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 Grisham’s 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 Grisham’s 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 Grisham’s cause. Blue Rannefeld, lawyer for the National Association of Legal Gun Defense, gave the defense’s opening statement and blasted Ermis for going “above and beyond to control and intimidate” Grisham.
When the younger Grisham testified on his father’s 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 Grisham’s head when the solider refused to surrender his rifle.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” - Robert A. Heinlein
From the video, it appears that neither the policeman nor the sergeant were conducting themselves in a polite and courteous manner and both are fortunate that this incident didn’t devolve into a complete disaster.
What's difficult about having the police dispatcher ask if the person bearing arms had fired the gun? What is difficult about asking if the person had pointed the gun at the complainant? If the caller cannot articulate any action which would justify a police response, why are the police responding? Keeping and bearing arms is an unalienable, Constitutionally protected right.
As I recall, the Pennsylvania Constitution states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned." Yet many on this forum would question anyone bearing arms.
On the contrary, he acted ratoinally and with great restraint. In decades long ago, LEOs who tried such a stunt could expect to get shot in self defense, and a judge would uphold the self defense claims...in some jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions where the fix was in on the sidde of the local police, you did not have to actually do anything wrong or right to get arrested and die in jail.
One of you is a John McCain republican, the other is a Ted Cruz conservative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks. I’ll take that compliment - even though I’m not sure how it applies here.
But since I voted for and support Ted Cruz - and since DC is a liberaltarian - it’s pretty obvious which is which.
>> I see now why you so quickly take Grisham’s side. You have nothing useful to add, but just want to provoke a non-issue.
Of course you fail to see or admit the irony of your complaint.
Don’t be a statist!
On a similar case where an officer with no warrant and no right to arrest tried to take the gun of a man who was in lawful possession of it.
“At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if, in the course of that resistance, the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.”
John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/case.html
Question: When securing a scene - does an officer have the right and even the duty to secure a weapon from a hostile and angry individual?
Give me an answer to that and them come back with your exceeding lawful authority BS.
Yeah, that's proof of a setup alrighty because it's SO RARE for anyone to carry a "camera phone" with them. LOL Gawd! you're a terrible liar.
The only thing inherently confrontational about bearing arms, is that we know and have tolerated police forces who have violated our rights.
Similarly, the only thing inherently confrontational about being prepared to record the actions of a police officer, is that we know that the police can only be held fully accountable if their actions are recorded and that a large number of police officers will attempt to violate this right. Without the recording, far too many will give the police the benefit of any doubt when that is entirely unjustified.
I know - I know. I’m not providing all sides of the story here - except for previous links. But again - this arrest is NOT a case of Open Carry. Read the replies.
Basically - if you go and dare a cop to arrest you - and you give him enough cause - you will get arrested.
No... I’m all the way down and slightly to the right, according to your diagram.
>> from a hostile and angry individual?
“Did you snarl at me?! Did you, punk???!!! Freeze! You’re under arrest!!!”
From the video, it appears that neither the policeman nor the sergeant were conducting themselves in a polite and courteous manner and both are fortunate that this incident didn’t devolve into a complete disaster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know what? I agree. But based on Grisham’s hostile attitude - that complete disaster you speculate about - could have been the death of SGT Grisham. And so the fortunate one is Grisham himself.
Good.
The courtesy is owed to the civilian.
And with the recording - Grisham’s goose is cooked.
“One of the ways Grisham staged this confrontation was with his camera phone. As is evident in the video - and in the police report - Grisham had his son ready, willing and able to record the conflict as soon as it began.”
Now you are inventing flat out lies. The video we see shows Grisham holding the camera phone, not his son at the first part of the video. Grisham only later handed the phone to his son and asked his son to record the confrontation already underway. Furthermore,m the video does not show the approach of the police, the police stopping Grisham and his son, nor the police officer approaching Grisham on foot. Contrary to your lie, the video we see indicates the video recording began only after the police confrontation had already begun, and not before the confrontation in anticipation of staged confrontation.
“Another way Grisham “tricked” the police was by trying to bully and intimidate the officer.”
You evidently lack judgement, because Grisham certainly did not attempt to intimidate the officers. He did no more than state the obvious consequences of failing to observe the normal bounds of the law, decency, and respect. There are far too many people today who tolerate and promote unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.
“Never a smart move. Did the cop over-react? Yeah. Probably.”
Grisham peacefully submitted to the unlawful searches, seizures, and arrest while exercising his 1st Amendment rights of free speech and protest. In response, the Temple police officers inflicted extralegal punishments designed to intimidate and punish lawful behaviors.
“But Grisham should thank God he’s still alive. As we know - way too many cops would have shot Grisham dead there on the spot for the stunts he pulled.”
Your above statements demosnstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt you are totally lacking in good judgement and deserve every condemnation. Any law enforcement officer who sahres your above opinion should be immediately discharged from any service as a police officer, law enforcement officer, or other officer of our governments; because such persons are unfit to serve in any capacity of public trust or honor.
That is a strawman argument, because there was no hostile and angry person involved in this incident.
Actually DU is <————— to the left
Common courtesy is usally extended bi-laterally between individuals or groups.
The big problem today is no one has any at all.
This should have been a non-issue.
Courteous officers, investigating a complaint, meet a courteous individual with a firearm, as reported. Courteous, non-confrontational exchange on both sides conclude that the individual is well within his rights to proceed. Good days are exchanged, and both go on their way.
Instead, it turns into a pissing match. Then, it doesn’t matter who is within their rights. The bigger pisser will win.
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.