View Full Version : Texas soldier arrested for open carry of weapon
In Texas ?!?!?!
Is open carry legal there ???
I thought it was.
Texas Soldier Arrested for ‘Rudely Displaying’ Weapon
I just got off the phone with Army Master Sergeant. C. J. Grisham, a serving American soldier and veteran of the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who recently was illegally disarmed by the Temple Police Department while out for a walk with his son.
“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.
<snip>
Rest of story along with video .... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham
Not only that but the guy filming seemed confrontational, to me, from the get go.
The cops were wrong...good ol' CJ was looking to find cops just like those!
Everyone was wrong IMNSHO!!!
Peregrino
04-16-2013, 20:38
I sincerely hope he sues - and wins - big.
UWOA (RIP)
04-16-2013, 22:12
My question is what probable cause did he have to stop and question the guy? Unless he had PC he is not allowed to stop someone and question them.
Actually, there is a lot of case law that says a police officer can stop and talk to anyone at anytime; they (the citizen) doesn't have to respond except when there is a reasonable request for identification or there is probable cause to make an arrest. The courts will generally support an officer disarming an individual when the officer's safety is potentially at issue (in the instant case the weapon could easily be used). Most academies teach to disarm, conduct an interview and if no arrest is made return the weapon ... but with the weapon unloaded and with the advisement to not reload the weapon until the officer has left the scene.
The bottom line is: police officers are paid to be nosy and will conduct vehicle and ped stops whenever there is a question as to the conduct of the individuals involved.
Personally, I think the guy is going to lose in court ... especially if the video is played by the defendant. Despite the noncommittal language of the officers, the most damning evidence is the mere fact that they allowed the filming to continue -- which speaks to their (the police officers) intent.
UWOA (RIP)
04-16-2013, 23:19
They have to be able to articulate in court why they made a stop especially a vehicle stop. There has to be PC. To stop and talk to someone is different than PC for a stop. Yes he can talk to the guy. He can also request to look at the rifle, however unless he can articulate why he felt there was a threat or reasonable suspecian a law was broken then he can not force the issue of checking out the weapon. Did he think it might be stolen? If so what caused him to believe that? Cops push the limit of the law all the time. I'm not saying the cop here did anything wrong but it looks bad to me, we were not there and can not judge exactly, but my question is what charge did the cop arrest the guy on?
Anyway that is what they taught me in school when I used to work for a Sheriff dept, but I am no lawyer.
I agree with you about vehicle stops, but ped stops are a lot different. I was a Master Instructor for the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy (I, too, worked for a Sheriff's Department ... for 32 years and was an Assistant Police Chief for another department for 2 years). Generally, police can fall back on their traditional role of regulating traffic (whether it be vehicle or pedestrian) and can direct people and vehicles to do certain things. Now, Texas law may be different, but when an officer directs a person to the other side of a street or moves a crowd off a corner to facilitate an activity ... those are examples of this power ... which does not extend to personal property. The most glaring example is at an accident scene when the officer says "move along". The traffic does not have the option to stop and gawk even though there are no explicit controls that require movement. It's the same power an officer exercises when he directs traffic even though it may be in conflict with a traffic signal. .... and then there is Terry .... the whole basis for the frisk is the potential danger to the officer on the encounter -- the failure to secure a weapon that might be used to harm .... it doesn't require PC ... merely the experience of the officer in articulating the probability/possibility of danger .....
Having said that, I would probably have handled the situation a whole lot differently, but then again not all police officers are Grade A. When I was an FTO Supervisor my goal was an "A" officer, but I knew and had to supervise officers who were only "B"s and "C"s, realizing I had to cull the "D" and "F" officers from the 'herd' for the sake of the department and the community. The guy I saw in the video was, at best, a "C" officer and the sergeant wasn't much better .....
IMHO regardless if it appears you've got a D officer or not...if you're being done wrong keep it polite and save it for court.
In my younger days I told a FL trooper during a traffic stop I had way more advanced driver training than he had (I do)...obviously it wasn't taken well, didn't help the situation, and got a more expensive ticket...
With that said sounds like of all places, carrying open in rural Texas and getting hooked up for it is BS...
Not being able to strap on a western single action and/or ride your horse through town is just downright unwestern. Plus with practice it'll shoot faster than a 1911, at least the first two if you have small fingers. Damn unwestern
The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa ?) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the exercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the PD. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.
The LAW is the LAW.
At 3:55, what's-his-name says to one of the officers, "You ain't exempt from the law", and the officer replies, "Yes we are".
miclo18d
04-17-2013, 06:22
Besides the fact that this guy was confrontational, was humping around with an AR like he was on patrol in the Stan, and obviously needed to be checked under AR 600-9, I found the officers actions to be deplorable. I too was asking myself where is the PC? Of course the officers can use Terry to secure the weapon, feeling endangered is VERY subjective. But to continue the interview and arrest...well...even a crappy lawyer would have the charges dropped before the officers could write the report.
I'm not talking to Texas law as I don't know it, but I follow a lot of these cases and 90% of the cops realize that they have no PC, hand the weapon back and continue on their way.
The comment that the cops made about the law were insane! The Temple PD chief needs to have a serious training session with his "above-the-law-cops" or fire one. Hopefully this chubster can sue the department and make an example out of them.
ETA: officers, the most damning evidence is the mere fact that they allowed the filming to continue -- which speaks to their (the police officers) intent.
Texas is a single party consent to recording state. They had legal right to tape the incident and the police had no right to stop them. So it doesn't speak to anything for the officers.
An individual who is a party to either an in-person conversation or electronic communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. A person also can lawfully record electronic communications that are readily accessible to the general public. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02 (Vernon 2011).
I have been disarmed by police in the Communistwealth of Massachusetts. Though I had all the proper documentation and FID card, mine were confiscated and was told to "see the chief on Monday" if I want them back. When I asked why I was told that they had been recently fired, I agreed and showed the officer the empty shell casing, empty skeet box, and thrower. Didn't matter, he took them. I met the chief on Monday and he returned my weapons to me without much ado. He agreed it wasn't right, but it's an easy was to get illegal weapons off the street. "Criminals don't come down to the station to get the guns back," he said. Seems like a better method than arresting the guy if the legality of the weapon is in question. Pretty sorry excuse for an officer in the video.
Surgicalcric
04-17-2013, 08:24
...He agreed it wasn't right, but it's an easy was to get illegal weapons off the street.
So it isnt right, meaning it is wrong but he is gonna continue to do it anyways. What a punk ass way to go about enforcing law. And LEOs wonder why they arent respected as they believe they should be... :mad:
Destrier
04-17-2013, 08:29
Going to sling arms when spotting an officer, giving the greeting of the day, and maintaining ones bearing. Just might have diffused the situation enough that the 'officers in question' would have looked totally unjustified in their actions. At this point it simply looks like an overzealous gun rights guy and two Barny Fifes.
Not the best example for 2nd Amendment supporters.
So it isnt right, meaning it is wrong but he is gonna continue to do it anyways. What a punk ass way to go about enforcing law. And LEOs wonder why they arent respected as they believe they should be... :mad:
Amen.
Honor's disappearing a chunk at a time in this Country.
Dohhunter
04-17-2013, 09:20
Gents, I know only some of the issues with Michael Yon on this board and in posts past, but this caught my eye on facebook this morning and then I saw this thread. MY posted the following along with the video:
Scamming Soldier Video (CJ Grisham)
This guy has years of history acting like this. Today he is pushing this as 2nd Amendment issue. This guy would be anti-2nd Amendment if it got more traction.
Here he uses his 15-year-old son as a cameraman. At the end his son can be heard crying.
Notice that Grisham wears his Army rank on his hat, and tosses in that he is an Iraq and Afghanistan "war veteran."
What he does not say is that he is a confirmed case of Stolen Valor (some people call it exaggerated valor). He did get an administrative bronze star in Iraq, but then lied (and Army Times, to their embarrassment, printed it) that he got it for taking out an entire Iraqi squad with a grenade and 9mm. This is BS and has been proven.
He also does not say that he is NOT an Afghanistan "war veteran" in the sense that people expect when they hear "war veteran."
He never left Kandahar Kandahar Airfield. He saw zero combat. He spent his Afghanistan time blogging, and often complaining about his fragile mental state, and that his hand was trembling and that he was afraid of the rocket strikes. At one point, he published that a female major ordered him to continue working and not to hide out in the bunker. The man is a coward.
The Army sent him home about halfway through his Afghanistan tour, yet these days he says he completed his tour.
The whining in his voice is like a icepick in the ears. What kind of man acts like this in front of his 15-year-old son?
The guy is an active duty soldier at Fort Hood. This is why faith in the US Army is plummeting. His command should be gutted for putting up with these years of constant disgrace from this guy.
If you thought this guy would be in charge of your son or daughter, would you encourage him or her to join the Army?
TheDC has been running the same story with a bit more detail: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/
Apparently, the county prosecutor(Ken Kalafut) is a dyed in the wool liberal who has a history of friction with the service men and women stationed at Ft. Hood.
snip
Grisham’s case is yet another result of an apparently longstanding problem in Bell County, which incorporates both Fort Hood and the residential city of Temple. County law enforcement officials and active-duty soldiers have frequently sparred over traffic stops and other incidents, including ones related to gun laws, according to several observers.
“The military is young guys, a lot of adrenaline. So you have the normal friction that’s going to happen. Sometimes the soldier is a little higher-ranking, and they generally know the law. So it gets to be, when the officer on the street makes contact with him, the officer has got to make split-second decisions. It tends to be more of an ego thing,” Grisham attorney Glass told TheDC.
According to Glass, Grisham’s case is reminiscent of an incident involving another of his clients, an Iraq War veteran named Nathaniel Sampson, who was arrested in Bell County for carrying a concealed firearm into Mextroplex Hospital after his wife was taken there by ambulance for an adverse reaction to an over-the-counter pain medication.
Sampson, a staff sergeant with three tours of duty in Iraq, drove behind the ambulance carrying his wife to the hospital. Immediately inside the hospital, he was stopped by security and admitted that he was carrying a concealed firearm, for which he had a permit. Sampson was arrested by police inside his wife’s hospital room and then charged with unlawful carry, on the grounds that it is illegal to concealed carry in a hospital.
“I didn’t even have a chance to talk to her. I couldn’t even check on her status,” Sampson told TheDC.
“One of the officers said to my face that he was unsure about whether or not I could have the weapon. He told me he was going to go find out. Before he came back, they arrested me anyway,” Sampson said. “One of the officers then apparently walked back and antagonized my wife as I was going to jail.”
Bell County prosecutor Ken Kalafut, described by multiple sources as one of the few recognizable liberals in the heavily Republican area, took on the case.
“The prosecutor in that case [Kalafut] has a picture of President Obama behind him in his office, and he sits there and tells me, ‘I will make sure that gun does not fall into anyone else’s hands. I will have that gun destroyed,’” Glass said.
Kalafut declined to be interviewed for this story. Private investigator Garcia told TheDC that Kalafut is “probably the bandleader” of gun-control efforts in the community.
snip
That said, I don't live anywhere near the AO, so I cannot verify any of this; hopefully some of the PS.com members who live in the area can shed some more light.
As for Michael Yon: IIRC, isn't Grisham a former milblogger (http://www.armytimes.com/article/20091208/OFFDUTY02/912080301/The-rise-and-fall-of-a-military-blogger), one of many, who ran afoul (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/09/michael-yon-goes-full-batshit-crazy.html) of MY?
My .02
Dohhunter
04-17-2013, 09:48
TheDC has been running the same story with a bit more detail: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/
Apparently, the county prosecutor(Ken Kalafut) is a dyed in the wool liberal who has a history of friction with the service men and women stationed at Ft. Hood.
That said, I don't live anywhere near the AO, so I cannot verify any of this; hopefully some of the PS.com members who live in the area can shed some more light.
As for Michael Yon: IIRC, isn't Grisham a former milblogger (http://www.armytimes.com/article/20091208/OFFDUTY02/912080301/The-rise-and-fall-of-a-military-blogger), one of many, who ran afoul (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/09/michael-yon-goes-full-batshit-crazy.html) of MY?
My .02
Absolutely. I remember significant history between the two of them insofar as to him having MY thrown out of Kandahar.
It was the valor reference that caught my eye.
theis223
04-17-2013, 11:25
Why is it the case of this video that the officers did not attempt to stop the 15y/old from filming?
The issue has been discussed here
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34975
What was different in this particular case?
Do they not care that the video will most surly be used against them when this ends up in court?
UWOA (RIP)
04-17-2013, 13:25
Going to sling arms when spotting an officer, giving the greeting of the day, and maintaining ones bearing. Just might have diffused the situation enough that the 'officers in question' would have looked totally unjustified in their actions. At this point it simply looks like an overzealous gun rights guy and two Barny Fifes.
Not the best example for 2nd Amendment supporters.
This is as close to being on point as you can get. Regarding my comment about the filming I was inferring that if they were completely lawless they would've stopped the filming/seized the camera ... it doesn't make them anymore right or wrong, but merely sets the stage for the argument that they were subsumed with the potential for harm ....
So why don't you file a civil liberties case against them. They violated your civil rights and admitted to it. Until someone does this they will keep on violating peoples civil rights.
I grew up in a different time, seems like different universe now. Cops catch kids doing something you shouldn't be doing and they brought you home so you old man could beat your ass. That event happened when I was fresh out of the Army gettin me an edumacation at a learned Boston University, the officer was young, but respectful and courteous. I could sense his uncomfort. I understand that they have a tough job and I had no problem with meeting the chief of police, introducing myself to get my weapons back. Not much different than getting called to the Captain's office and I like when they know my name. Now had he arrested me or not given my weapons back, I might feel different.
Grissom could have handled it way better. He was confrontational as opposed to helpful.
Officer is a tool.
Paragrouper
04-17-2013, 19:08
From Grisham’s account: “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.”
Texas Penal Code, Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
You have plenty of time, after the fact, to seek redress when the cops are busy messing up. Grisham did himself no favors with his attitude or his actions and he caused guns to be pointed. I'm a big fan of rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms. But with rights come responsibility.
UWOA (RIP)
04-17-2013, 21:12
You have plenty of time, after the fact, to seek redress when the cops are busy messing up. Grisham did himself no favors with his attitude or his actions and he caused guns to be pointed. I'm a big fan of rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms. But with rights come responsibility.
I second all those thoughts.
.
So Yon doesn't like ol Grisham, now aint that a character reference!
Grisham did himself no favors with his attitude or his actions
So what!?! If you are not breaking the law so what? :mad:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne in the Shootist.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
"Then, he says, the officer “grabbed the rifle without telling me – but it was attached to me."
Hmmm, wonder what would of happened if he went with the pull and fell on the officer :D
Don't like it much myself when someone puts hands on me, but especially with my son present, it's always better that you choose the time and place, even if it's the courthouse..
Paragrouper
04-18-2013, 06:31
So what!?! If you are not breaking the law so what? :mad:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne in the Shootist.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
You assume that what transpired was an unlawful arrest I don't think the limited portion of video, provides enough information to determine that. From listening to the video, the officer was initially trying to disarm Grisham, which is permissable under Texas law (section 411.207 of the Texas General Code). Whether the officer was in the right (which I don't believe) by the way he conducted himself, Grisham himself admitted he resisted the officer's attempt to disarm him. As a concealed handgun licensee, Grisham should have known better.
So what!?! If you are not breaking the law so what? :mad:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne in the Shootist.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.
I don't know Texas law. But, wonder about charging the offending officer with Assault and Battery. The officer grabbed his rifle and pulled him!
I grew up in a different time, seems like different universe now. Cops catch kids doing something you shouldn't be doing and they brought you home so you old man could beat your ass. That event happened when I was fresh out of the Army gettin me an edumacation at a learned Boston University, the officer was young, but respectful and courteous. I could sense his uncomfort. I understand that they have a tough job and I had no problem with meeting the chief of police, introducing myself to get my weapons back. Not much different than getting called to the Captain's office and I like when they know my name. Now had he arrested me or not given my weapons back, I might feel different.
Grissom could have handled it way better. He was confrontational as opposed to helpful.
Officer is a tool.
I grew up in a different time too, and one "kid" (16) in my HS class was shot in the back (unarmed he ran when the cop showed up) and killed by the police officer. Yep those were the "good old days"!
Badger52
04-18-2013, 07:41
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.Texas needs to fix that most rikki-tik. The underlying assumption is that only the state is allowed to determine what is right or wrong & that a citizen must be deprived of liberty first, and then the burden is to prove their innocence. Even upon proving that, they are still guilty of having "thought" they were right. That is a krap statute.
US Supreme Court Case John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900) 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, where a man was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing a police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest the man, because, at the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/case.html
Paragrouper
04-18-2013, 17:26
Texas needs to fix that most rikki-tik. The underlying assumption is that only the state is allowed to determine what is right or wrong & that a citizen must be deprived of liberty first, and then the burden is to prove their innocence. Even upon proving that, they are still guilty of having "thought" they were right. That is a krap statute.
Gotcha; but until the law is changed, or struck down, it is the law.