Okay, I have been to this thread MULTIPLE times, hoping there would be more responses than this. IMO....Grisham is a Dumb A$$. The old saying...PLAY STUPID GAMES, WIN STUPID PRIZES comes out. Was he in line of the LAW....yes. Is he a DA....yes. Paint a TARGET on your back, front, forehead.....expect to get shot. Not to mention.....what the H3LL did he expect to happen? A cop to buy him a cup of coffee and Donut and say cool gun!? All this while setting an EXEMPLARY example in front of his son.





Now, let's get down to the basic logistics of the situation.

Grisham was, w/in his legal rights.
Grisham was, a perceived "threat" to the public. Why? Because he is a Dumb A$$ You me anyone would have called the cops stating there was a Para-Military type guy walking down the road with an AR-15.
Grisham should, know better! War Vet, Military Vet, CHL holder.....still a Dumb A$$.
Lastly, the manner in which he handled it is what Most Likely got him in trouble in the first place and I WISH we could have seen the "initial" confrontaion by the officer. Grisham should have put his hands on his head and verbally stated the weapon was not loaded and allowed the officer to remove it without a hassle. Instead he got mouthy and had I been the LEO, it probably would have gotten worse and damn sure would not have been taped. It all boils down to RESPECT for the LAW, written, human or otherwise. Grisham was disrespectful and then whined like a little bit.....well you know. My 2 cents. Rant over. We DO NOT NEED DB's like GRISHAM helping us "keep" our 2nd Ammendment!!!!

Okay, I have been to this thread MULTIPLE times, hoping there would be more responses than this. IMO....Grisham is a Dumb A$$. The old saying...PLAY STUPID GAMES, WIN STUPID PRIZES comes out. Was he in line of the LAW....yes. Is he a DA....yes. Paint a TARGET on your back, front, forehead.....expect to get shot. Not to mention.....what the H3LL did he expect to happen? A cop to buy him a cup of coffee and Donut and say cool gun!? All this while setting an EXEMPLARY example in front of his son.

Now, let's get down to the basic logistics of the situation.

Grisham was, w/in his legal rights.
Grisham was, a perceived "threat" to the public. Why? Because he is a Dumb A$$ You me anyone would have called the cops stating there was a Para-Military type guy walking down the road with an AR-15.
Grisham should, know better! War Vet, Military Vet, CHL holder.....still a Dumb A$$.
Lastly, the manner in which he handled it is what Most Likely got him in trouble in the first place and I WISH we could have seen the "initial" confrontaion by the officer. Grisham should have put his hands on his head and verbally stated the weapon was not loaded and allowed the officer to remove it without a hassle. Instead he got mouthy and had I been the LEO, it probably would have gotten worse and damn sure would not have been taped. It all boils down to RESPECT for the LAW, written, human or otherwise. Grisham was disrespectful and then whined like a little bit.....well you know. My 2 cents. Rant over. We DO NOT NEED DB's like GRISHAM helping us "keep" our 2nd Ammendment!!!!

Mr. Clean, I gotta say, I'm always down to get to basics. My thoughts are:

Feelings are feelings, and facts are facts.

You feel that Mr. Grisham acted like an asshat. You feel that he was disrespectful to the LEO. You feel like he was disrespecting his position in the military by acting like said asshat. I'm not arguing any of that.

However, the fact is that he broke no laws. (You even posted that he acted within the scope of the law.)

It is not against the law to be an a-hole. I may not like people being a-holes, but I certainly do not believe it is the job of government to teach my fellow citizens to be decent people, nor is it the government's responsibility to punish citizens for being rude. If you disagree on that, so be it. There are plenty of folks, friends and family included, that think the government should make people behave the way they want them to. I am not one of them.

You justified the original call to the police by a concerned citizen. I don't argue that, but I will state that the caller contacted the non-emergency line, as opposed to 911. I FEEL like that is evidence that the caller was concerned, as opposed to alarmed, but that's beside the facts. I don't argue the justification of a concerned/alarmed citizen alerting the police.

I also don't argue that an officer shouldn't investigate the situation. But I personally have a serious issue with an officer going beyond his job/duty/purpose/scope of power to arrest an individual for doing absolutely nothing illegal.

The fact is that a police officer created a false charge against this man. The officer's job was to assess whether there was a threat. This man was not arrested because he was a threat, he was stopped and questioned because he was a possible threat. It was determined that he was not a threat to the community, but he was arrested anyway, with a trumped up charge.

You wish that you could see what happened before the citizen's video started rolling? Me too!!!!! And it exists in the form of the dashcam. Which is being blocked from release by the prosecutors. Why? The defendant posted it online, then was required to take it down almost immediately. The few (quite a few) people that viewed it on YouTube before it came down made many comments that seem to indicate the officer was the instigator. I won't speculate on those comments, but I'd love to see the video.

Anyhow, I think it is reprehensible for a police officer to abuse his power by creating a false charge against a law abiding citizen, simply because of a personal issue.


You state CJ Grisham was within the law, then state that he doesn't respect the law. That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps a better statement is he doesn't respect law enforcement officers. Clearer still is that he didn't respect that particular law enforcement officer. But an officer is not the law. There is no law against a disrespecting law enforcement officers. (If it ever becomes law, we are all officially subjects.)

The police officer knowingly and purposefully arrested and charged this individual with a crime he was not guilty nor suspected of. To me, that is a clear case of disrespecting the law.

Anyhow, you wanted someone to comment, and I respectfully disagree with some things you wrote. I disagree with anyone that believes it is ok for LE to take the law into their own hands. From your statement, it appears we agree that he broke no laws, but disagree in that you are ok with the police enforcing personal beliefs as opposed/in addition to the law.

^^^^^ well said!^^^^^

Cdoan. I could not agree with you more on most everything you said. To clarify, I feel as though individuals like this pushing the 2nd Ammendment Envelope, do more damn harm than they do good, kind of like kicking the chained dog until one day the dog gets off the chain? I want to be very specific here, the officer was wrong as well but why in this world of heated gun controversy do people like Grisham feel the need to kick the chained dog? Having his Military training and being a CHL holder should teach him otherwise, rather than to push the legal envelope and look for a "fight.". In addition, I feel as though he was disrespectful to the LEO's inspite of them "not knowing" what they were doing or how to deal with it? In closing, I want to say again, there was equal fault on both sides but the whole thing could have been avoided had Grisham not pushed it? Trust me, I have my own arguments about Government and what the "Law" can and can't do, but pushing this the way Grisham...or anyone else did/does certainly does not help people like you and I wanting to keep our gun rights in tact.

I heard the jury was 5-1 in favor of not guilty, the 1 was a temple LEO wife. This is not fact, just what I have heard.

Way to throw out a little gossip and misinformation about a trial......

it came from a pretty reliable source

Cdoan. I could not agree with you more on most everything you said. To clarify, I feel as though individuals like this pushing the 2nd Ammendment Envelope, do more damn harm than they do good, kind of like kicking the chained dog until one day the dog gets off the chain? I want to be very specific here, the officer was wrong as well but why in this world of heated gun controversy do people like Grisham feel the need to kick the chained dog? Having his Military training and being a CHL holder should teach him otherwise, rather than to push the legal envelope and look for a "fight.". In addition, I feel as though he was disrespectful to the LEO's inspite of them "not knowing" what they were doing or how to deal with it? In closing, I want to say again, there was equal fault on both sides but the whole thing could have been avoided had Grisham not pushed it? Trust me, I have my own arguments about Government and what the "Law" can and can't do, but pushing this the way Grisham...or anyone else did/does certainly does not help people like you and I wanting to keep our gun rights in tact.

I'm not sure how anyone believes Grisham won here.....it was a mistrial, meaning it's not over unless the charge is dropped by the court......this was a split verdict, not a "Not Guilty" verdict. By next year there will probably be new laws addressing just what Grisham was doing......Big Win for Gun Rights.......NOT!

I'm not sure how anyone believes Grisham won here.....it was a mistrial, meaning it's not over unless the charge is dropped by the court......this was a split verdict, not a "Not Guilty" verdict. By next year there will probably be new laws addressing just what Grisham was doing......Big Win for Gun Rights.......NOT!

Yep just another OCD (Open Carry Douchebag) screwing things up for gun rights.

Hmmm... Some would say it's just another douchebag power tripping cop looking to impose his authoritaaaaaah over a law abiding citizen.