First you said he was convicted because a LEO's sister that was on the jury, now you changed to they hand picked the judge. You are apparently very ignorant on how the judicial system works. one jury member cannot get a conviction, it takes all of the members of the jury. For a jury trial, the judge doesn't get a "vote" on innocence or guilt.

That concludes your lesson in judicial procedure.

Lol, thanks. I needed that. I do not believe the sister was on the jury I was merely jesting at nepotism in the system. The judge part is true though. I have a very thorough knowledge of the justice system. I watch law n order.

That seems about right since you have stated at least twice that Grisham was "illegally" disarmed. There is absolutely nothing illegal about disarming him.

What crime was he suspected of? Show me where an officer can legally disarm a citizen not suspected of a crime?

Once again, the officers were there investigating a citizens complaint. They have every right to disarm the subject of the investigation until a determination is made.

Case law backs it up. Look up Terry v. Ohio.

Read this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1

Your link does not answer my question as Officer McFadden "suspected" the 3 men of "casing" a store. Through fine detective work he observed these men act suspiciously. Each justice agreed the circumstances warranted detention based on the suspicious behavior of the defendants.
What suspicious behavior was Grisham displaying? All we see is the camera start as the officer pulls up. Here is Grisham's pov:

[url=[url=http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/texas-veteran-cj-grisham-fined-2000-dashcam-video-released-open-carry-case/][/url] ][/url]

I particularly like the non emergency line call that set this all in motion. If that is truly the officer's sworn affidavit, he doesn't have a good memory or perhaps the video has been fudged?

I'm out, your getting so rediculous it's not even funny just sad. Your not helping CJ Boneheads case one bit.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

The LEO were investigating suspious conduct. Yes, walking down a public road in a public place with a firearm is considered suspicious.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

This is why they disarmed him. It really is simple, It seems you just enjoy arguing, you really can't be that dense.

Sorry Sir but you have highly over estimated the individual your speaking to.

The problem Robb is you view civilians exercising their rights as suspicious conduct, yet you strap a piece on daily. Should I view you as a suspect. Is anyone who hunts on public land a suspect? Is this part of police training? Your view is the same as the left wing media promoting anti 2a propaganda. Guns are scary and people with guns are potential criminals.

An officer rolls locked cocked and ready to roll. Your sidearm tells the world you have the tools at your disposal to eliminate any potential threat. Why shouldn't any man have that right? The people (citizens) who give you that authority should be afforded the same rights as you.

Or is this just a form of discrimination? Lol

HWY you fluff too well, are those pearls on your neck?

Your analogies are like apples to oranges, you are making a fruit salad.

Honestly, I have no problem with anyone who can legally carry a gun doing so. I think everyone that is a decent person should. Some should not, just as I think some people shouldn't be able to reproduce either. I don't think LE is above the average citizen in any way. We are citizens first. I deal with armed people almost everyday in what I do and never have any problems. About half the time someone tells me they have a CHL, they aren't carrying. I always tell them it's not going to do you any good it you don't have it.

A person carrying a long gun down a road is not a common activity and is considered suspicious by LE, that's just a fact. I have no issue with what Grisham was doing at the time. I think it is dumb, but he was within his legal rights. People with guns can be dangerous and LE usually doesn't know who they are dealing with.

A Trooper friend of mine was murdered in the line of duty several years ago on a traffic stop. Driver exited and shot him twice in the head with shotgun slugs before he ever got out of the car.

Most LEO's that have been doing the job for any length of time know a officer killed in the line of duty. It's something you never forget and can happen to anyone of us when complacency sets in. These are things we think about when we contact the public, if we treat you cautiously and as a potential threat, this is why. I'm going home at the end of the day, period.

Let's not get personal folks



I've already given my input, what more do you need?

We obviously will never come into agreement about Grisham, but he's been convicted by his peers, in a "hick town" or "podunk" whatever.

Grisham was stupid, thought he was a badass due to his service, and above any mere country backwoods LEO. This is my opinion of course, others will differ

I think the biggest mistake we're making here is thinking we're discussing this with a rational intelligent person, your last shot at a childish insult has proven us wrong. It's funny you ask about a soldier surrendering his weapon as if him being a soldier made a difference, you wanted soldier input but wasn't even bright enough to realize at least 3 of the people your talking to were soldiers and one is still an active duty officer. Several others in the thread are active duty peace officer in the state of Texas or retired and another is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas. You've ignored them all, looks like it's time to ignore you.

Lol, are you mad bro. I didn't realize you were so sensitive since you have implied multiple times that I lack intelligence. I would not have so wittily replied to you if you were going to get upset. I would not make any assumptions on someone's line of work but again I'm not Leo. Again you insult my intelligence because my magic ball did not reveal your past present and future employment or service.
What I am eluding to about the soldier point is instinct. I believe grisham instinctual pulled back from the officer. I don't think being a soldier warrants special treatment just like being Leo does not warrant special treatment. The actions of the officer would leave me to believe he did not feel threatened by Mr Grisham. He approached Grisham even after observing the rifle. He did not have back up on the scene, he did not have his weapon drawn, and he examined the rifle while still attached to Grishams sling. I am not a detective but these actions do not resemble the actions of someone fearing for their safety. When the officer asked why he had the rifle Grisham replied "because I can." This caused the officer to then, through force, disarm Grisham. It has been stated that the officer is within his rights to disarm a person committing no crimes for the safety of the officer and the investigation of legal yet suspicious carrying of a firearm. If a phone call is all it takes to have are liberties stripped then are liberties are not guaranteed.
The encounter should have ended after the officer examined the rifle and Grisham gave his response. But it didn't. The officer tried to forcefully disarm a man who has fought for the right to carry the rifle where ever he is legally able to. Why did he grab the rifle off a very cooperative Grisham after examining it? I don't know? But it appears he did not like Grishams response. That is the moment in which Grishams rights were violated. Did the officer ask to remove the rifle off of a cooperative citizen? No. Instead he chose to forcefully disarm him? Why? To teach Grisham a lesson. You don't have the right to carry a firearm.

On a side note, my family has fought in every war this country has entered. I have family overseas at this moment. I have multiple family members who serve the community as Leo. Doing what is right and helping others is engrained in our values. I cannot stand injustice and my very being rebukes it. I am not against Leo, I support leo, but I will not stand silent against injustice and abuse of power. No one likes a bully. Especially a bully that has some sort of authority.
I appreciate all those that serve and not abuse their authority. Serving your fellow human beings is the most noble of professions.
And although we will not agree, I still say thank you to all who have and do serve this country and it's communities.

Not only do I agree with your opinion but it seems a lot of the others have the same opinion.

This is totally irrelevant, he wasn't in the position of being a soldier, he was just like any other John Doe on the street when not on duty. He could have been a Doctor, a lawyer or a candlestick maker, but he still John Doe on the street when off duty.

True, but as you know, we train as we fight, and instincts, reflexes take over without thinking at times. I understand what the correlation sirduke is trying to establish. But feel once Grisham understood his initial pull away, due to a Soldiers training, he should have relinquished his weapon to set the officer at ease and deescalate the situation.

You might try reading SirDuke's previous reply, as he further clarified what he meant.

"Soldier to appeal conviction in gun rights trial"


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/22/soldier-to-appeal-conviction-in-gun-rights-trial/

what a jackass....idiot gives gun owners a bad name. i thought the cops were over patient and gentle with this dude. they have enough crap to deal with. i dont care if he has a CHL. sucker was not concealed. i think he was trying to be a badass for his son and it backfired on him. poor kid...however im sure its not the first time he watched his dad make an [censored] of himself.

coonsaw

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd, we're back!

After this mans final determination is made in Civilian Court and serveved, he will very likely have to face another determination under Court Marshall hearing regarding UCMJ laws (Article 134). Or what ever the board determines fits his case and needs to be addressed.







Even the winners are loser under UMCJ. Washed up and dead end, in most cases.

Don't police have to be in shape?

I thought one was required to stay in good health