Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

How to deal with cops under any circumstance

84 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Whether Grisham's a veteran or what someone thinks of his Bronze Star, all the blogging to units in Afghanistan, his charitable work and all the attempt being made at a smear job above, it doesn't even have anything to do with his right to possess firearms, or the rifle he was carrying which wasn't against the law where he was carrying it. No wonder the police are having such problems getting charges out. This incident was over two months ago. What are they waiting for? Charging someone with "resisting arrest" without another charge you're being arrested for is absurd. You obviously can't be "resisting arrest" unless you're already being arrested for something! So what is it? What crime did Grisham commit? Grisham looks like a fine citizen based on the information that's been provided.

Great speech to the City Council too. I heard in his speech that only 0.18% of crime is attributed to CHL carriers. That's a fascinating statistic. Anyone wanting to focus on preventing crime in Texas should look at the non-CHL carriers which are responsible for 99.8% of total crime.

http://www.txdps.sta...sReport2011.pdf

Was not the first time he spoke in front of the city council. Five days before his arrest he was there too attempting to tell the city council to pass a resolution and for them to send it, "to several authorities, including President Barack Obama, Texas senators and congressmen, and Gov. Rick Perry." [link]

Unsure how "greatness" can be attributed to any of his speeches which seem to be unrealistic exercises in demand.

Even The Blaze has asked, "Is CJ Grisham just unlucky with the law or is he a PR hound looking for an axe to grind?"

Arrested vet may have had an axe to grind

While discussing plans to implement a school uniform policy at the parent meeting, Grisham felt some parents didn’t get an equal say in the discussion, Grisham told The Times in an interview before Thursday’s board meeting.

Grisham acknowledged standing up on his seat and slamming his fist at the parent meeting, but said his behavior was not alarming.

Others apparently disagreed.

Superintendent Ann Roy Moore said she received e-mails from parents who claimed to be uncomfortable with Grisham’s behavior at the parent meeting. She said the school’s principal, Avis Williams, contacted a Redstone liaison officer about the situation but not Grisham’s commanding officer.

http://www.theblaze....n-axe-to-grind/

Is it likely the judge in this current case will take into account his behavior? Or the negative blogging he made toward city councilpersons when they failed to heed to his demands?

Regarding the arrest and why it was legal including the disarming and confiscation of his weapons

What he failed to realize is that even if one has a "right to carry a rifle around" in Texas they also have to listen to officer's orders when an officer is on official duties. Failure to do so is interference with public duties.

  1. The arresting officer was on a legitimate call, on official duties, responding to a concerned citizen informing dispatch that a man was walking with a rifle.
  2. The exact call he was on was to investigate a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
  3. The officer had every right to disarm the invidivual during the course of the investigation for the 42.01 while running his ID to insure he was not a felon and did indeed have a legal right to carry said firearm. If not every felon could then walk around with firearms unchallenged. Even in the beginning of the video the officer tells him, "Once I find out there's no issue...then you're going to be on your way." That video will be seen by the judge and will not be seen in the defendant's favor. As soon as the officers could have ran his ID and found out he was not a felon then he would have been released and had his weapons returned to him. Instead he had to yell at the officers.
  4. Futhermore the disarming of his concealed weapon was legal under Texas Government Code 411.207 which specifically states, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."
  5. He has been officially charged under Texas Penal Code Section 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with: (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;
  6. It was indeed interference with public duties, the public duty of investigating the disorderly conduct called in by a concerned citizen.
  7. Since he was arrested his long rifle, which was legal to carry, was now legally able to be taken as property for evidence
  8. Since he was arrested his concealed handgun was able to be taken as well under Texas Government Code 411.206. SEIZURE OF HANDGUN AND LICENSE.(a) If a peace officer arrests and takes into custody a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter, the officer shall seize the license holder's handgun and license as evidence
  9. Notice that taking a concealed weapon (disarming or seizing) requires a specific statute because concealed handgun carriers have specific rights. Firearms in any other situation, at your home, in your car, while hunting, can be taken if you are being arrested, he was arrested. Someone can be disarmed in any other situation during the course of an investigation.
  10. So, yes, legally he can carry a concealed handgun as he was licensed, he can even carry a long arm open carry here in Texas, but that does not mean he can violate all these other laws and once he did violate other laws it opened the door for arrest and seizure. You can also drive legally in Texas if you are licensed but if you are being pulled over you have to stop, you just cannot keep going, and if you break other laws they can also arrest you and impound your car. Likewise, claims here of illegal detention, disarming, and seizure of weapons will not fly in court. The charges against him will likely stick. The lawsuit he is bringing against the city will definitely not.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

bravo, another post full of lies. you just discredited antiguners even more. another fail.

please provide link to " In fact the arresting officer's side gig is as a concealed handgun license instructor",

also there is no mention of his name in loud music link.

your lies discredit even little truth you say, Google black swan fallacy.

*snip*

Confusing to be called a liar then to be asked with a "please" to provide a source.

There is no need to provide a link for everything discussed. Sometimes we read things and remember them and do not have the source at hand.

There is definitely no need to accuse a fellow poster of lying just because a link is not initially provided and instead one could have simply asked for a source. Since you asked here it is, directly from CJ Grisham's blog:

Officer Ermis is a 25-year veteran of police work in the State of Texas. He is also co-founder of Deuce Tactical, a small gun store and instructor of CHL licenses. So, it’s rational to say that the officer had a working knowledge of Texas laws regarding firearms.

http://asp.militaryg...ring-my-arrest/

So, will you now call him a liar too?

After reading that blog entry keep in mind that Officer Ermis did have "reasonable suspicion" that Section 42.01 was being violated based on a call from a concerned citizen.

One can violate it, do so in front of a witness, that witness can notify law enforcement, law enforcement can arrive and find the person no longer violating it, the officer still has every right to legally "stop" CJ Grisham and investigate. Had all turned out right Mr. Grisham could have walked away a free man.

Read the post above to read in full why all the officer's actions including the arrest were legal. Beyond that CJ Grisham decided to play the part of a roadside lawyer and that never ends well.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So we find out you're "here" in Texas. But Grisham is a long way from unlucky. By contrast to people who have no concept of exercising their rights like Leave Britney Alone! here, the people who surrender their rights because they don't understand how to exercise them are unlucky immediately.

I don't know whether the police actions are reasonable or not because I can acknowledge that I lack evidence that I would need to make that conclusion either way. You're prematurely assuming that the police were reasonable and you can't possibly know what's in the police report because the details of this stop will go to the courtroom and won't be publicly available beforehand. I think you have a blind faith in police officers as moral and righteous upstanding people and that's not the case. Oftentimes they are liars, power-hungry bullies, and corrupt criminals. My ex girlfriend who was all of 82 pounds and 5'1" tall was being arrested for a DUI a couple of years before we met and the arresting officer was standing outside the window of his cruiser and he propositioned her inappropriately if she wanted the charges against her to disappear. That was a bribe for prostitution to remove charges, a proposition of three criminal acts at the same time. There's no morality there or respect deserved or reason to have blind faith like yours in police departments. These are human beings no better or worse than anyone else, at best, and their power must be constrained by the rule of law like any other government agent's.

What we do have in this case is the video evidence. From that, what evidence of disorderly conduct is there that he was carrying his AR-15 with "alarm", waving it around at people for example? I don't see any evidence of that one way or the other and so I would never suggest as you're implying that he not take this case to court and defend himself. I think the "alarm" comes from people who see the gun and become alarmed no matter how he's carrying it and the rash of calls into the dispatcher is what attracts police to open carriers like this.

Beyond the Second Amendment violation this kind of situation brings, there then began a Fourth Amendment violation as the video you posted shows, where they're taking his wallet out of his pants and searching his effects when he didn't consent to the search. The cops will have to demonstrate how and why they had probable cause and even if they do prove the burden of probable cause, they still didn't get a warrant which is a very simple and quick process that law enforcement doesn't seem to respect enough to have to go through. The problem when this goes to trial is that the Constitution is what's interfering with these "public duties" more than anything I can see from Mr. Grisham. With no consent and no warrant, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment right. Even if there's disorderly conduct here, which there is no evidence of we can produce, his Constitutional rights don't disappear. In a legal search, probable cause leads to a search which is either allowed by consent or authorized by an appropriate warrant. That did not happen here which is going to be a problem for the prosecution. It's appropriate that he's suing the police department for their nonchalance under the law. When rights are violated, prices should be paid.

I think it's appropriate at this point to include some educational material on what the Fourth Amendment is, how it's violated on a regular basis by law enforcement on people who don't know their rights, and how to exercise your rights effectively:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view on the police is nuanced and brutality is not something I condone. In your latest post we can agree on some parts (especially your general view on that topic) and disagree on others but there is really no need to draw it out further other than to leave it at this: your ability to withhold judgment for now and a visible attempt to better understand the overall situation that day is admirable.

Here is another video you might enjoy from Mr. Grisham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

—snip

What we do have in this case is the video evidence. From that, what evidence of disorderly conduct is there that he was carrying his AR-15 with "alarm", waving it around at people for example? I don't see any evidence of that one way or the other and so I would never suggest as you're implying that he not take this case to court and defend himself. I think the "alarm" comes from people who see the gun and become alarmed no matter how he's carrying it and the rash of calls into the dispatcher is what attracts police to open carriers like this.

Beyond the Second Amendment violation this kind of situation brings, there then began a Fourth Amendment violation as the video you posted shows, where they're taking his wallet out of his pants and searching his effects when he didn't consent to the search. The cops will have to demonstrate how and why they had probable cause and even if they do prove the burden of probable cause, they still didn't get a warrant which is a very simple and quick process that law enforcement doesn't seem to respect enough to have to go through. The problem when this goes to trial is that the Constitution is what's interfering with these "public duties" more than anything I can see from Mr. Grisham. With no consent and no warrant, that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment right. Even if there's disorderly conduct here, which there is no evidence of we can produce, his Constitutional rights don't disappear. In a legal search, probable cause leads to a search which is either allowed by consent or authorized by an appropriate warrant. That did not happen here which is going to be a problem for the prosecution. It's appropriate that he's suing the police department for their nonchalance under the law. When rights are violated, prices should be paid.

*snip*

On second thought two points came to mind which I'd like to address.

Doubt you were speaking to this but there is more than video evidence when it comes to the trial. The testimony of the officers and the dash cam will come into play.

Secondly and more importantly the rifle he had holstered and the handgun he had concealed which he informed the officer of might not fall under probable cause to search guidelines. The items were either in plain view, admitted to being on their person, and the officer reasonably believed it was necessary to disarm him. That too will come into play at court because the law is if the officer reasonably believed it was necessary to disarm then it is legal in Texas to do so.

Would appreciate your further thoughts and also would like to ask if the court rules in the officer's favor and against his would you accept this as the rule of law or would you instead claim the system is corrupt and their is a plot to disarm America?

Some of us gun owners feel no such thing and know as long as we follow the law, do not interefere with an officer's duty or disobey lawful orders, that we will always have our guns. Some of us have even had our weapons taken away for some reason or another in the course of an officer's dutues or investigation and simply going downtown to claim them allowed us to get them back. Sure it is a hassle, we could even see where it was reasonable that the weapons were temporarily taken away in some cases, but not all of us are constitutional whiners, conspiracy theorists, and we definitely don't want to lose our licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not going to deny that there's no way that a rifle can't be carried in an inappropriate manner. Even having it strapped too loosely to your body so the barrel is swaying or moving from side to side in an arc would be sufficient in my mind that someone else walking by is reasonable in feeling alarmed about it. But that's speculation, there's no evidence he was disorderly, and even if that's what was being investigated from the initial calls, there were no such charges made so I'll have to assume there's no disorderly conduct there.

Another good speech by Mr. Grisham in that video. He's clearly an activist particularly in exercising the 2nd Amendment and I guess the original video of him carrying was deliberately challenging law enforcement into putting his rights at issue. A .45 was plenty of firepower to defend himself from the animals he cited as the excuse for carrying the AR. But the excuse doesn't countermand the right. Speculation and opinion about that aside, his rights are still there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always seemed to me the States has this backwards anyway. Illegally seized evidence should be introducible into court -- the objective of the trial is to get the truth, not to enforce a bunch of procedural rules. If the offense is bad enough, a separate procedure against the officer for breaking the law to get the evidence would then follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I'm not going to deny that there's no way that a rifle can't be carried in an inappropriate manner. Even having it strapped too loosely to your body so the barrel is swaying or moving from side to side in an arc would be sufficient in my mind that someone else walking by is reasonable in feeling alarmed about it. But that's speculation, there's no evidence he was disorderly, and even if that's what was being investigated from the initial calls, there were no such charges made so I'll have to assume there's no disorderly conduct there.

Another good speech by Mr. Grisham in that video. He's clearly an activist particularly in exercising the 2nd Amendment and I guess the original video of him carrying was deliberately challenging law enforcement into putting his rights at issue. A .45 was plenty of firepower to defend himself from the animals he cited as the excuse for carrying the AR. But the excuse doesn't countermand the right. Speculation and opinion about that aside, his rights are still there.

One does not have to be arrested for disorderly conduct to be investigated for it which is exactly what the officer was doing. It was a legal stop and once the stop begins asking someone to not keep moving, to show identification, and to surrender any visible weapons momentarily and concealed ones as well if the officer feels it is reasonably necessary all come into play.

If other laws are violated during the course of the stop then one can be arrested for those.

Probable cause to search would not come into play with any of that.

His rights are still there but so is the charge of interference of public duties he commited during the course of a legal stop.

It does seem like he was out to pick a fight or as you have mildly put it, his, "carrying was deliberately challenging law enforcement into putting his rights at issue."

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always seemed to me the States has this backwards anyway. Illegally seized evidence should be introducible into court -- the objective of the trial is to get the truth, not to enforce a bunch of procedural rules. If the offense is bad enough, a separate procedure against the officer for breaking the law to get the evidence would then follow.

Legally obtained evidence is often not allowed in court. George Zimmerman's two lie detector tests he passed are good examples. If we're going to cater to the truth over the procedure we've got a lot of improvements to make before we even have to consider illegal police actions. But it's ironic that by not enforcing a bunch of procedural rules you're introducing a 2nd set of procedural rules. The difference is you're giving police more power to take things from people which signifies a lack of respect for private property. Is it just the US courts that have it backwards? What evidence is allowed in Vietnamese courts? What civil liberties exist in Vietnamese society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are charged by a magistrate, on evidence produced by the police of a crime, you generally have a trial under a tribunal of three professional judges. They generally conduct it more like an investigation or inquiry than as a trial, as there are few rules of evidence. You have an attorney representing you in all cases chosen by the court All of the officials involved are officers of the court charged with truth as their primary responsibility. There is no "taking the Fifth," or "right to remain silent," or special privilege. I have never heard of anyone being held more than a few days without formal charges and everything is public

It is efficient, effective, and gets the job done without a million lawyers gumming up the works. There is special executive clemency given annually to those who are deemed to have earned it. It's all very much like the French system from which it traces its roots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People don't realize that the whole reason we have the right to remain silent is to protect innocent people from getting charged with something. Look in to it people, that's why it was created.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where explaining things to the cops gets you into nearly as much trouble as not explaining them, unless, of course, you are guilty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was not the first time he spoke in front of the city council. Five days before his arrest he was there too attempting to tell the city council to pass a resolution and for them to send it, "to several authorities, including President Barack Obama, Texas senators and congressmen, and Gov. Rick Perry." [link]

Unsure how "greatness" can be attributed to any of his speeches which seem to be unrealistic exercises in demand.

Even The Blaze has asked, "Is CJ Grisham just unlucky with the law or is he a PR hound looking for an axe to grind?"

Arrested vet may have had an axe to grind

http://www.theblaze....n-axe-to-grind/

Is it likely the judge in this current case will take into account his behavior? Or the negative blogging he made toward city councilpersons when they failed to heed to his demands?

Regarding the arrest and why it was legal including the disarming and confiscation of his weapons

What he failed to realize is that even if one has a "right to carry a rifle around" in Texas they also have to listen to officer's orders when an officer is on official duties. Failure to do so is interference with public duties.

  1. The arresting officer was on a legitimate call, on official duties, responding to a concerned citizen informing dispatch that a man was walking with a rifle.
  2. The exact call he was on was to investigate a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
  3. The officer had every right to disarm the invidivual during the course of the investigation for the 42.01 while running his ID to insure he was not a felon and did indeed have a legal right to carry said firearm. If not every felon could then walk around with firearms unchallenged. Even in the beginning of the video the officer tells him, "Once I find out there's no issue...then you're going to be on your way." That video will be seen by the judge and will not be seen in the defendant's favor. As soon as the officers could have ran his ID and found out he was not a felon then he would have been released and had his weapons returned to him. Instead he had to yell at the officers.
  4. Futhermore the disarming of his concealed weapon was legal under Texas Government Code 411.207 which specifically states, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."
  5. He has been officially charged under Texas Penal Code Section 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with: (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;
  6. It was indeed interference with public duties, the public duty of investigating the disorderly conduct called in by a concerned citizen.
  7. Since he was arrested his long rifle, which was legal to carry, was now legally able to be taken as property for evidence
  8. Since he was arrested his concealed handgun was able to be taken as well under Texas Government Code 411.206. SEIZURE OF HANDGUN AND LICENSE.(a) If a peace officer arrests and takes into custody a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter, the officer shall seize the license holder's handgun and license as evidence
  9. Notice that taking a concealed weapon (disarming or seizing) requires a specific statute because concealed handgun carriers have specific rights. Firearms in any other situation, at your home, in your car, while hunting, can be taken if you are being arrested, he was arrested. Someone can be disarmed in any other situation during the course of an investigation.
  10. So, yes, legally he can carry a concealed handgun as he was licensed, he can even carry a long arm open carry here in Texas, but that does not mean he can violate all these other laws and once he did violate other laws it opened the door for arrest and seizure. You can also drive legally in Texas if you are licensed but if you are being pulled over you have to stop, you just cannot keep going, and if you break other laws they can also arrest you and impound your car. Likewise, claims here of illegal detention, disarming, and seizure of weapons will not fly in court. The charges against him will likely stick. The lawsuit he is bringing against the city will definitely not.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. According the the SC a person can not be detained simply for being in possesion of a fire arm. They HAVE to be suspected of criminal activity. Another being offended or concerned about another carrying a fire arm, is not reason to detain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • The exact call he was on was to investigate a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Your whole premise against him comes from this law. Simply being in posession of a weapon is NOT calculated to alarm. He would have had to actualy DO something with said fire arm in order to fall under this law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • The exact call he was on was to investigate a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

Your whole premise against him comes from this law. Simply being in posession of a weapon is NOT calculated to alarm. He would have had to actualy DO something with said fire arm in order to fall under this law.

If a citizen was alarmed and called it in then law enforcement has every right to investigate. They did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why hasn't someone suggested.. Best way to handle cops in any situation is to offer them a bribe donut?

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If a citizen was alarmed and called it in then law enforcement has every right to investigate. They did.

Look into it check out the situation but in doing so violating the rights of the person in question. If it was any other way then anyone could just point a finger and make any aqusation they wanted to warrent a papers please response. Im not a fan of the second amendment myself but the law is the law and the police are not above the constitution.

If the law states you can open carry fine and if the law also says you can not be asked for papers or demanded to be searched or detained for no reason other than a crime was commited that is also the law. Unless a crime or law has been broken the police do not have the power to demand ID. Thats the law.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't someone suggested.. Best way to handle cops in any situation is to offer them a bribe donut?

Im not sure if this is true I have never got a ticket in the US but by law you have to pay it on the spot or from the next township. Bribs I`m sure are rampit if this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 4, 2013........ in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Indeed.

Most of these videos are produced by:

A. Those who did not grow up or live in areas with high police saturation. Having seen and knowing people who were shot growing up, now having someone recently get gunned down two houses down in front of their child and then having some teens shot down the block means you want good relations with the police.

B. Those who are not licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Of course everyone who does already knows to immediately show the officer your CHL along with your DL and insurance and to inform him/her a firearm is on your person.

Being polite can also indeed get you off with a warning. It has me!

WTF?! You just went full retard. NEVER go full retard!

Did not grow up or live in areas with high police saturation... Those are so similar that they count as one right?

Not licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but most of these people are pro-rights which means they're pro-gun-rights, which means they have a really high percentage to own a firearm...

Your entire post breaks down to: "We are not a police state, not **** and do what the police says or you're an idiot"

I've been stopped many times carrying my firearm... When in my vehicle, it is mandatory that I supply identification.. When on foot... Not even a first name.

Have you people no clue what happens when you identify yourself to a police officer? I'll shed some light.

Even if you are not breaking any laws, when an officer is called to a certain place, over a possible disturbance, a record is created. When you identify yourself, your name automatically goes into that record. While the record that seems to count is the one that you are convicted on, the one that nobody seems to know exists, is the call record... This means that if any law changes, even slightly, and for some messed up reason the government wanted to jack you up... They already have the proof they needed. Not to mention, this record can and in some cases IS used to substantiate criminal charges. For example, George Zimmerman. Even though it was not a crime for him to call the police as much as he did, because he Identified himself, and the prosecutors wanted him hanged, they elegantly reached into that record and tried using it to demonstrate a clear pattern of being a vigilante, thus murder would not be a stretch to him... Think about that for a second... Whether he is guilty or not, he seems to think he's innocent... How many times do we break some dumb law without knowing? Would you want the prosecutors to be able to bury you based on something as stupid as service calls?

On to the next thing, someone said that behaving this way slows the police down when they can be doing other things... Sorry to inform you, but uniformed police officers hardly ever do anything outside of traffic violations. They do tend to assist in apprehensions, maybe some grunt work around a crime scene, but they by no means do any of the other stuff you might think they do. In fact, some police officers in uniform would jack you up on fines over something as petty as having a busted headlight, while it's daytime....

Not to mention, that i've never seen a police stop end as quickly as when a citizen knows their rights. I have personally ended a police stop in a matter of seconds, how's that for taking up time... "Sir, my name is officer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, I see you are carrying a firearm in public... " vs "The firearm is not being carried in an illegal fashion, I am not now, nor will I be in the process of committing a crime, carrying my firearm is not grounds for probable cause, you can only take possession of my firearm if I grant you permission to search and seizure, and by the way, I will not identify myself because I have no legal obligation to do so. Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

Edited by xFelix
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 4, 2013........ in America.

Saw this the other day. Now even if they did find something by useing the fith amendment he would get off by protecting himself with a camera and not saying anything to incriminate himself. The day the states says it`s illegal to video a cop is the day the nation plunges into a nose dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a citizen was alarmed and called it in then law enforcement has every right to investigate. They did.

A citizen could be alarmed all they want, that does not prove that he intentionally displayed a firearm in a way calculated to alarm. I could walk into your home with my sidearm in it's holster on my hip, and to me that is perfectly normal... To you that would be very alarming... Would that mean that I intentionally calculated that to alarm you? Now if we did the same thing, and this time I was holding the firearm in a 'ready' position, without legal reason to do so.. Then yes I am intentionally causing alarm..

So how does any of this equate to learning your rights, and how to communicate with the sneaky people hired to be police officers?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Look into it check out the situation but in doing so violating the rights of the person in question. If it was any other way then anyone could just point a finger and make any aqusation they wanted to warrent a papers please response. Im not a fan of the second amendment myself but the law is the law and the police are not above the constitution.

If the law states you can open carry fine and if the law also says you can not be asked for papers or demanded to be searched or detained for no reason other than a crime was commited that is also the law. Unless a crime or law has been broken the police do not have the power to demand ID. Thats the law.

The only thing the Second Amendment does is prohibit the federal government from taking away someone's right to bear arms. Federal, not state.

The Supreme Court clearly ruled in Presser v. Illinois that a state has the right to enact their own firearm regulations to a certain degree.

If that was not so CJ Grisham would be able to open carry a handgun too but instead had the proper CHL and had it concealed.

The Second Amendment also has nothing to do with CJ Grisham's arrest in either case.

Do not even expect his lawyers to bring up the Second Amendment at trial.

Edited by The world needs you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He was bearing arms and his arms were taken so the Second Amendment is obviously relevant to this case. There is no evidence of criminal negligence from the video that I could see, and we don't have any other evidence, so as far as I can tell either we accept charges without evidence at this time or we don't.

Edit: Let's not hijack this thread about a different video that's more relevant to guns than it is the OP. Don't we have enough of this on the forum already?. the world needs you, you didn't even watch the OP video and you admitted it, yet you're the biggest participant in this thread discussing everything else but. If you want on-topic discussion, please watch the video presented in the OP and discuss the tactics that you only alluded to in the beginning but never even saw them to know what they are. Grisham didn't follow the advice of the OP video so it's not relevant to discussion about it.

The Fifth Amendment (and to a lesser extent the Fourth) is relevant to this topic. If the Second is relevant at all, its relevance is purely incidental.

The following video adds additional depth to exercising our Fifth Amendment rights by referencing electronic and internet communications made after any initial police encounter because law enforcement will subpoena evidence as well as make additional attempts by phone and internet to get the subject of an investigation to incriminate himself. If we know their tricks, we won't get fooled by them. If we exercise our rights, they won't be obsolete like some people claim.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was bearing arms and his arms were taken so the Second Amendment is obviously relevant to this case. There is no evidence of criminal negligence from the video that I could see, and we don't have any other evidence, so as far as I can tell either we accept charges without evidence at this time or we don't.

He was arrested on separate charges unrelated to any firearm offense. Being arrested in Texas and in most other jurisdictions around the world will result on any firearms on their person being taken away until the disposition of the case.

The Second Amendmemt has no relevance to his arrest or upcoming trial.

If wanting to disagree with why he was arrested (interference with public duty) then join the internet choir but the final decision will be up to judge or jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.