Posted on 10/17/2013 1:16:18 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The fate of a Fort Hood soldier who was arrested in March while openly carrying an AR-15 rifle down a road in Central Texas is now in the hands of a jury. The trial of Christopher Grisham has drawn the ardent interest of gun-rights advocates nationwide.
Grisham, an active-duty Army Master Sergeant, was accompanying his 15-year-old son on a 10-mile hike back in March. The hike was part of the younger Grishams Boy Scout activities.
Grisham and Christopher Grisham Jr. were walking along Airport Road in West Temple, Texas, when they were approached by police officer Steve Ermis.
The police had received a call from someone alarmed by the sight of a man walking in public carrying a military-style assault weapon.
When Ermis confronted the elder Grisham, the soldier protested. Shortly, the teenage Grisham whipped out is cell phone and recorded the incident. That video can be seen in its entirety below.
At trial, which concluded this morning, Oct. 17, Ermis testified that he did not know why Grisham was carrying the high-powered weapon and that aspects of Grishams behavior were troubling to him.
Grisham faces a misdemeanor charge of interfering with the duties of a police officer. According to court records cited in the press, the soldier resisted when the cop tried to get him to put his hands behind his back. He also refused to hand over his rifle.
It is not illegal to carry a rifle in Texas.
Gun rights advocates have taken up Grishams cause. Blue Rannefeld, lawyer for the National Association of Legal Gun Defense, gave the defenses opening statement and blasted Ermis for going above and beyond to control and intimidate Grisham.
When the younger Grisham testified on his fathers behalf, he said the rifle was for fending off feral hogs that had been spotted in the area.
He also said that Ermis drew his own gun and aimed it at the back of the senior Grishams head when the solider refused to surrender his rifle.
Never saw anything about it on the news, so either nobody called the cops, or nothing untoward happened when they visited with him.
bump
See post 216.
bbell has it posted over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3080731/posts
It would interesting to the split in the jury. I believe it takes two or more
to hang a six person jury....
Keep in mind the charge was obstructing or resisting and not for lawfully carrying.
So - taking the strict letter of the law to the extreme - he could be technically found guilty.
Do you think the DA will retry? I don’t think so.
Yes I know that the weapon wasn’t the basis of the charge.
He’ll probably not be retried, imo. I suspect with all the
attention that has been given to the case the DA will let
it lie.
Thanks!
Thanks for the update ping.
IMO the DA already extracted a pound of flesh (and more!) from Grisham. He sent a clear message.
This is not the first time Grisham has been at the center of controversry. And I’m guessing it won’t be the last.
I hope he can get out of military without ruining his many years of service.
I know things can get tough and hard to take sometimes.
Vet: That’s quite a beat down you gave that guy. I almost felt sorry for him... almost...
You chose to be a serf who cowers to the lords of the manor. We choose to be free men.
“I saw a police officer interfering with the free exercise of personal liberty by a citizen.”
BINGO!! Very well said!
Back Atcha......Post 114 and Post 176
Maybe that's why you're being ignored by the rest of us........
"Securing a scene" is a lawful response to an alleged crime that has just been committed...........
Unfortunately for you bro, there was no crime committed here...........as we keep telling you over and over and over...ad nauseum.
But keep it up, we need you for our October poster boy for the new "stupid of the month" calendar.
And if my aunt had balls, she would have been my uncle. At least she wouldn't have been accosted by an obnoxious, over zealous cop who has absolutely no knowledge of the constitutional rights of the people he is paid to protect.....
Here is a link to a video of a completely different case. Tell me what you think about this woman's "attitude."
The Freerepublic thread is here. The link is in the thread.
Border check point officer vs young woman in car..'it's none of your business'
Note... the YouTube video has been taken down. I hope the LiveLeak video is still active. It really is worth watching, as this woman is a 20-something year old with her husband videotaping the encounter. She is hardly the confontational type, and you can hear her nervousness in her wavering voice as she stands her ground.
In this case, the woman was stopped at an immigration checkpoint near the border, but on a normal USA road. What looks to be young border agents become arrogant with the woman when she refuses to let them search her car without any cause. They direct her to move to a "secondary holding area," and she refuses to leave the road, demanding to know why she's being detained.
The woman interpreted secondary holding as being detained, and asked if she was being detained or was free to go? She refused to be detained for the simple act of exercising her rights.
The question then becomes, back to your point, how much deference is a common citizen expected to give law enforcement? Would you agree, at least, that there is a minimum expectation that declining to give law enforcement permission to search is not de facto admission of guilt of something that can be used against a person immediately to hold them?
In this case, refusing to answer questions about where one is going with their legally carried gun is not de facto evidence of guilt of something that requires police hostility?
-PJ
Interesting.
Despite the annimosity upthread, thank you for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.