Legal? Sure.
Suspicious? Sure.
Grisham claimed he was carrying it in case of feral hog attacks? Suuuurrre.
Posted on 04/16/2013 7:16:35 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
I just got off the phone with Army Master Sergeant. C. J. Grisham, a serving American soldier and veteran of the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who recently was illegally disarmed by the Temple Police Department while out for a walk with his son.
“We live out in the country in Texas, near Temple,” he told me. “My son and I were on a ten-mile hike so that he could earn his hiking merit badge – it’s the last badge he needs to become an Eagle Scout.” But half way into the hike, Grisham said, “a police officer pulled up.” Initially, he was “cordial” and he “asked what we were doing.” Grisham told him. “Then he looked at my rifle. I carry a rifle any time I walk around because there are feral hogs and cougars and things like that.”
From here, things took a turn for the worse.
“‘Where you going with that rifle?’ he asked me. I said, ‘does it matter? Am I breaking any laws?’” Then, he says, the officer “grabbed the rifle without telling me – but it was attached to me. My immediate reaction as a combat veteran was to grab it back and then take a step back. I asked him what he was doing. So he pulled his gun on me. Then I thought about my son, so I put my hands off my gun and he told me to move over to the car. Luckily my son had the video camera to document the hike for his merit badge. I told him to turn it on.”
(video at link and story continues)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“If you are stopped for a legal reason...”
The cops had a complaint. We do not know what the complainer said, but I’d bet she (probably a she) said the guy was acting weird and dangerous. Complainers don’t always stick to the facts.
Once the complaint has been made, the cops DO have a legal basis for finding out what is happening.
“The cops had a complaint. We do not know what the complainer said, but I’d bet she (probably a she) said the guy was acting weird and dangerous. Complainers don’t always stick to the facts.
Once the complaint has been made, the cops DO have a legal basis for finding out what is happening.”
Sure, there’s the possibility the caller said the subject was pointing the rifle at traffic passing by. We don’t know, but that would change the situation entirely.
“If you are stopped for a legal reason...”
The cops had a complaint. We do not know what the complainer said, but I’d bet she (probably a she) said the guy was acting weird and dangerous. Complainers don’t always stick to the facts.
Once the complaint has been made, the cops DO have a legal basis for finding out what is happening.
If the complaing is of an illegal activity, yes you are correct. If the complaing was simply “I saw a man carrying a rifle.” There is no illegal activity and thus no reasonable suspicion and thus no authority to disarm. The only authority is to conduct a consensual encounter.
We do not know what the complaint was. But given how liberals think, I’d bet a large sum of money the complaint was that some guy was acting weird, has a rifle, looks like he may shoot somebody. And the cops in the patrol car just get what the dispatcher tells them, which was probably along the lines of “Report some guy with a gun is acting strange, location XYZ”.
So yes, they do need to stop and talk to the guy, and during that time they do (in Arizona) have the right to disarm anyone nearby.
Legal? Sure.
Suspicious? Sure.
Grisham claimed he was carrying it in case of feral hog attacks? Suuuurrre.
I’ve only seen the video. I have no knowledge of the actual complaint. I also have no confidence in the truthfulness of liberals.
There is nothing illegal about a citizen of Arabic descent walking along a road with an AR-15 shouting “Allah Akbar!” - but it would make me nervous, and I think the cops OUGHT to talk to the guy.
Given how belligerent this guy was, I’d have taken his gun away too. He doesn’t strike me as someone playing with a full deck of cards.
I’m also annoyed by this guy’s “I’m a combat vet!” BS. So am I. So was my Dad. So is my son-in-law. So is my son. So is my oldest daughter. And none of us find ourselves fighting with the cops....
That cop weighed in a 270 at least.,
An officer can legally disarm if he feels threatened
Please see the article from 2009 linked in post 31 here.
I strongly suggest you read the article then decide for yourself if you want to support him or tear him down.
How subjective and convenient for the cop. The officer in this case actively created the “threatening” situation as a pretext to disarm a citizen.
I strongly suggest you read the article then decide for yourself if you want to support him or tear him down.
***************
IMO, it’s not support or tear him down, but rather what happened in this particular case. We don’t know yet as we’ve heard bits and pieces. The video is an after the fact thing in that it starts after he is being arrested. It doesn’t show what led up to the arrest.
If a call comes in involving a man with a gun and officer dispatched to investigate. He arrives and theres a man with an AR slung in the low ready position, is he crazy is he a felon or just some idiot trying to prove a point? He confronts the man and attemps to disarm before continuing which is his right if he felt threatened. It was at this point addmited to by the soldier himself on a monday talk show that grabbed the rifle from the officer. The officer pulls his weapon and holds him there until another unit arrives.
Now is walking down the road with a rifle illegal in TX NO but Texas Penal Code 42.01(8) could come into play.
One could argue Texas Penal Code 42.01(8)
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
Carrying slung at the low ready could be argued that is a manner calculated to alarm. As it is a ready state, it is certainly more alarming than a rifle that is slung over the shoulder.
I think if he would have been more cooperative, this would have had a different outcome and he wouldn’t have ended up in cuffs. Now he may beat the rap, but he didn’t beat the ride and it is going to end up costing him to fight this.
What is a more of a threat in apperance.
A man with a pistol in his holster or a man with a pistol in his hand.
A man with a rifle on his shoulder or a man with his rifle slung in the low ready in front of him.
While he may have posed no threat a rifle in the low ready could be contrued as one giving the officer the right to disarm.
Do you know if there is a transcript or recording of the Lynn Woolley show that can be retrieved to hear the conversation of what was actually said?
Very true. However knowing some background about the man himself can help add perspective.
Curious, did you read the article I posted the link to? If so I would be interested in your views.
Certainly the original complaint is the wild card.
I would suggest to anyone who is interested to study the difference between a lawful detention and what level of suspicion is needed for it and how that differs from a consensual encounter.
Law enforcement will often participate in a consensual encounter with some individual who seems out of place in a neighborhood for instance. The vast majority of the time the subject will comply and will answer the officer’s questions. In a consensual encounter, however, the subject is free to leave and does not have to answer the officer’s questions. But that is a relatively rare event that someone would do that because they don’t want to be rude or are scared to upset the officer. When it does occur, that is when we see the officer often overreacting and operating outside the bounds of legal authority.
Bump
I glanced/skimmed it but didn’t read it in detail. So I’m not in a position to comment on it one way or the other. I’m more interested in the events leading up to the arrest which we don’t have at this time.
Take care.
“K. If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact.”
Section 13-3102, Arizona Revised Statutes
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03102.htm
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.