Posted on 10/18/2013 2:51:39 PM PDT by BBell
BELTON (October 18, 2013)—A mistrial was declared after jurors deadlocked Friday following two full days of deliberation in the trial of Army Master Sgt. Christopher "C.J." Grisham of Temple, whose case has drawn the attention of gun-rights advocates nationwide.
Grisham expressed frustration Friday of having to go through the ordeal of a trial because of the “actions of an abusive police officer.”
It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors will retry him.
The six-member jury started deliberating the misdemeanor case Thursday morning after both sides rested Wednesday afternoon.
Grisham was arrested in March 2013 after police received a report about a man who was carrying an assault-style rifle while walking along Airport Road in West Temple.
Grisham told the responding officers he was just walking with his son to help him get a Boy Scout Badge, but police confiscated the rifle and arrested him after the encounter his son recorded on camera.
The video shot by Grisham’s son quickly went viral and the arrest triggered a series of demonstrations.
Grisham was charged with misdemeanor interference with the duties of an officer.
"I don't think it's fair that I'm even being charged with this crime," Grisham said before the start of the trial Tuesday.
"The fact that I'm here in court for one I don't think that very fair to begin with because my son and I weren't doing anything wrong.
"I think after the facts speak for themselves I'll be set free,” he said.
"You can't let the police make up the rules as they go," said Keith Lee, a member of Open Carry Texas who showed up to support Grisham.
"Somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough."
Grisham said he was just relieved the trial is underway after seven months of waiting.
"I hope that it inspires them to understand that you don't have to sit back," Grisham said.
"It's a hard road obviously but hopefully after this is over there will be some training done in the police force to where it doesn't happen again to someone else."
Hey, bbell,
aren’t you the same guy who wanted Grisham strung up
for not being polite and licking their boots?
Nah, can’t be you...
I must have you mixed up with someone else.
Sorry for my mistake.
Some of the backstory over here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3080237/posts?page=221#221
200+ replies. Also click keyword grisham for many other previous threads.
A jury trial for a misdemeanor charge seems like a waste, especially since he seems to have been doing nothing illegal.
If one follows Terry vs Ohio, the officers should have stated that they were detaining him, taken TEMPORARY possession of the rifle, and then questioned as to his actions to establish if he was a treat. Then, once determined that he was within his legal rights, returned the firearm and been about their merry way.
A few minutes before you posted this update on the Grisham trial, I was searching for an update and stumbled across this blog by someone who served with MSG Christopher Grisham, and it makes interesting reading to say the least: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/stalking-soldier-arrested-disarmed-by-texas-police-some-facts-opinion-and-analysis/Page-2.htm
And a local cop said he thought the Sarge was “completely in the wrong.” the cop here said as former military he “should have known that he was asking for such toruble by carrying his rifle in public.”
Wow...that’s an eye opener...
I don't think that works. Don't the police have to believe that a crime has been committed in order to detain? Isn't this why New York has had to eliminate their "stop and frisk" tyranny?
There seems to be a concentrated attempt by some to make it seem that an officer may disarm a citizen anytime the officer feels like it regardless of law or rights of the individual. “Asking for it.” “Looking for trouble.” “trouble causer.” “A nut case.” etc are being tossed around by some as if they somehow authorize gun confiscation.
“to establish if he was a treat.”
“Trick or Treat!!”
has been, or is being or is about to be
I’ll take Yon’s words over his. He seems to be a complete buttwart!
I wonder if the law could be changed so that if a six person jury found 5-1 for acquittal, that the judge could grant the acquittal. No equivalent for a guilty verdict, of course.
Even if a jury convicts, a judge can direct an acquittal in most cases, so I don’t see why a single juror should be able to force a retrial because they obstinately want to convict.
You'll notice in the blog that the author has problems with quite a handful of people. I know someone who has written similar reports of just how unfair and mean several other people are.
The truth is that he is the loony-tune. Every interaction with this person is fraught with the possibility of being accused of something, up to and including assault.
Whatever one might believe about Grisham, the actions of the police were unwarranted. A man bearing arms who is otherwise seen to be law-abiding should be left alone. If he is questioned, he should not be disarmed by force. If he must be disarmed, then he should be informed of the necessity and given every opportunity to disarm himself.
If that is the legal requirement, then I would ask, "What crime had Grisham committed? What crime was Grisham committing? What crime was Grisham about to commit?"
I could postulate a number of potential offenses, but the one most likely to be relevant to the situation would be poaching as it hunting out of season or without proper license (since the report indicated that it was a rural area).
Regardless, the officer should have secured the firearm, had a conversation, found out nothing was going on, and then returned the firearm. And all of this would not have been an issue.
Of course, you could.
But the criteria is that you must have evidence. What evidence, aside from carrying a rifle, would allow you to detain Grisham for poaching?
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.