Police dashcam footage of the arrest of Army Master Sergeant CJ Grisham has surfaced, and reveals how dangerously close the decorated veteran came to losing his life in an altercation with Temple, Texas police officers.
In a disgusting and illegal stop these tyrants harass and unlawfully detain a man and nearly escalate the situation to violence for responding to a sheepish 911 call of someone who saw this man with a gun and got scared.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dashcam-shows-close-veteran-losing-life-lawfully-open-carrying/#KjdSzPd4tVY0vVKw.99
LMAO! Pretty timely tidbit of info there Wolfie considering this took place March..... 2013.
This case was cussed and discussed ad nauseum in most gun related forums..... in 2013.
I'll give you the win if it makes you feel better. Again... well played. ;)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/habs21/beating-a-dead-horse_zpszsqqwbsv.png) (http://s6.photobucket.com/user/habs21/media/beating-a-dead-horse_zpszsqqwbsv.png.html)
Did not know it was a old case. He was found guilty.
http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/grisham-found-guilty-in-temple-gun-case-trial/article_7c15b956-5173-11e3-a888-001a4bcf6878.html
Yes he was. Found guilty of interfering with police duties, a class B misdemeanor, in November..... 2013.
The man complied to all the officers orders.
Asking why you are being stopped is interfering with police duties in Texas?
I have been open carrying here in Va for a couple years and I've never been stopped.
The interference with public duties came when Grisham resisted being disarmed.
The sad part here is that this qualified as a Terry stop. We may still have guns, but we no longer have freedom.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 02 2015 10:39:58 AM MST
The interference with public duties came when Grisham resisted being disarmed.
The sad part here is that this qualified as a Terry stop. We may still have guns, but we no longer have freedom.
I have said this long ago (not here). Your guns are useless against the government. When you look at situations like Zimmerman and Martin, the government can still ruin your life if you use a gun to defend yourself.
.
You call that resisting to being disarmed?
Those cops were lame. They should have detained, identified him and confirmed his pistol license and let him go.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 02 2015 02:44:23 PM MST
You call that resisting to being disarmed?
Those cops were lame. They should have detained, identified him and confirmed his pistol license and let him go.
This is what the officer was trying to do. The guy put his hands on the rifle when the officer was trying to identify the weapon/ That was his first mistake.
His second mistake was when he didn't put his hands behind his back when the officer initially asked him too.
Common sense goes a long way in life.
Sorry I am pro cop, all the guy did was adjust the weapon after the cop moved it.
If the cop was right he would charged him with the proper offenses from the beginning.
What happened is they looked through the books to justify a arrest. BS police work.
I am very support of police. Common sense (to me) would have been to freeze and obey every word the officer's said, one by one. When you have a firearm, I was taught that even the most tolerant of police want to "diffuse" the situation of any weapons first - for obvious safety reasons.
Not standing up for any side here but the guy seemed like he was rubbing the officers' noses in his rights and they had no idea one way or another what he MIGHT do next. What am I missing?
Pat
This was an issue of stopping without probable cause. It was clear the officer didn't have an answer when he was asked why he was detaining the man.
911 should have made it clear that carrying a gun wasn't against the law. Just because someone call in about something doesn't mean that they need to respond. I don't like the lime green cars, and just because I call in a lime green car doesn't lead to stopping the individual driving that car.
I view it as the officer escalating the situation in an attempt to "control" it.
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on March 02 2015 03:32:56 PM MST
Sorry I am pro cop, all the guy did was adjust the weapon after the cop moved it.
If the cop was right he would charged him with the proper offenses from the beginning.
What happened is they looked through the books to justify a arrest. BS police work.
And I am pro gun.
The guy knew he was creating a situation by open carrying an AR on the road. The LEO took a look at the gun and the guy grabbed it. He is the one who escalated the situation. The LEO had a right to ensure his own safety.
That having been said, the LEO could have handled the situation better. But hindsight is 20/20, and obstruction of justice is the correct charge for what the guy did. If he is going to tempt fate by walking around with an AR exposed, he should be smart about the way he conducts himself and should choose his actions wisely.
The LEO fondled the gun and let go, the man re adjusted it.
If you are allowed to open carry you should be able to do so anywhere, otherwise ban it.
Once the cop determined he was no threat he should have let him go, but these cops have thin skins and their egos took over.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 02 2015 06:57:00 PM MST
The LEO fondled the gun and let go, the man re adjusted it.
If you are allowed to open carry you should be able to do so anywhere, otherwise ban it.
Once the cop determined he was no threat he should have let him go, but these cops have thin skins and their egos took over.
The guy grabbed the gun and said "Don't disarm me." Watch the video again wolfie.
The cop walked up, there was basic conversation, the cop starting fondling the gun, then tried to take possession of the gun. That is when the guy said, " hey, don't try to disarm me". Then the cop pulled his gun....
Should we chalk it up to poor training (which is an excuse I hear quite a bit), the cop was deliberately abusive, or both and the cop escalated the situation with his behaviour?
The cop handled it totally wrong.
He should have came out in a defensive position right off the bat, ordered him to lay the rifle down and ask him if he had any other weapons. If so lay that it on the ground also. Then he should have asked for ID and determine if something was wrong.
If the man was a threat he would have easily killed the cop and his boss rolling in as backup.
The cops were lucky.
Wolfie, what you are describing is called a "felony stop". In order to legally conduct such a stop the officer has to have a strong reason to suspect the detainee has ALREADY committed serious violent crime. A man with a gun does not meet that criteria.
In order to justify taking this individuals gun, this needed to be a terry stop. I don't know who represented Mr. Grisham, but if there were a question as to the elements of Terry being met, I would presume it was challenged and the challenge lost.
Which brings up the big issue. Thanks in no small part to a societal culture of fear regarding guns, we seem to think a terry stop of an armed person is a given, and that a felony stop is not unreasonable. This cultural fear is reinforced by legislation such as the 94 AWB, another reason I think it was reprehensible legislation.
The reason this should bother us? Officers are hired to protect citizens rights. Public safety protocols are in place to ensure we can all go about our business secure in our lives, liberties and properties. That is the reason police officers are paid.
And yet, in the name of officer safety, we trample the very rights these officers are sworn to protect.
I am not cop hater. I wore the badge, graduated top of my class from the academy. I have lots of friends that are still in law enforcement. But, I think the current state of affairs doesn't add up to a free country. And I think this case illustrates that very well.
In a free country, the cop would have not even felt he had the prerogative to question a man walking about in public with a gun, anymore than a man walking home from the store with a gallon of bleach and a gallon of ammonia. The potential death toll, used with evil intent, is far higher for the bleach and ammonia.
I would call it more a "Probable Cause" stop as a call from a civilian was made. I consider a "Felony Stop" something you know a crime was committed. Most of my probable cause stops resulted in interview and release. All of my felony stops resulted in arrest. Otherwise I concur.
I worked at a Police department 35+ years ago. After two years I quit because the officers were no better than the average criminal. My experience with police today (the past 10 years) is that they are worse than they were 35 years ago.
So...
The police officer didn't look like he was doing anything wrong. He was acting a little jerky, but that would have to be accepted considering the type of people he has to deal with every day, and he doesn't know anything about the guy with the gun.
The guy with the AR was carrying it on a public street, in front of him, and in the ready position (left handed shooter?) with a 30 round magazine in the mag-well. The cop didn't know if the gun and magazine were loaded.
He said he was carrying it because "he can." It sounds to me like he was carrying it looking for a possible confrontation so he could assert his "rights."
The cop still had his hands on the gun when the guy touched the stock: One of the cops hands was on the magazine and the other one was on the shoulder strap.
Conclusion: Two egos collide. The cops ego won.
.
^^^^Thats the bottom line
probable cause = Terry stop.
What was the probably cause? Man with gun? That is not a crime in this part of Texas.
SqlBullet, a Terry Stop is a reasonable suspicion stop.
Normally out in the country this most likely would not apply, especially in Texas. But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
As I stated earlier this stop could have been handled better...ON BOTH SIDES.
I will leave it at that.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
No, they didn't. Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.
In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.
If he was threatening people, or aiming the weapon at things or people, different story.
Greg
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 07:45:11 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
No, they didn't. Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.
In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.
Greg
I am going to have to disagree here, Greg. They have a job to protect the community. If people are calling about this guy (which they did according to the video) the LEO's have a duty to at least stop and talk to the guy.
What if he was some kind of mentally unstable individual, and the police did nothing, and the guy later went on to kill some people?
The police have an obligation to protect the public.
I believe Texas law even states that carrying a gun is not cause stop or detain someone.
Greg
That;s fine if this is the case. But, there is also something called a "mere encounter" where the police can stop and talk to someone. In this case the guy was detained when he started to lose his cool. It isn't a crime to lose your cool, but he put the officer in fear when he grabbed the weapon.
Don't forget, this guy was found GUILTY in a Texas court of law.
Again, it could have been handled better on both sides.
I've been stopped with weapons. I keep my head on a swivel, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to now you've drawn the attention of law enforcement. Well before their final approach, I handle the gun by the barrel place it against a tree or fence, or on the ground and take several steps toward the place where I can meet with officer. Its just not smart to have that weapon that ready for use with LEOs.
I would then let them know I wasn't a harm to any one, but I really don't want to chat with them either. That's (talking to LEO's) is not smart either!!! I would ask if I'm detained, what the reason for the detention if they said "yes" and request that I'd be allowed to be on my way if they said "no".
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist. It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.
Greg
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist. It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.
Greg, I agree with you completely. This stop was untenable. It was exceedingly weak. There simply wasn't sufficient information for the officers to determine, as a reasonable and prudent man, that there was evidence a crime had been or was being committed by the guy just walking around with a gun. He shouldn't have touched the citizen or his weapon until he had developed probable cause sufficient to affect an arrest. He should have asked what the guy was doing, why he needed the gun, if he was lawfully allowed to possess the weapon, and then let the guy go on his way. Clearly this was another instance of a police officer becoming uncomfortable with a situation that they typically have little training in and he reacted rashly, to the point of over-reaching in his authority to the detriment of the citizen with the rifle.
The stop should have merely been an encounter, which the citizen should have been freely able to break off at any point, because there was no reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct a stop (a detainment) for the purpose of investigation. Unless the citizen had pointed the weapon at someone (or "brandished" in some jurisdictions) or done something else to lead the officers to have probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, they had no business fully
detaining him in the first place. He should have been allowed to walk free, unmolested, whenever he wanted and the instant he wasn't able to he was being detained unlawfully.
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
I've been stopped with weapons. I keep my head on a swivel, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to now you've drawn the attention of law enforcement. Well before their final approach, I handle the gun by the barrel place it against a tree or fence, or on the ground and take several steps toward the place where I can meet with officer. Its just not smart to have that weapon that ready for use with LEOs.
I would then let them know I wasn't a harm to any one, but I really don't want to chat with them either. That's (talking to LEO's) is not smart either!!! I would ask if I'm detained, what the reason for the detention if they said "yes" and request that I'd be allowed to be on my way if they said "no".
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist. It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.
Greg
I agree with you Greg, that the incident could have been handled better on both sides. And you are correct, that PC did not exist initially. This is why I brought up the "Mere encounter."
Unfortunately, our open carry advocate decided to escalate the situation. Remember, "DON'T DISARM ME" as he put his hands on his rifle.
Our open carry advocate chose to make his point in a manner that was devoid of common sense. Then he resisted (obstructed) by not putting his hands behind his back. He was found GUILTY of this in a court of law.
So.....please. Let's not look at this blindly as a gun rights issue. Let's look at this as a faulty way of some guy trying to make a stand for open carry. He could have done this better. I have been a LEO for 26 years, and the feeling I get from the way the officers were acting, was that they would have sent him on his way if he would have been cooperative.
Remember, this happened in TEXAS, where most cops are pro gun.
Quote from: Centimeter on March 04 2015 12:44:14 AM MST
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist. It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.
Greg, I agree with you completely. This stop was untenable. It was exceedingly weak. There simply wasn't sufficient information for the officers to determine, as a reasonable and prudent man, that there was evidence a crime had been or was being committed by the guy just walking around with a gun. He shouldn't have touched the citizen or his weapon until he had developed probable cause sufficient to affect an arrest. He should have asked what the guy was doing, why he needed the gun, if he was lawfully allowed to possess the weapon, and then let the guy go on his way. Clearly this was another instance of a police officer becoming uncomfortable with a situation that they typically have little training in and he reacted rashly, to the point of over-reaching in his authority to the detriment of the citizen with the rifle.
The stop should have merely been an encounter, which the citizen should have been freely able to break off at any point, because there was no reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct a stop (a detainment) for the purpose of investigation. Unless the citizen had pointed the weapon at someone (or "brandished" in some jurisdictions) or done something else to lead the officers to have probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, they had no business fully detaining him in the first place. He should have been allowed to walk free, unmolested, whenever he wanted and the instant he wasn't able to he was being detained unlawfully.
Please see the above explanation to Greg. The subject himself escalated this situation from a mere encounter to a stop.
The whole video makes my heart sink.
First, somehow, its some how OK to stop someone doing nothing wrong. What about someone driving a car? Is there not destruction power in a 3500 lb vehicle? Why is it OK to stop someone open carrying, but not knowing (concealed) would have never had an issue? IMHO there is just no justification based on what could be done with the firearm. If there were reports of shots fired, sure.
Then there is our activist. I repeat its not a good thing to not manage to get that firearm off his body before the officer made the stop. He is risking a hole in his body. The officer was certainly under-gunned in that situation and I'd be twitchy too. To place hands on the gun was a boo-boo on the officer's part. If he was going to do that, he should announce his intentions. "I'm going to remove the magazine for my safety". "I'm going to clear the chamber", or better yet, "Please place the gun on the ground". The dude was ex-military and I can see the reaction to being disarmed as being a remnant of his military training. You just don't let someone take possession of you weapon in the military.
The dude was out to get a video and he accomplished that. It has us all wound up about it years after it happened.
Greg
Yes, and you know what else I though of Greg? Nobody here would have acted like that guy.
If any of us wanted to make a point about open carry, we would have been much smarter about it.
I've been stopped before while CCWing. Out of RESPECT for our heroes of law enforcement it went something like this. (Both hands on steering wheel) officer, sir. I am a licensed concealed weapons permit licensee, I am carrying a S&W semi auto in a shoulder holster under my left arm pit. It is loaded but secure. What woul you like me to do?
From that point EVERYTHING I did I described to him in detail from getting my wallet to handing him my registration as I was doing it very slowly. I Didn't legally have to but it seemed stupid not to. He thanked me and let me go on my way with maybe an extra 5 minutes added on to the stop while he made sure my pistol wasn't stolen and my ccw license was valid. Not even ticketed.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
SqlBullet, a Terry Stop is a reasonable suspicion stop.
Normally out in the country this most likely would not apply, especially in Texas. But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
Quite right... brain fart on my part.
So....What was the reasonable suspicion?
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:48:28 PM MST
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 07:45:11 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
No, they didn't. Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.
In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.
Greg
I am going to have to disagree here, Greg. They have a job to protect the community. If people are calling about this guy (which they did according to the video) the LEO's have a duty to at least stop and talk to the guy.
What if he was some kind of mentally unstable individual, and the police did nothing, and the guy later went on to kill some people?
The police have an obligation to protect the public.
By this rationale, would you have to interview someone walking about with a coke bottle in there hand, if there was a call about a man with a coke bottle?
I think we can both agree that dispatch would NOT put such a complaint through to an officer. And certainly if they did and the officer terry stopped a man for holding a bottle of coke and clutching it defensively, it would not stand up in court.
A man about with a gun IS legal here. Doing a legal thing in a legal place is NOT reasonable suspicion for a terry stop no matter how uncomfortable it make hoplophobes.
Yes, the police are free to interview anyone dumb enough to stop and talk to them. But, given that this interview starts a command to "hang on a minute", I also think it is reasonable to say this whole thing started with an unwarranted terry stop, not a consensual interview.
I would love to read some legal opinion on this case if anyone has any commentary to cite. Cause I honestly don't see the legal foundation for this stop in a truly free country.
To me it looked like the guy with the gun was looking to make a statement (looking for a fight). He got what he wanted and lost. It was all about him and what he wanted. He didn't care if someone else didn't like his behavior.
Why was he carrying a loaded rifle out in the middle of nowhere?
Did he think he would be attacked by a charging rhino?
Why didn't he have the gun slung over his shoulder with the magazine removed? Was he afraid a Fugawee Pigmy would run out of the grass and steal his rifle?
It may be legal for him to do it, but he has to realize that his actions, in this day and age, will draw unwanted attention and possible the police. I could legally walk through a busy mall with nothing but a skimpy speedo and bunny slippers, but I would expect security to stop me and ask questions.
Personally I am sick of people using; "this is America," "it's a free country," "this isn't Nazi Germany," and/or "I have the right" as an excuse for anti-social narcissistic behavior. People around here ride their uncorked Harley motorcycles through the neighborhood at 2am because "this is a free country." Other punks play their stereo so loud it rattles a house a block away: They think it is funny. And then there are those people who feel they have the right to blow their cigarette or cigar smoke in your face while at a restaurant (Thankfully they can't do this in California anymore).
.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 04 2015 11:01:57 AM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
SqlBullet, a Terry Stop is a reasonable suspicion stop.
Normally out in the country this most likely would not apply, especially in Texas. But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
Quite right... brain fart on my part.
So....What was the reasonable suspicion?
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:48:28 PM MST
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 07:45:11 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.
No, they didn't. Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.
In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.
Greg
I am going to have to disagree here, Greg. They have a job to protect the community. If people are calling about this guy (which they did according to the video) the LEO's have a duty to at least stop and talk to the guy.
What if he was some kind of mentally unstable individual, and the police did nothing, and the guy later went on to kill some people?
The police have an obligation to protect the public.
By this rationale, would you have to interview someone walking about with a coke bottle in there hand, if there was a call about a man with a coke bottle?
I think we can both agree that dispatch would NOT put such a complaint through to an officer. And certainly if they did and the officer terry stopped a man for holding a bottle of coke and clutching it defensively, it would not stand up in court.
A man about with a gun IS legal here. Doing a legal thing in a legal place is NOT reasonable suspicion for a terry stop no matter how uncomfortable it make hoplophobes.
Yes, the police are free to interview anyone dumb enough to stop and talk to them. But, given that this interview starts a command to "hang on a minute", I also think it is reasonable to say this whole thing started with an unwarranted terry stop, not a consensual interview.
I would love to read some legal opinion on this case if anyone has any commentary to cite. Cause I honestly don't see the legal foundation for this stop in a truly free country.
There was no reasonable suspicion. The stop began as a mere encounter, the way I saw it. It escalated once our open carry advocate put his hands on his weapon and demanded not to be disarmed. Not a smart move under the circumstances I think we can all agree. Terry vs. Ohio gives police officers the tools they need to protect themselves. In another words, all an officer has to do is articulate why he or she is in fear for his or her safety, and they can conduct a patdown frisk, or handcuff people for safety purposes.
Johnny Open Carry grabbed his gun in the officer's presence, which legally escalated the encounter into a Terry stop. It was all down hill from there. He was convicted of obstruction in a TEXAS court of law.
Personally, I would have handled the encounter differently. But...this does not mean the officer acted outside his authority under the law. This is reinforced by the fact that Johnny was found guilty in court.
Quote from: my_old_glock on March 04 2015 11:04:49 AM MST
To me it looked like the guy with the gun was looking to make a statement (looking for a fight). He got what he wanted and lost. It was all about him and what he wanted. He didn't care if someone else didn't like his behavior.
Why was he carrying a loaded rifle out in the middle of nowhere?
Did he think he would be attacked by a charging rhino?
Why didn't he have the gun slung over his shoulder with the magazine removed? Was he afraid a Fugawee Pigmy would run out of the grass and steal his rifle?
It may be legal for him to do it, but he has to realize that his actions, in this day and age, will draw unwanted attention and possible the police. I could legally walk through a busy mall with nothing but a skimpy speedo and bunny slippers, but I would expect security to stop me and ask questions.
Personally I am sick of people using; "this is America," "it's a free country," "this isn't Nazi Germany," and/or "I have the right" as an excuse for anti-social narcissistic behavior. People around here ride their uncorked Harley motorcycles through the neighborhood at 2am because "this is a free country." Other punks play their stereo so loud it rattles a house a block away: They think it is funny. And then there are those people who feel they have the right to blow their cigarette or cigar smoke in your face while at a restaurant (Thankfully they can't do this in California anymore).
.
Well said Sir.
Wow, sounds like a women dressing in a short skirt and heels is looking to get raped defense.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 04 2015 01:10:03 PM MST
Wow, sounds like a women dressing in a short skirt and heels is looking to get raped defense.
Camon Wolfie, do you walk around town with an AR exposed? My AR rides in my trunk. I don't walk around the mall with it, even though I could do so and be 100% legal.
Wolfie's right; doesn't matter what the guy was doing if it was legal. Just because the officer was uncomfortable doesn't mean he can start violating people's rights. And it doesn't matter if the guy resisted being disarmed or resisted being arrested. That's fully legal when the impending arrest is unconstitutional. All the officer had to do was leave the gun be and tell the guy not to touch it, for safety, and then he'd conduct the rest of the "interview" like a respectful human being. When a police officer just starts grabbing you or your belongings without justification, regardless of what those items are, it's not okay. If the citizen actively began fighting with the officer that's a different story but in this instance all the guy did was attempt to break contact when the officer started to illegally disarm him and that's when the officer took it too far. Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not; doesn't matter if the guy was making a point or not; juries aren't always right, prosecution isn't always right, and defenses don't always win. That's what appeals are for. The guys rights were violated.
Quote from: Centimeter on March 04 2015 01:28:52 PM MST
Wolfie's right; doesn't matter what the guy was doing if it was legal. Just because the officer was uncomfortable doesn't mean he can start violating people's rights. And it doesn't matter if the guy resisted being disarmed or resisted being arrested. That's fully legal when the impending arrest is unconstitutional. All the officer had to do was leave the gun be and tell the guy not to touch it, for safety, and then he'd conduct the rest of the "interview" like a respectful human being. When a police officer just starts grabbing you or your belongings without justification, regardless of what those items are, it's not okay. If the citizen actively began fighting with the officer that's a different story but in this instance all the guy did was attempt to break contact when the officer started to illegally disarm him and that's when the officer took it too far. Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not; doesn't matter if the guy was making a point or not; juries aren't always right, prosecution isn't always right, and defenses don't always win. That's what appeals are for. The guys rights were violated.
I agree with your assessment. The officer didn't handle the situation as he should have, though what he did was legal. The guy didn't handle himself properly either.
Perhaps we can all learn from it.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 01:47:19 PM MST
Perhaps we can all learn from it.
You're absolutely right 4949shooter. I should have mentioned that I thought neither really behaved themselves as grown men should have and the situation escalated unnecessarily. We all should at least take note of the video and the implications it might have for those of us that may one day be stopped for something like this. It can always turn bad, sometimes very bad, but it doesn't need to. The totality of the circumstances is what we need to observe and respect and that includes treating the police officer with the same amount of respect that we feel we'd deserve. It's fine to make a point and to protest and so forth but there's a point where the fight isn't worth fighting when the possibility of a positive outcome cannot hope to overcome how terribly it could go, as was the case here. Let the officer do his job and if something unconstitutional happens that you feel needs to be pursued, then you pursue it. You don't stand and argue with a police officer, even if he's wrong. You let him be wrong and then you go on about your day, as a free American citizen, who is then able to freely contact the chief of police, the mayor, or a lawyer. The fight isn't won in the streets, it's won in the courts. Arguments and arrests don't set precedent, case law does.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 04:27:33 AM MST
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
{Snip}
I agree with you Greg, that the incident could have been handled better on both sides. And you are correct, that PC did not exist initially. This is why I brought up the "Mere encounter."
The cop showed poor restraint. He appeared to want to put this guy in his place. He escalated the situation on his own.
His actions forced the result.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 04:27:33 AM MST
Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist. It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.
Unfortunately, our open carry advocate decided to escalate the situation. Remember, "DON'T DISARM ME" as he put his hands on his rifle.
Our open carry advocate chose to make his point in a manner that was devoid of common sense. Then he resisted (obstructed) by not putting his hands behind his back. He was found GUILTY of this in a court of law.
So.....please. Let's not look at this blindly as a gun rights issue. Let's look at this as a faulty way of some guy trying to make a stand for open carry. He could have done this better. I have been a LEO for 26 years, and the feeling I get from the way the officers were acting, was that they would have sent him on his way if he would have been cooperative.
Remember, this happened in TEXAS, where most cops are pro gun.
We must not be watching the same video. The cop pulls up. Basic conversation takes place. The cop puts his hands on the gun in a manner that appears like admiration for the gun. Then he appears, to me, to try to disconnect the sling. Then the guy says 'don't try to disarm me'. Then the cop pulled his gun, pointing it at the guys head, and puts him on the hood....
Saying that you are doing something because you can is not probable cause. That cop needed thicker skin. If that comment provoked him he shouldn't have been a cop.
Let's not think so little of our rights. The exercising of rights legally should always be embraced. Don't let people shame you out of it.
Edit: @Rich10: Maybe you should read Centimeter's post above. It makes a lot of sense.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 01:47:19 PM MST
Quote from: Centimeter on March 04 2015 01:28:52 PM MST
Wolfie's right; doesn't matter what the guy was doing if it was legal. Just because the officer was uncomfortable doesn't mean he can start violating people's rights. And it doesn't matter if the guy resisted being disarmed or resisted being arrested. That's fully legal when the impending arrest is unconstitutional. All the officer had to do was leave the gun be and tell the guy not to touch it, for safety, and then he'd conduct the rest of the "interview" like a respectful human being. When a police officer just starts grabbing you or your belongings without justification, regardless of what those items are, it's not okay. If the citizen actively began fighting with the officer that's a different story but in this instance all the guy did was attempt to break contact when the officer started to illegally disarm him and that's when the officer took it too far. Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not; doesn't matter if the guy was making a point or not; juries aren't always right, prosecution isn't always right, and defenses don't always win. That's what appeals are for. The guys rights were violated.
I agree with your assessment. The officer didn't handle the situation as he should have, though what he did was legal. The guy didn't handle himself properly either.
Perhaps we can all learn from it.
And here lies the problem. The carrier was doing nothing illegal, the cop handled the situation incorrectly, and the guy gets screwed. It's called being a professional.
Quote from: Rich10 on March 04 2015 04:11:32 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 01:47:19 PM MST
Quote from: Centimeter on March 04 2015 01:28:52 PM MST
Wolfie's right; doesn't matter what the guy was doing if it was legal. Just because the officer was uncomfortable doesn't mean he can start violating people's rights. And it doesn't matter if the guy resisted being disarmed or resisted being arrested. That's fully legal when the impending arrest is unconstitutional. All the officer had to do was leave the gun be and tell the guy not to touch it, for safety, and then he'd conduct the rest of the "interview" like a respectful human being. When a police officer just starts grabbing you or your belongings without justification, regardless of what those items are, it's not okay. If the citizen actively began fighting with the officer that's a different story but in this instance all the guy did was attempt to break contact when the officer started to illegally disarm him and that's when the officer took it too far. Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not; doesn't matter if the guy was making a point or not; juries aren't always right, prosecution isn't always right, and defenses don't always win. That's what appeals are for. The guys rights were violated.
I agree with your assessment. The officer didn't handle the situation as he should have, though what he did was legal. The guy didn't handle himself properly either.
Perhaps we can all learn from it.
And here lies the problem. The carrier was doing nothing illegal, the cop handled the situation incorrectly, and the guy gets screwed. It's called being a professional.
No, it's called the guy carrying an AR 15 openly acts irresponsibly when confronted by a police officer. The police officer over reacted but he was clearly prompted by Open Carry Johnny.
They were BOTH wrong in the actions...not just the police officer.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 04:26:56 PM MST
Quote from: Rich10 on March 04 2015 04:11:32 PM MST
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 01:47:19 PM MST
Quote from: Centimeter on March 04 2015 01:28:52 PM MST
Wolfie's right; doesn't matter what the guy was doing if it was legal. Just because the officer was uncomfortable doesn't mean he can start violating people's rights. And it doesn't matter if the guy resisted being disarmed or resisted being arrested. That's fully legal when the impending arrest is unconstitutional. All the officer had to do was leave the gun be and tell the guy not to touch it, for safety, and then he'd conduct the rest of the "interview" like a respectful human being. When a police officer just starts grabbing you or your belongings without justification, regardless of what those items are, it's not okay. If the citizen actively began fighting with the officer that's a different story but in this instance all the guy did was attempt to break contact when the officer started to illegally disarm him and that's when the officer took it too far. Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not; doesn't matter if the guy was making a point or not; juries aren't always right, prosecution isn't always right, and defenses don't always win. That's what appeals are for. The guys rights were violated.
I agree with your assessment. The officer didn't handle the situation as he should have, though what he did was legal. The guy didn't handle himself properly either.
Perhaps we can all learn from it.
And here lies the problem. The carrier was doing nothing illegal, the cop handled the situation incorrectly, and the guy gets screwed. It's called being a professional.
No, it's called the guy carrying an AR 15 openly acts irresponsibly when confronted by a police officer. The police officer over reacted but he was clearly prompted by Open Carry Johnny.
They were BOTH wrong in the actions...not just the police officer.
I tend to agree. They were both douche bags. The cop acted like a brown shirt almost from the start. Did he deserve respect the way he acted not so much. His UNIFORM did deserve the respect. The guy also acted like a douche bag almost from the start. He wasn't hunting and was carrying the AR in a "ready" combat style. Not just slung over his shoulder. There was a lot of wrong done on both sides. The cop was unprofessional and use inflammatory phrases like yes I'm taking your gun. And the guy sounded like a petulant child.
Quote from: 4949shooter on March 04 2015 07:39:49 AM MST
Nobody here would have acted like that guy.
I know I wouldn't, for sure. To be truthful, I have a "do unto others" attitude, and I want to be as discrete as possible with firearms. In population, I restrict myself to concealed carry only. Its just reality that some are very uncomfortable with firearms and I try to respect that. What is lawful isn't always wise.
A few years ago I was in my driveway with a .22 rifle, getting close to the road. I drew the attention of a deputy that happened to be driving by. The gun was leaned against my fence and I made several steps toward him before he stopped the car. He asked what I was doing with the rifle, and I motioned across the road toward an injured or sick raccoon just off the road on the opposite ditch. I was going to dispatch that so the neighbor kids didn't think they could make a pet of it. He lectured my about shooting over a roadway, or within so many feet of the center line of the road. I just said I always try to do the right thing, and that would be finishing off the raccoon. He dispatched it with his side arm as long as I buried it.
Not planning ahead and making sure my gun didn't make him uncomfortable is just common sense. Making an officer concerned about saftey is NEVER wise. On traffic stops, I get my license and CC permit on the dash in front of the steering wheel, then place both hands on the wheel. When asked for my license, I give him BOTH. They understand right away, usually ask where its at, and generally never require any thing else other than to avoid rapid movement.
One thing that our carrying friend did that was a big boo-boo was threatening a law suit against the officer. I think that may have had more to do with the arrest when he might have been sent on his way after the officers discussed the situation. I don't think his part time job would have anything to do with being a rocket scientist.
Greg
Why would anyone think or even try to win an argument with a police officer (even if they are right)? Why not comply, make the situation safe so there is no concern on that front, THEN politely make your case in a discussion form with the officer?
Apparently many of you here are, or were, police officers. It just seems easier to me to by being compliant you provide no reason for anyone to think the situation MIGHT escalate. I have no problem doing that.
The officers at my range (including the owners who are active duty LEO's) all say they feel and act a LOT different if they have no safety concerns. Seems very reasonable to me.
Pat
I agree with Centimeter's comment above. I began to have a problem the instant the officer walked up and grabbed the man's rifle. If the officer had concerns for his personal safety, which I totally understand, then this act is the farthest thing he should be doing. Also, the guy and his son are walking along farm or ranch land on a 1.5 lane road that is just a strip of asphalt. The part that got my blood flowing was when the officer goes and gives his "story" to the backup officer and it immediately deviates from what the dashcam captured. Yes, both were pushy and dominant personalities but I cannot understand how a court that should have viewed the dashcam footage could have ruled the way they did is absolutely beyond me.
To the many leos on this site, thank you for putting you lives on the line each and every day.
Army Master Sergeant CJ Grisham is a veteran. I will take a guess and say he was in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I wonder what would have happened if he encountered a man and his son walking down a road with an AK47 (in Iraq or Afghanistan), and if the guy put his hands on his rifle while Grisham was talking to him? I bet he would have filled the guy with vent holes, and the son also.
A lot of veterans like to say: "If you love your freedom, Thank a Veteran." I wonder if he thanks himself every morning for his "freedom."
I am also a Veteran, but I don't expect, nor want, anyone to thank me for anything. I would like to be treated fairly in this country, but that is something that will never happen.
.
Quote from: HammersD on March 06 2015 06:54:39 PM MST
Yes, both were pushy and dominant personalities but I cannot understand how a court that should have viewed the dashcam footage could have ruled the way they did is absolutely beyond me.
Sadly the dash-cam video
wasn't allowed to be admitted as evidence so it was never seen aside from the defense and prosecution.
The video was not allowed as evidence?
Wow, what a shame, justice was denied.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 09 2015 09:51:47 AM MDT
The video was not allowed as evidence?
Wow, what a shame, justice was denied.
Agreed. I just shook my head as I read it. Talk about a miscarriage of justice.