, but not returned upon discovery of this fact.

    Yes, there are limits to our rights. Name one right Mr. Grisham was exercising that infringed on someone else's rights? And the only exceptions I found to 2a are those enumerated by Scalia:
    1) limits the type of weapon;
    2) concealed weapons prohibitions;
    3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;
    4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;
    5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

    I would be interested in seeing your numbers on CC v. Open carry.

    Applying emotional qualifications to laws can be very tricky. I know of no way to empirically prove what someone was feeling at any given moment in time. The term "calculated" implies a certain amount of reasoning and intent. The only actions I would consider as intending alarm would be holding the weapon in the ready position, pointing the weapon in a hazardous manner, or telling people he intended to use the weapon in a manner that could cause harm. The only time we know his hands were near the gun are when the video starts and they are pinned under him while he is operating the camera. There is no mention of him brandishing the weapon in any way.

    You call him a suspect, but what is he suspected of doing? That "rude display" charge they finally threw at him is relevant to CC only as far as I can find, and there is no evidence that the handgun was not concealed at the time of the stop.

    There are no laws giving cops the right to disarm people without cause. You have not stated a cause that would qualify doing so under existing law, so I believe the burden is now yours.

  217. Phelps says:

    The Fourth Circuit just took a big dump on all the people who think that open carry gives Reasonable Suspicion to enact a Terry Stop:

    http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

    "Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

  218. Gary says:

    A few people need to review the tape and the sgt's comments closer. The cop was all nice and cordial until he lunged at sgt.Grisheam and tried to disarm him with no comment about the gun. Grisham backed up and ask him what the hell was he doing. He made no defensive moves to counter the cops attack. That is the point the cop goes nuts and starts yelling. Grisham was at all times co-operative even while the cop was doing his impression of RAW wrestler.

  1. April 25, 2013

    [...] Jack in a comment at Popehat. [...]