Texas cops arrest soldier for legally carrying a gun

[Rich10]

{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.

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. 

[4949shooter]

Edit: @Rich10: Maybe you should read Centimeter's post above. It makes a lot of sense.

[Rich10]

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. 

[4949shooter]

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.

[P33v3]

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.

[Geeman]

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

[Buckeye 50]

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

[HammersD]

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.

[my_old_glock]

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.



.

[Centimeter]

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.

[Wolfie]

The video was not allowed as evidence?

Wow, what a shame, justice was denied.

[Centimeter]

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.