No Princess... No, I will not.
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.
For the tenth time, it is not the job of the police to detain citizens who have broken no law, or seize property from citizens who are lawfully possessing it.
There are legal standards affecting encounters between the police and citizens. Absent reasonable suspicion (a legal term, by the way) that a particular crime has been committed, the police have no authority to detain a person or seize their property.
That's the last time I'm going to respond to your pointless babble.
His job is not to harass law abiding citizens acting within the full purview of their Rights.
Your failure is obvious...
Suppose a cop received a call about an individual walking down the road carrying an AR-15. The cop pulls over and asks Adam Lanza what he is doing. Adam, being smart, ask why officer am I breaking the law? The officer says no and drives on. Adam proceeds to kill 26 people at an elementary school.
Would you say that the cop is in dereliction duty? Would you doubt that the Newtown Police and City would be hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit?
Your ignorance or lack of reality astounds me.
Stupid, irrelevant strawman argument is full of AIDS and fail.
Go choke yourself.
“‘Where you going with that rifle?’ he asked me. I said, ‘does it matter? Am I breaking any laws?’”
If you think that is harassment then you must be one of those P.C. pinkos or occupy wall street types..
Suppose a cop received a call about an individual walking down the road carrying an AR-15. The cop pulls over and asks Adam Lanza what he is doing. Adam, being smart, ask why officer am I breaking the law? The officer says no and drives on. Adam proceeds to kill 26 people at an elementary school.
Would you say that the cop is in dereliction duty? Would you doubt that the Newtown Police and City would be hit by a multimillion dollar lawsuit?
Your ignorance or lack of reality astounds me.
THIS. IS. THE. PRICE. OF. LIBERTY.
If liberty scares you, curl up into a ball and say "save me, Obama!" three times.
Yeah.. Well, that’s not what happened was it? Officer Sugarcookie had to assert his authority didn’t he?
Which... You are just so happy to drop to your knees and worship your Knight in shining polyester...
No thanks.
Well I did have a problem 35 years ago not 10 miles from where this guy got arrested. I got arrested as well. And for the same bogus charge, resisting. I was found not guilty and the cop was dressed down by the judge. But the absolute worst part was that the cop was a soldier moonlighting as a cop and getting his jollies by trumping up moving violations on Fort Hood grunts. He wasn’t too damn jolly when my First Sargent reported his ass to the post IG though.
You two are idiots.
These are Grisham's words not the cops. Your not to bright, don't bother me any more.
Sweet Jesu... Did you just type that?
Try this...
"You're not too bright..."
Although, your lack of basic English skills does play well with your utter lack of higher cognition and logic skills.
Your an idiot or a fool, leave me alone.
No. Especially considering I am neither and idiot or a fool, but you are displaying a remarkably childish and self important attitude that is in major need of an adjustment.
Cops have a job to do. They do no one favors by acting outside of their rightful authority and as history shows, can do incalculable harm by trying.
You are on the WRONG side of this one and are too much of a coward to admit it.
No Princess... No, I will not.
I would say you are wrong and won’t admit it and who started all the childish name calling here anyway. Who is making all the childish statements about other freepers? Look in the mirror before you answer?
It seems to me that you lack any kind of ability to argue the facts so you resort to childish name calling and posting childish pictures.
You have. Absent, of course, those nagging little facts that would make your statements anything other than your opinion.
As for your exchanges on this thread, you started slipping in post #91 essentially calling expression of Individual Rights "BS"... This, after calling Grisham unflattering names and ascribing motives not in evidence to him several times.
I found the photograph to be an apt descriptor for the manner in which you have approached this subject. You run around calling people who know the law and know the Constitution "idiots", and then demand they leave you alone when they blow holes in your arguments the size of a Stinger Missile.
You have no argument and ya can’t handle the truth.
And you’ve been beat like a dumb drum throughout this tread.
Please feel free to continue do so.
Again, you go long on your opinion and extremely shy on anything resembling facts.
Fact. Under Texas law, you can openly carry a long gun.
Fact. Terry stops need to have probable cause. There was none here.
Fact. Grisham never resisted arrest as the video clearly shows.
Fact. You didn’t bother with any of the above and your first post on this thread was to denigrate Grisham with your “opinion”.
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.