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."
You should.
“At the risk of offending the strong anti-law enforcement element here on Free Republic, try to put yourself, for a moment, in this police officer’s shoes.”
Police officers on this Freerepublic topic have already stated the Temple police officers violated the law and normal police doctrine in this incident.
“You have responded to a frightened citizen’s 911 call and you come upon a heavily armed man acting in an unstable, erratic, uncooperative, and confrontational manner. What would you do to defuse the situation?”
There is no evidence of there being a frightened citizen’s 911 call”, but there is evidence of a person calling 911 to voice a concern about a man carrying a rifle. There are no laws which say a person must not open carry a long rifle just because another person wants to hysterically or maliciously direct the police to investigate a person bearing firearms in a normal and legal manner. Furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence which has not yet ruled out the possibility the caller could have been staging the incident on behalf of the county prosecutor as retaliation for Grisham’s defense of the Second Amendment rights at a city council meeting shortly before the arrest.
Grisham was not “heavily armed” as you false stated, nor was he armed with a “high power rifle” as the news media falsely reported. Grisham was bearing an AR-15 rifle and a sidearm, which is about as lightly armed as most hunters with a lick of sense for the past century.
Furthermore, your outrageously false accusations that Grisham was “unstable, erratic, uncooperative, and confrontational” are nothing short of deliberate and heinous character assassination. You owe Grisham an apology for those slanderous statements. Grisham acted with the most commendable restraint, astute questioning of the detaining officers to elicit appropriate evidence, and entirely appropriate cooperation where cooperation was in fact due or necessary under the extreme circumstances created by the police officers.
“Your options are to either double-tap or disarm. You can’t just walk away.”
That is a flat out lie and deserves the most severe condemnation of an incitement to the murder of Grisham in this incident or some future incident the Temple police should ever choose to create.
There is reason to suspect the county prosecutor and chief of police could have engineered this incident in retaliation for Grisham’s comments at the city council meeting preceding this incident.
agreed— the myth seems advantageous for the armed agents to promote. Even too many Courts will promote it —while at the same time preferring the Truth be censored. The NRA editorial in this months magazine quotes the legal position that No cop nor agent of the Govt. is under any obligation by law to protect anybody. Which underscores the import of our second amendment a right NOT granted by the Bill of Rights —but given by God.
“Yes. And at least one state ( I can’t remember which one) has passed legislation clarifying that simply bearing arms in public is NOT disorderly conduct.”
Wisconsin comes to mind. It passed that legislation after numerous cases where police abused the “disorderly conduct” law to suppress open carry. There were several lawsuits settled in favor of the open carriers *before* the change in the law.
A number of courts have ruled that merely carrying a firearm is *not* disorderly conduct.
I fail to see what the article has to do with Grisham being arrested for, from what I can determine, exercising his 2nd amendment rights.
And, as far as “stalking” is concerned...Who’s doing the stalking now?
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.