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.
Dude I don’t think the man was daring anybody to do anything. He was minding his own business out with his kid on a country road. Not only is it legal to open carry in Texas Grisham has a concealed carry permit which he told the cop about. The cop should have said “have a nice day and moved on”
There’s not much of a story here except apparently there is a mindset in the area to attempt to intimidate people from open carry. Standing up for your rights can get you thrown in jail. Sometimes you have to embrace the pain to keep your rights.
What the heck they had a Jury-This is nuts.Good luck to you Chris and you will be in my prayers ((((Hugs))))
I don’t disagree.
As far as I’m concerned, the standards and pay must be much higher for LEOs, but that comes with no bennies nor special immunity; no such thing as “putting in the time.”. The job would require the best in society and preferably fewer.
Good lord! What is the matter with you people?
The constitution does not give you the right to bears:
For Hunting;
for protection;
for self defense;
for pissing off a liberal.
It just says you have the right to bear arms. I do not give a shit is this guys wants a confrontation! The cop should be well trained enough to diffuse a purpose full confrontation, or a guy just hunting or . . . It was not worth while to AGRESSIVELY confront someone for doing something perfectly legal. Maybe Grisham wanted a confrontation SO WHAT! the dumb ass aggressive asshole did not have to give it him. The cop should have shot his dog or the neighbors dog and gone his merry way.
From the National Review article:
“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.”
If he had acted rationally he would have responded to the officer as to why he was carrying his weapon. Instead he chose a confrontational a$$hole route. And I never heard him refer to the officer as "sir". In the south it's common sense to refer to officers as 'sir', just like they refer to you as 'sir' or Mame.
He’s a MSG, not a SGT.
I realize this is a bit of a non-sequitur and everyone has been saying SGT, but I’d never call a Master Sergeant a Sergeant.
That said, how the heck did he pass height-weight?
ACK!!! MSG Grisham, not SGT Grisham. That’s like saying, “Good morning LT” to a Major. Don’t do it.
It’s an earned title and, unless he’s been busted, please use the correct one.
Question: Does an officer have the right or even the duty to attempt to anger and create hostility in an individual in order to secure a weapon legally carried by the individual?
Rank, not title. Good grief. This stomach bug is killing me.
Well here you go again, lack of argument so start the bad mouthing.........You're famous for that bro........
“‘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.
Regarding your link #1, the only problem I see was with the LEO..........who by the way definitely overstepped his authority...........
Good luck with that argument Mr. nasty..........
He has no duty to talk to an officer. Unless he waived his rights or under court order he had no duty to give the officer any information. See 5th amendment. When he asked what law he was breaking he was within his rights to do so. When he asked why did it matter its a very valid question because unless he was breaking a law the officer had no authority to ask that question. This is not Germany circa 1930s yet.
I posted above in a prior post the Supreme Court case of where an officer with no warrant and no right to arrest tries to forcibly take somebody’s firearm and gets shot by the person. A much more serious but possible situation. Bottom line, the 2nd is a fundamental right and, here the officer had no authority to take a person’s who, as far as he knew, was in lawful possession of a firearm.
I would ask "well do you?" but it's apparent that you do..........
The 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rules in this case.
Looking for trouble is now just a constitutional exercise in freedom.
Jews looking for trouble in 1937 was no different. Choose your side wisely. American citizens are very disturbed with opinions like yours..
“‘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.”
Which is clear evidence the officer assaulted Grisham without probable cause, before Grisham instinctively reacted as he should have, espeically given the fact the AR-15 was tethered to him as is customary with today’s infantry. The LEO was an obvious idiot not to recognize the weapon was secured to Grisham before he attempted, unlawfully or lawfully, to abruptly and without warning seize the weapon from Grisham wiithout Grisham’s having an opportunity to surrender the weapon. The officer is responsible for initiating a dangerous confrontation that was totally unnecessary and arguable egregiously illegal. No amount of ass covering by these police officers is going to justify assaulting a peaceful citizen under the false excuse they were securing their own safety and the safety of the public. On the contrary, they acted about as unsafely as anyone can imagine possible.
“...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...”
“This is a case study of someone looking for trouble. And he found it.”
I read a couple of the articles you linked to. I have no idea what you are talking about.
So you are saying HE called the cops and gave them his location on this rural county road just to provoke an argument which he recorded?
But I digress, since when is it illegal for any law abiding citizen in the state of Texas to carry a rifle while walking along a rural county road?
And since every action he was doing was legal, where in the Texas constitution does it require a Texas citizen to produce ID on demand?
Sorry about being hyper technical here but what was called in was NOT a complaint it was a report. A complaint is a legal term where one party asserts a violation of law by another person.
A report is a legal term that is a statement of facts. The person who call this in REPORTED (statement of facts) about a person with a rifle.
You're absolutely right, it coulda and shoulda if the cop had recognized and respected Grisham's rights under the state law.........
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.