Veteran Soldier Legally Open Carrying Rifle Arrested for “Rudely Displaying Weapon”

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network anonymously, via the CopBlock Submissions Page.

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

“On March 16, 2013, my 15 year-old son and I were hiking along country roads among pastures and fields to help him earn his hiking merit badge. I always enjoy these father/son hikes because it gives me time alone with my son.

As I always do when we go on these hikes and walks, I took my trusty rifle with me as there are coyotes, wild hogs, and cougars in our area. In Texas, it is legal to openly carry a rifle or shotgun as long as you do so in a manner that isn’t calculated to cause alarm. In other words, you can’t walk around waving your rifle at people. I always carry my rifle slung across my chest dangling, not holding it in my hands.

At about the five mile mark of our hike, a voice behind us asked us to stop and a police officer motioned for us to approach him. He got out of his car and met us a few feet later. He asked us what we were doing and I explained that we were hiking for my son’s merit badge. He then asked me what I’m doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, “Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?”

At that point, the officer grabbed my rifle without warning or indication. He didn’t ask for my rifle and he didn’t suggest he would take it from me. He simply grabbed it. This startled me and I instantly pulled back – the rifle was attached to me – and I asked what he thought he was doing because he’s not taking my rifle. He then pulled his service pistol on me and told me to take my hands off the weapon and move to his car, which I complied with.

Next, he slammed me into the hood of his car and I remembered I had a camera on me (one of the requirements of the hiking merit badge is to document your hikes). This video is the rest of that encounter. Up to this point, I am not told why I am being stopped, why he tried to disarm me, or even that I was under arrest.

We did not set out that Saturday morning to “make a point” or cause problems. Our goal was to complete a 10-mile hike and return home without incident. My son chose a route that was away from populated areas, but near our home. The arresting officer is Officer Steve Ermis and the supervisor is Sergeant Menix of the Temple Police Department.

The man in the video, C.J. Grisham, was first charged with resisting arrest, however, the charge was downgraded to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty. Update: Grisham was eventually convicted of the interference charge and received a $2,000 fine during sentencing. He has appealed the conviction and, as of February 2017, is still awaiting a ruling on that appeal.

After this incident, Grisham became involved in Second Amendment activism, founding “Open Carry Texas” in 2013 in order to advocate for gun rights within the state. As part of that activism, members have organized numerous open carry events and marches throughout Texas. Open Carry Texas was instrumental in getting legislation passed to allow Texas residents to open carry legally.

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Original article by Charles C. W. Cooke of the National Review.

Temple, Texas Contact Information

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Kelly W. Patterson

a lifelong resident of Las Vegas, who's been very active in local grassroots activism, as well as on a national level during his extensive travels. He's also the founder/main contributor of Nevada Cop Block, served as editor/contributor at CopBlock.org and designed the Official Cop Block Press Passes. ____________________________________________________________________________ Connect with Kelly at these social networks; Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Spread Nevada CopBlock!

Like what we are doing? Share it with the world.

73 Responses to “Veteran Soldier Legally Open Carrying Rifle Arrested for “Rudely Displaying Weapon””

  1. Glenn April 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

    I have considered running a honeypot operation like this. Now that it is summer, I might have a go at it. With any luck, I will garner the attention of the same sort of idiotic cops as this guy did. Then it’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 time baby!

    POLICE OFFICER RAPES A THREE MONTH OLD INFANT AND A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD!

    When you see common sense, t., underoath, psosgt and all the other shills spew their boot-licking propaganda here on Cop Block, remember, THIS IS WHO THEY ARE, THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DEFEND!

    Wichita KS police officer Officer Joseph T. McGill, 28, was convicted today of committing a sexual act on a 3-month-old child and a 1-year-old child. Officer McGill pleaded guilty in January 2012 in an unrelated case to sexual battery while on duty as a police officer and was sentenced to three years probation. Those charges stemmed from separate incidents in November 2010 and February 2011. The judge set sentencing for March 1.

    http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/24/2649372/former-police-officer-convicted.html

  2. t. April 20, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    According to the law you described starting on line 5 of your story….you are in the wrong and should be found guilty. Hopefully the officer views this site and takes a copy of this article to court.

    Walking along with your ” rifle slung across your chest” and with both hands on the rifle (as you described later in your story) as if you are immiediately ready and possibly preparing to shoot….seems to violate the law you list….that and common sense. You are the perfect example of irresponsible gun ownership…a poster child for the left that want to take your guns away.

  3. d0nj3nko April 20, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    The trolls who support child rapists will be here doing what they do best… Badgelicking! This guy was minding his own business with his son, hiking. The filth don’t even have a reason to arrest him, he was not read his miranda rights and was basically kidnapped. Just remember all, these guys support even convicted filth that have raped and killed children. They support the filth that killed poor Kelly Thomas, just Google his name and watch the video footage of his murder and remember these paid for trolls support the murderer’s even now as they have not yet been convicted. They are very quick to lay guilt at any civilian’s feet and yet justify murder and child rape! No credibility whatsoever! God bless us all.

  4. Common Sense April 20, 2013 at 11:43 pm #

    Another clown thinking they are going to get a check. Notice that the NRA aren’t rushing to your aid…

    Just wait til you get a case before the current USSC and it doesn’t go your way. Its just a flip of a coin.

    Be careful on what issues you test and how hard you test them.

    …oh, and there is no god

  5. BJ April 21, 2013 at 12:40 am #

    @ t.

    You just can’t help yourself in making shit up to support any LEO can you?

    He said THE COP told him to take his hands off the weapon not that he actually had his hands on the weapon and that cop would have said that even if the man’s hands were amputated and lying at his feet. And then you up the bullshit factor by accusing him of being “immediately ready a possibly preparing to shoot”. If that were the case the man would be in a pine box not arrested for some trumped up charge that these Keystone Cops couldn’t even get right the first time.

    Your post is just advice from one professional liar to another.

  6. Backfire April 21, 2013 at 12:44 am #

    t:

    There is nothing irresponsible about carrying a rifle with a 2-point sling across the front of your body. If that were the case, SWAT, FBI, Police, Military, and countless others are irresponsible.

    You’ve also been having comprehension problems lately, as he said: “I always carry my rifle slung across my chest dangling, not holding it in my hands.” He never said “both hands on the rifle”.

  7. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 1:02 am #

    There maybe some elements missing from this but lets not make a judgment that he was in the prepared to shoot position with his hands on the weapon. It does not say he had them on it in his story. Lets see whats up if we get more details!!

  8. certain April 21, 2013 at 1:06 am #

    BJ –

    You have to give him a break, man. He’s a mall-cop that tries really, really hard to be a real policeman. To the extent of claiming a story says something, even when the story is right there for people to read and see for themselves how full of ka-ka he is – “….both hands on it ready to shoot..” LOL.

  9. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 2:35 am #

    I occasionally comment. I’m a Republican who goes by American Classical Liberal (which leads to confusion with libertarians), American Enlightenment Liberal, or Civil Libertarian (usually leading to me being a left-winger, socialist or commie). I start here because of the silly labels I see from the pro-cop sillies.

    First, the anti-cops: really guys the “every cop is (insert any epithet)” is just mindless. Cops are a spectrum like the rest of us. They do a job which at times is an ugly one (think car accidents); some take their oath very seriously; some take their authority as the point of their job and ignore their oath as suits. Making no distinction is as bad as the next category.

    Second, the pro-cops (usually t., common sense, and slappy): really guys could you make up anymore excuses? You reach for an excuse like it’s a real argument, with most of the excuses being logical fallacies. You aren’t any better than the anti-cops, though you do stay very silent when the behavior is so egregious you can’t make an excuse, so, unlike the anti-cops you are able to make at least one distinction.

    Two good examples here of pro-cop: t.’s misreading of the story, and common sense’s labeling of “just another clown going for money”. Willful ignorance for the first, dismissive nonsense lacking any civic sense by the second. Both are lame excuses. The obvious rejoinder to common sense, using his same dismissive nonsense, “just another bootlicker kissing up to serve his authoritarian, sadistic ego”. Neither are facts. Both are just epithets to dismiss. The use of “activist” is just funny. Police Unions are activist.

    There is a neutral position. It sees a pattern and a need for reform, while recognizing the job police do. It criticizes police action from a citizen’s perspective, a perspective that should be seen as important, even more important, as that of the police. It isn’t knee-jerk like either the pro-cops or anti-cops. It requires the police to follow and respect our laws, and to be punished equal to us when they don’t. Hats off to YankeeFan.

  10. Captain Amurrika April 21, 2013 at 2:44 am #

    Isn’t it great to see the second amendment alive and well? It’s so heart warming to see the police go out of their way to respect a person’s constitutional right to carry weapons on their person. Remember class, state laws DO NOT trump the constitution.

    Apparently Texas is not as open about guns as I thought. They also don’t care about Officer physical fitness either. I guess the dweeb in the glasses and the fat ass cop had to find some way to punish this evil man for his contempt of cop.

    God forbid that they let him alone after checking his record and seeing that he was not wanted for anything. Nope, not these Super troopers, they needed to arrest him and waste everybodies time. Waste tax money, jail space, and violate his rights just because they could. To protect and serve.

  11. Greg McGowan April 21, 2013 at 4:00 am #

    “Once I find out there is no issue”, “Til I can find out you can legally have the gun and you can be out here” , “This day and age” ,”I felt threatened” He didn’t even pull his gun and he felt threatened? If he was so threatened ,they didn’t even do a proper search on him until he was to be placed in the patrol car. Thank god this wasn’t a real criminal or that wallet could have been another gun like the one they missed until he told them about it on his left hip. What a bunch of Keystone cops. Can’t even tell a citizen what the law is when they feel “ALARMED” and not even bother this guy and go on, at the most do a drive by and see he was legal and not perpetrating anything. “What a fine example to your son”, not their job to counsel and belittle folks either. No respect. Then making charges up to suit and justify the treatment. Good thing this was recorded. At least the one officer on off camera left sounded sympathetic and I bet that wallet felt hot in his hand after he heard his coworkers lame illegal excuses, He knew it was bogus.
    Have to admit though, the tactical way he was carrying is kind of extreme, wouldn’t have been my choice to carry that way, as they stipulated he is in America and not Iraq or Afghanistan, why would you need to be in that type of ready position “Port Arms” in the country in Texas as opposed to “Shoulder Arms”…..rogue deer,rabid coyote, Meth head w/ a lab,? It is his right though, just sayin.

  12. RadicalDude April 21, 2013 at 5:27 am #

    Total BS contempt of cop non-case “resisting arrest” with no underlying charge for the arrest in the first place, then “downgraded” to “interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty.”
    Please tell me you are not going to take a plea.
    And, how this guy was carrying his gun is moot as to the cop’s crime of battery, when he beat him up after he took the gun. The only criminal in the story is the cop, as usual.

  13. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 5:28 am #

    One of the funniest moments I saw on CopBlock was two officers going through their book trying to find a reason as to why they had just arrested (obviously it was only a handcuffed detainment, as no cop would arrest first without knowing why) someone. The final result was they let him go. Our greatest freedom is to just be left alone.

    OT, however he carried it if he didn’t threaten others rudely he carried it appropriately. He is now charged with “interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty.” Was it interfering if he wasn’t carrying rudely other than the through the LEO’s subjectivity? Open-carry states see this all the time.

  14. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 5:30 am #

    In an open-carry state all of these are BS excuses:“Once I find out there is no issue”, “Til I can find out you can legally have the gun and you can be out here” , “This day and age”. No probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.

  15. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 5:39 am #

    “The only criminal in the story is the cop, as usual.” If and only you realize these stories are specifically about cops doing questionable things. I’m not doing the usual disclaimer of “it’s only a few bad apples” simply because the analogy is that a “few bad apples spoil the bushel”. These stories are about questionable actions, and do not describe police as a whole anymore that what a bad surgeon does describes surgeons as a whole. However, both professions try to hide what that bad actor did to protect the profession.

  16. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 6:19 am #

    Ariel,

    Scotus ruling Florida V JL answers many questions about anon tips called into the police and in that ruling it was a black man at a bus stop with a gun. This ruling would apply to many open carry moments where the police received a call about someone open carrying

    In open carry states, citizens are always going to be harassed. T likes to explain the difference between RS, PC and BRD which I agree is helpful. The issue is that police also need training on what RS really is. On policeone there was a story from 2001 about a dude open carrying that spawned like 470 comments and you would be surprised real police officers were saying they could articulate about someone open carrying where there was no criminal activity present. The cop in that story where there was, I believe a video used the typical lines like; I don’t know if you are a felon that can’t posses a gun. That’s not RS. I don’t know if you have warrants. That’s also not RS. One officer in the comments stated if he gets many calls from citizens on someone carrying, he can articulate disturbing the peace and if he fails to ID, he can arrest on failure to Id. That’s really amazing that there is a cop with a badge with arrest powers like that. My ruling I linked covers that. Unless a call, even if a gun is mentioned, that does not contain information that indicates criminal activity, SCOTUS says you can’t terry stop someone. Police will not care however and that’s the spooky part.

    One last note Ariel. You mentioned T up above. I have good conversations with T here and am not piling on or trying to start something but I will disagree from time to time. There was a story of some guy who made a illegal driving maneuver to avoid a DUI checkpoint and I asked the question with the answer already known…..Is it illegal to avoid DUI checkpoint? 2 times for sure and I think 3, he responded with…Stopped for trying to avoid a checkpoint! Check!. Which is a long way to say yes. It isn’t illegal at all but I was not surprised by the answer as cops of any type will find the most innocuous of behaviours suspicious!!

  17. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 6:20 am #

    Up above I meant from 2011 not 2001.

  18. t. April 21, 2013 at 7:07 am #

    Guy, you are welcome to your opinion but please stop with the TV learned law about Miranda rights. You toads always get it wrong…like you just did.

  19. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 7:08 am #

    If I had to rate t., common sense, and slappy, it would be as follows: Slappy is the most ignorant with the worst arguments, the two going hand in hand, and could easily fit in anywhere an authoritarian, even totalitarian, regime exists; commons sense is in the middle, a mixed showing too often using dismissiveness as a meaningful argument ; t. reminds me of Johnny Law or Ken over on PINAC, good arguments usually when calm but still unable to see the world other than through his one lens. I’d rather argue with t. than slappy, as the latter has a challenged learning curve so steep that it gives me vertigo. I seldom argue with the real anti-cops, here or elsewhere, as they are beyond argument.

    The DUI checkpoints are not effective other than body count, good for show, and do give police a chance to find things not DUI (bad in so many ways). As for turning around, if I see a traffic line I immediately try to find an alternate route. “It isn’t illegal at all but I was not surprised by the answer as cops of any type will find the most innocuous of behaviours suspicious!!” Yep, it’s why I don’t scratch my ass in public around cops. Actually, I try not to scratch my ass in public at all.

    I’ve taught my kids the following about cops, it’s disparaging but meaningful: “Cops are like dogs, if you run they will chase you, but unlike dogs that run after you because you run, cops run after you assuming you’re guilty and will treat you accordingly.” Joggers have been chased for God’s sake. Oh, look, it’s running.

    As an aside and OT, I have two cops in my family. I went to their wedding. I’ve also gone to biker bars, I ride a 40 year old motorcycle, and once and only once, a cop bar. I felt safer in those biker bars than either the wedding or the cop bar. Anecdotal experience, but I wasn’t verbally threatened with violence at the biker bars for my opinions or for not belonging to their club/gang. The bikers all liked my motorcycle.

  20. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 7:14 am #

    t., it would help if you actually named “guy”. And yeah he does have a misconception about Miranda as far I understand it. Would you give the LEO’s more full understanding? You can neglect the latest time limit for invoking the 5th.

    Like any LEO accused or even questioned about a crime would do, shut up and wait for a lawyer.

  21. t. April 21, 2013 at 8:10 am #

    Ariel: To clear up Miranda… As simply and succinctly as possible, it only applies to post custodial interviews / interrogations. That’s the part you guys miss all the time….post custodial. In over 17 years on the job, with the exception of my time in drug investigations and on DWI arrests…I could probably count on 2 hands the number of times I’ve read people their Miranda rights. Its not like on TV. I don’t have to read you your rights unless I’M ASKING YOU QUESTION…AFTER YOU ARE IN CUSTODY. On TV officer read rights as soon as someone is arrested. That’s fine, but its not what that court case said. By the time I arrest you….I don’t really care what you have to say about things, you’ve already had that chance (its. why the “don’t talk to the police mantra is so wrong) before you were arrested. Now I’ll let you have diarrhea of the mouth in the back seat and I’ll listen. That’s not protected speech and not covered under Miranda. Got it?

    As for this incident. The author said that the officer told him to take his hands of the gun (I didn’t make it up or misread it). A reasonable assumption would therefore be what?? Oh, that he had his HANDS (as in the plural if hand) on the gun as he is trotting down the side of a road(not out in the woods or on a hiking trail…walking down the roads) . Where I work…his actions would be unlawful. “Open carry” is far different than thing than a high powered rifle slung across you chest as you walk around with your hand on the grip…ready to shoot. The officer disarming him while he is detained..also lawful.

    The part that is missing is why the contact happened. If someone called him in (most likely from the way the story is told), acoording to the law he cites in his story….he is clearly in violation. (BTW, the reason that this is most likely what happened is that, according to the author, the officer came up from behind and he couldn’t have even seen said weapon).

    Guys listen. I have said over and over that I want a responsibly armed public. People who carry and act like this guy…ain’t it. Stories such as these arm your enemies with reasons to try and take your guns away from you. Rabidly defending the poorly thought out actions of many of the folks who “exercise:-) ‘ their rights in the world in which we live just adds fuel to the fire of the anti-gun crowd.

  22. slappy April 21, 2013 at 9:43 am #

    The guy was a dip shit people who have carrying permits are supposed to tell the officers that he had the gun. He didn’t. The guy is a criminal. Why the hell would you walk around with an assault weapon. This guy is unstable at best. The video started at the arrest. Where is the beginning when the officer made contact? He is truly a dip shit. When you have a carrying permit you have to work with the officer on scene.
    Using the bull shit line of I’m a vet is for the birds. Is that supposed to make you above everyone else? The guy already has a lawyer on retainer. Look what he is doing to his kid. He is truly a piece of shit and needs to have his guns removed. He won’t win any lawsuit. That is just another bull shit activist ploy.

  23. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    t.,

    Thanks, and that was my understanding of Miranda also. I wanted to know yours.

    “By the time I arrest you….I don’t really care what you have to say about things, you’ve already had that chance (its. why the “don’t talk to the police mantra is so wrong) before you were arrested. Now I’ll let you have diarrhea of the mouth in the back seat and I’ll listen. That’s not protected speech and not covered under Miranda. Got it?” First, I’m not in your back seat, where I would certainly remain silent. Second, neither the ACLU, nor any CDL has ever said “talk to the police all you want, it’s ok”, nor have I seen any post-service cop say “yeah, talk to the police all you want, it’s OK.” In fact, it is always the opposite. I do realize you have much more legal training, and more OTJ experience, so I should take your advice.

    Obviously, I’m neglecting the usual required verbal identification. Your “after I’ve arrested you” is the most important time to remain silent. Your pre-arrest I take as “you might talk yourself out of being arrested”, really? You can vouch that you had the idea that he needed to be arrested but he talked you out of it? I’m not trying to do a straw man either.

    “The author said that the officer told him to take his hands off the gun” Read it again, it was post confrontation not before.
    1.)Drawing the conclusion that his hands were on the rifle prior is achronological, also known as making shit up to suit your argument. But so what? If I have a rifle across my back or chest while trotting (more made up shit, he never wrote anything about trotting, running, or even speed walking) I may lay a hand on it to steady it, but laying on a hand in that circumstance with a rifle strapped either way is not a threatening gesture.
    2.)”Where I work…his actions would be unlawful.” Given that you can’t keep the chronology straight I can understand. Not to mention you add “trotting”, change rifle to “high-powered rifle” (words count, you escalate to fit your narrative), and you work in Texas? If you don’t, then your concept of unlawful pre-arrest is not germane.
    3.) “thing than a high powered rifle slung across you chest as you walk around with your hand on the grip…ready to shoot.” Think about what you wrote here, based on your first mistake of he hand his hands on the rifle pre-confrontation. I’ve already addressed rifle morphing into “high powered rifle (sic)”. I was in the military in WEPS (teats on a boar in the USCG, but still), you aren’t ready to shoot if it’s slung across your chest. And the story has no description other than rifle. Hunting rifles have stocks, military-style have grips and stocks. Your use of “grip” is just making more shit up (I’m using that phrase rather than fabrication, earthy can be good) from one word “rifle”.
    4.) “The officer disarming him while he is detained..also lawful.” Is lawful without ellipse and “also” would have been better, but then you’ve been re-writing the story as you go along.
    5.) “If someone called him in (most likely from the way the story is told), acoording to the law he cites in his story….he is clearly in violation.” No, someone called him in, that’s all you can conclude. My wife has a friend who craps at the sight of a gun. She calls in anyone open-carrying after running away. Therefore, using your logic, open-carrying is a violation. You know nothing as to what happened prior to when he was confronted, but made shit up again, and came to a conclusion from what you made up.
    6.) I looked up the average hunting rifle length, including stock, and it’s well beyond 40 inches (the M-16 is 39.5 inches, but that’s not a hunting rifle). But, and you non-professionals can do this safely at home, take a yard stick and place it across your chest. Unless you carry it across your chest so that it’s beating you in the balls while smacking your face (or throat if you’re tall enough), anyone can see a rifle from behind, stock under one arm, barrel protruding over the shoulder, with the sling across the back just adding certainty. I suppose rifles are really short in your jurisdiction, much shorter than even the M-16 which does have a grip.

    I agree with your last paragraph, except where you misapply this story.
    As for open-carry in general, the only time a cop should even bother someone with a holstered gun is if the state has a restriction on rounds, and then only with politeness.

    Finally, I hope you don’t embellish your reports like you did this story to serve your purpose.

  24. Ariel April 21, 2013 at 10:06 am #

    Slappy, go to sleep. This isn’t a concealed-carry story whatsoever. No permit is required. It isn’t an assault rifle story either, unless every rifle is an assault rifle.

    So your entire comment deserves:
    “You’re travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone!”

    Unfortunately, you even ran that stop. Leaving you to arrive at “The Outer Limits”.

    Go back and read the story and understand how silly your comment was, is, and shall ever be.

  25. Matt April 21, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    I wish the guy had doubletapped that fat PIG in the chest. Then once and for all defense against an UNLAWFUL arrest would be decided in court.

    They commited NO CRIME. The man was defending himself against an armed attacker. Law abiding Army Vet with son going for Eagle Scout, He would have walked.

  26. Matt April 21, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    Slappy, are you even American???? Take your POV back to the former East Germany where you belong!

  27. Joel April 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    The link is to a web site of a video of a open carry encounter reviewed by a prosecutor, he claims it’s completely correct in it’s execution. I view the above encounter and the thugs violated everyone.

    http://mylegalheat.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/what-are-your-legal-rights-during-a-police-stop-video-analysis/

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): In justifying a particular search or seizure, a police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which…reasonably warrant the search. This could be a reasonable suspicion … that his safety or that of others was in danger, or that a specific crime was being committed.

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979): Mainly applies to vehicles, but says that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant has otherwise violated the law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Meaning, you can’t stop and search someone just to find out if they might be a criminal. You have to have a reason to think they are a criminal before you stop them.

    Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979): When a police officer stops and demands identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity (reasonable suspicion) it is a violation of that person’s 4th Amendment rights and can’t be allowed. In sum, you’re not required to give your ID to a police officer unless he has an articulable reason to suspect you of committing a crime.

    U.S. v. DeBerry, 76 F.3d 884, 885 (7th Cir. 1996): This is not a supreme court case, but it essentially says that police are allowed to ask you any questions they want (just like any stranger on the street can ask you any questions they want), the police CAN’T, however, seize someone unless they have “a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that the person carrying the gun was violating the law.”

  28. slappy April 21, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    Matt you are a bigger dumb ass then some on this board. You advocate shooting the officer while he was doing his investigation. You are truly a moron. The guy was acting like a dip shit. The officer had every right to disarm him. If the guy would have just cooperated none of this would have happened. Instead he chose to be an ass hole about it and he got arrested. He is mentally unstable at best. Now he will have a crime after his name. I would love to see the video of him getting his ass handed to him at a law suit trial which will never happen. Him using the I’m a veteran story is just stupid. What is he supposed to walk on water? He got owned in front of his son and he did it to himself. What a loser. Just like you.

  29. Lakewood_in_Afghanistan April 21, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    You’re getting lower and lower on the grade level checks, slappy. Your Flesch-Kincaid grade level for the above epistle is a mere 3.8. There are people filling the mustard dispenser at Wendy’s who display more coherence that you, the supposed cop, seem capable of. Do you write your reports in the same neolithic style, or do you have a slightly smarter partner do it for you?

  30. t. April 21, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    Ariel: Wow again. You are at least interesting. Not very logical, but interesting.
    Let me see if I can get through any of that mess……

    THe A LU hasn’t said talk to the police all you want..?… Not really sure what you mean by that or any of your whole paragraph. My comment about Miranda was meant for @donj3nko for his ridiculous comment on 4/20 @ 11:21. As I r said many times, don’t talk. It’s more often to your detriment to do so, but that’s ok. As example, on Friday I was involved at a domestic with readily apparent injuries on both parties. There was a outside witness that reported what they had seen. One party claimed to have been assaulted and the story they told corresponded to the injuries seen and very close to what the witness said. The other party didnt want to talk and claimed the visible injury was just a rash. Both involved officers were very familiar with this couple in that she was recently arrested for an assault on him where, although she too had injuries, she was clearly the primary aggressor. But on Friday…because of his silence, he got arrested. On the way to jail he starts complaining about how she atracked him first and scratched his neck, and it wasn’t a rash. It is the perfect example of where his silence got him in trouble and talking with us may very well have helped him. His choice. In the overwhelming amount of street encounters, unless you are truly guilty, speaking with the officers is always a better choice (unless you are wanting to engage in attempted deception). But go ahead. Hope it works for you.

    U read it again: It doesn’t say it was “post confrontation”. We only know that the officer couldn’t tell him that before there was contact.

    1) you may not find it threatening. You might be super cool hand Luke and super sniper or something. But in the day in which we live, a high powered rifle in a combat sling across your chest and you strutting around with your hand on the grip is pretty threatening to most. As evidence…I’ll point to the we. Site “cop block”. There Are articles and comments on that site about how threatening the poli e look when they carry rifles in the exact same fashion.

    2) where I work he laws is slightly different in wording than what the author lists starting on line 5 of his story. But they are essentially the same and many / most places have similar laws. ***BTW*** what the heck are you talking about with “then your concept of pre-arrest is not germane”.??? Read what the author wrote about Texas law starting on line 5 and think your comment through. You missed
    3) Appears to be a .223, 556 or some other AR variant. It’s not a converted .22. In other words, a high powered rifle.
    There is clearly a pistol “grip” on his rifle. He has it in a combat sling which is desgigned to be quickly swung into a firing position (you can also fire from a slung position very easily) I made up nothing. You on the other hand are being disingenuous and intentionally trying to mislead. Watch the video, it’s there to be seen, especially by someone with your massive experience and expertise in the area.
    4) what? It’s a blog site not an English class. My point is still valid and you want to argue grammar.
    5 & 6) I didn’t make up anything. He doesn’t say what happened prior to the contact (he may not know). But the reasonable inference is that someone called. Sorry if I live in a world that is loaded with real world experience. My comment was based on the authors story. He said tha he didn’t know the officer was behind him, and the officer. Ouldnt have seen the weapon from behind. Reasonable inference. You miss again.
    Watch the video. Look at everything that goes on and the. Re-read his story. First, he’s a big guy, dressed all in black, carrying a AR style rifle in a combat sling. You, Mr Profeesional weapons expert should know that that type of weapon is most comfortably carried (when slung a Ross the front) in a stock up, barrel down orientation. Somewhere like a 60-65 degree angle. That way the magazine isn’t slapping you in the nuts and the barrel isn’t pointing directly at someone beside you. But you should know that, your a self described expert right? BTW, not many people carry hunting rifles, other than AR’s on combat slings. Just saying. And when watching the video…think about this part. From the story the author tells, it wants a very long contact before the filming starts. But he officers back up is already on scene when the officer I slings the rifle. Now, how can that be? Maybe this isn’t as a remote a part of the world as he described OR it is like I said that someone probably called this in and the second officer was already on his way to the menacing guy with a gun call. Again, it’s all there inthe video.

    So after exposing your disingenuousness in that comment….lets look at your comment of 12:42

    Terry vs Ohio: Apply what you wrote with the above authors story. The officer(s) were spot on a cordi g to the law the author cites on line 5

    Delaware v Prouse. Not applicable because the officer is there under Terry v Ohio

    Brown v Texas: See the comment about Delaware v Prouse.

    US v DeBerry: See comment on Brown v Texas.

  31. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    Florida v JL is a SCOTUS ruling that states the police merely receiving a call that describes someone at a place and time where the call does not indicate any criminal activity, does not give the police a right to terry stop someone under Terry v Ohio. In that case, there was a gun mentioned and still, SCOTUS said a gun is legal and they refused to make a gun exception to Terry v Ohio.
    That ruling would apply here if they did receive a call that someone was carrying.

    Ultimately a judge will determine if the police actually had RS to conduct a valid stop. Just to be clear for T, if the police saw or were informed of other factors that gave the RS, then all is good but if it was just a call that someone was carrying, absent other factors, just receiving a call that someone has a gun does not give you RS to do a damn thing contrary to police thinking. You need more than just…someone is carrying to make a legal terry stop!!

  32. t. April 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm #

    YF: Again, read what the author wrote is the law in Texas. Now apply what you are saying about annoyimius callers and Terry. ***Note BTW that we don’t know if there was any calls about this guy….but a reasonable person can look at the totality of the video and the authors story and it certainly makes sense that the most likely was.

    So, if there was a caller descrbing this guy carrying his rifle in a manager the caused alarm (which would be illegal according to him) and the officer arrived and saw the same types of actions as described by said caller….Buhda boom Buhda bing. You’re there. Now we don’t know if any of this happened or not. But the video and the accompanying story certainly makes is sound like the scenario I described is right on target.

    BTW. Everybody is throwing around various court case about various different incidents. Those rulings apply are made on those specific circumstances and don’t apply to all in general. Now there are “bright line” types of case, like Terry, Miranda, Tennessee v Garner, Graham v Connor, Gant v Arizona, Florida v Harris. Bright line decisions. Trying to stretch a case to fit the circumstances isnt the way courts work.

    Without knowing more about this, from the authors own words and the video he posted, looks like the police did it right.

  33. RadicalDude April 21, 2013 at 5:59 pm #

    t. says:
    April 21, 2013 at 8:10 am

    Ariel: To clear up Miranda… As simply and succinctly as possible, it only applies to post custodial interviews / interrogations. That’s the part you guys miss all the time….post custodial. In over 17 years on the job, with the exception of my time in drug investigations and on DWI arrests…I could probably count on 2 hands the number of times I’ve read people their Miranda rights. Its not like on TV. I don’t have to read you your rights unless I’M ASKING YOU QUESTION…AFTER YOU ARE IN CUSTODY. On TV officer read rights as soon as someone is arrested. That’s fine, but its not what that court case said.

    @t.: Just to clarify, if you question someone at a traffic stop, that is a custodial interrogation. If you question someone while they are “detained”, but not formally “under arrest”, that is a custodial interrogation. If you pull over a motorist, and while he is stopped, you question the passenger, that is a custodial interrogation. Miranda doesn’t only “kick in” after a formal “arrest”, any situation where you question someone under circumstances under which a “reasonable” person would “not feel free to leave” is a custodial interrogation, not just when they are under arrest.

  34. spirit of 46 April 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

    To the author of this story. I guess we don’t have to worry about people messing with Texas-Texas messes with their own. the NRA won’t help you because they are pansy sell-outs. Please google “Gun owners of America” they will be glad to help you.

  35. spirit of 46 April 21, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    maybe some of y’all should start calling 911 every time you see a cop carrying a gun to report “somebody carrying a gun” and see how that turns out. Especially if you report that it’s “Somebody dressed like a cop”

  36. Shawn April 21, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    @YF
    ” I don’t know if you are a felon that can’t posses a gun. That’s not RS. I don’t know if you have warrants. That’s also not RS.”

    Cops, especially T, think breathing is RS. We’re criminals simply for being alive and exercising our rights and legal activities.
    Reasonable has left the equation altogether and gone into ‘speculation search.’ They speculate, “he might have warrants”, “He might be planning to rob a bank”. He might this, he might that, we don’t know, ect.
    And people like T can’t even see what is wrong with that.

    RS implies you have some fact to back up your efforts. The simple act of doing something that is legal can not be a suspicious activity. If it were, cops would stop and search everyone entering and leaving a bank.

    As for the gun, T will never acknowledge that there are a lot of cops who hate and fear public ownership of guns, and attack it at every opportunity. This reads like one of those cases.
    Simply put, if open carry is legal, then it is legal. But cops try to block a right the public has decided to grant itself. They are trying to make law.
    I think it was NJ that went open carry. The cops just plainly said they would stop, prone out, and and run through everyone who exercised that right. They blatantly were trying to make it impossible to exercise a legal activity they didn’t like.
    That is how much contempt cops have for the voting public.

  37. 1605 April 21, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    Cops “service belts” are threats. Believe that, they are!

  38. Shawn April 21, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

    @Snappy

    “The guy was a dip shit people who have carrying permits are supposed to tell the officers that he had the gun. He didn’t. The guy is a criminal. Why the hell would you walk around with an assault weapon.”

    Did you even read the article? One, it wasn’t a concealed weapon. Two, he did explain why. They are in the country and there are wild animals. Some can be very aggressive.

  39. Shawn April 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm #

    @46
    “maybe some of y’all should start calling 911 every time you see a cop carrying a gun to report “somebody carrying a gun” and see how that turns out. Especially if you report that it’s “Somebody dressed like a cop”

    The logic is the same as that of a cop’s suspicion of open carriers. How do we know it is really a cop? They should be stopped and checked.
    “It could be someone planning to bomb a mall,”
    “It could be a Dorner who still had a uniform.”

    How do we know? How does T know?

    Answer, when it is a cop not performing an illegal activity, they assume no illegal activity.
    With us, they assume an illegal activity.

  40. Common Sense April 21, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    CJ, the man in the video, first reported this to Glenn Beck. That says it all.

    And I further recommend that all activists gather legal knowledge from either TV or fellow activists, it makes things easier for the police.

  41. RadicalDude April 21, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

    @Shawn:
    That is exactly how you should approach a conversation w/ a cop, IMO, if you can question them with the Socratic method: you should be openly suspicious/accusatory in your inquiry, remember, factually, they are armed and violent/dangerous gang members. That is factually what they are. You are very correct to be suspicious of such individuals. They engage in political violence/street terrorism as their ordinary modus operandi. And, over the years their violence has become progressively more extortionate to the point that now their primary purpose is collecting revenues for the municipalities that employ them, maintaining “peace” is not their primary function, if it even is one.

  42. Otto Maddox April 21, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    I love how the police think they have “rights”. They don’t. They have powers given to them by laws. It might be semantics but it’s a distinction worth making.

    However the guy in this video doesn’t carry himself very well. Too angry, too animated. Yes you can be mad but you gotta keep it under control.

    The really funny part to me is this is happening in Texas. I live in California. There used to be lots of people in Texas making fun of California because this kind of stuff “could never happen in Texas.”

    Welcome to the party boys.

  43. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    Florida v JL does apply to more than that specific case. Go read the ruling. So do all the other cases named in a broad sense. By your logic, that recent supreme case that ruled the police need a warrant to use a dog sniff at a door is specific to that case. Not true. In Florida v JL, the court ruled that police may not take an anon tip that does not contain suspicious indications and create RS. Tell me how that is specific. So is the case in which the court ruled police may not stop vehicles based solely to ID someone. These are broad cases and the proof is that police are not stopping cars just to check papers. Florida V JL goes to the heart of RS. In fact, it had nothing to do with a gun. It was about the police getting a tip and doing a terry stop for which the court said was illegal and they explained their reason why. It can create abuses. Go read that ruling and then try telling me it is specific because it is not. Here is the main gist of that ruling:

    Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), held that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply described that person’s location and what he or she might look like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.

    Sounds pretty broad to me

    Here is Delaware V Prouse:

    Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may not stop motorists without any probable cause to suspect crime or illegal activity, to check their driver’s license and auto registration

    Once again, very broad ruling. A police may not is the line used.

    When federal courts/SCOTUS makes rulings, they are ruling on a specific case but if you read the language, they always paint it in a broad sense. Like the Glik ruling which you claimed was specific. It was but if you read the language they didn’t say only her had the right to film, and disseminate info on police they s aid Americans have right and if you think PD’s across the region and even out didn’t take notice you are being naïve.

  44. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

    As far as this case, I stated I want more info as I have not taken a position either way but your deluded view that police can get a call that someone has a gun, especially in a state where peoples can open carry sans permit, that has no info that gives you RS in any way and you can stop them over them engaging in a legal activity is really disturbing and demonstrates the fundamental issue with police understanding our rights and the courts ruling and how they apply.

    Once again, rulings that come from SCOTUS on police activities where rights, RS,PC and etc are involved are going to be broad even if they are ruling on a specific case, and will dictate how police will conduct themselves in their future law enforcement endeavours.

  45. YankeeFan April 21, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    To hammer my point home about the Florida v JL ruling, here is a portion about their rationale:

    The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a “stop and frisk” of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be “suitably corroborated” with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

    The Court further declined to create a standard “firearms exception” to the Terry doctrine, It was unlawful but the man was detained, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that “Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target’s unlawful carriage of a gun .

    Now after reading this, tell me this is not a broad ruling that tells police about RS related to anon tips!!

  46. t. April 21, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    Dude: You get 2 good stars for that comment. Not 3, but a very solid 2. You may not want to plan your legal career just yet. But you have a pretty good handle on it. The key that the courts will look at (as they already have) is what would a reasonable person believe. There is that pesky word again. Reasonable. The least understood word by Cop Blockers site wide.

    @Shawn: I hate that I can’t remember which case it was, but SCOTUS itself said the “reasonable suspicion can’t be just a hunch, but it doesn’t have to be much more run that”. I use that phrase but didnt come up with it.
    About your later comment referring to me. You are absolutely right. I don’t “know”. But i don’t have to “know”. I only have to have a “reasonable suspicion” about you activities.

    YF: Again, apply all of that to this case. It doesn’t apply. Again there is so much we don’t know about this incident, but my logical inferences seem about right. Annoyimius tips can be used (Florida v JL doesn’t say that they can’t). There just has to be more to be verify what was “tipped”. With a case like this one, IF someone called him in, and WHEN the officer arrives on scene and sees exactly what the “tipster” said….your at PC, beyond mere RS. So the case you keep citing…clearly wouldn’t apply.

    Prouse: Clearly doesn’t apply. He was t just stopping him to identify him.

    Glik: Go back and read my comment about it.

    Back to your final comment. It simply doesn’t apply in any way to this story dude. JL doesn’t disallow the police from using tips. They just can’t act on those alone. In this case….the officer didnt.

  47. Shawn April 21, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    @Radical
    “I love how the police think they have “rights”. They don’t. They have powers given to them by laws. It might be semantics but it’s a distinction worth making.”

    They don’t realize it, but their entire ‘right’ to carry a gun is at public sufferance. It isn’t semantics. Rights are, morally speaking, eternal.
    Delegated powers are not.

  48. Shawn April 21, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    @T

    The problem is that RS has lost its definition and now includes simply breathing. You have no concept that RS is not your gun feelings, and it is not speculations of “What if he is this”, “What if he has a warrant”

    That is called speculation. You don’t understand that, and that is a troubling thought in a cop. You can justify ANYTHING with speculation.

  49. t. April 21, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Whatever shawn. Nothing to you that is less than BRD with hundred led of witnesses and multiple angle videos would reach your expectations. And that is not how our laws work. That may be what you want, but that’s all it is. Even in your job, should have a better understanding of this. Again, it doesn’t have to be much more than a hunch. Sorry if you don’t think so. But that’s the way it works.

  50. YankeeFan April 22, 2013 at 12:40 am #

    T,

    I wasn’t saying they do apply here and I did say I have no idea and stated I want to reserve judgment until I know more. I will concede that Florida v JL is not as broad as Delaware v Prouse and the others you named but it will be relevant when the police receive an anon tip where the tipsters credibility can’t be confirmed. In Florida, the court also referenced Alabama V White and found the police did have RS to stop her as the tipsters info and the independent police work seemed to match. I was not saying they applied here and so far my opinion on this is the guy carrying across his chest isn’t the smartest move in the world and until more comes out, I will not say his rights were violated nor will I say the police were correct….at this point!

  51. YankeeFan April 22, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    I took a closer look at your comments and I can agree with a large portion of what you said. In this case we have little to go on. As stated IF this was a tipster thing, the ability of the police to procede will depend on many things. The mere fact a gun is present still doesn’t rise to the level of RS if it is legal to open carry. Other factors may changed that if the call contained info he was acting in suspicious manner, pointing it and etc. The issue of carrying it across his chest will be defined by the court. My point….there is to little info to go on. In this case if it was just a guy has a gun strapped across his chest walking down the..whatever, you are going to be hard pressed to say that is pc to make an arrest, if that is all the call contained, as it still must contain info that shows criminality on the persons part.

    I found this in another published article. This is just an excerpt from it:

    Temple Police told local media that the Fort Hood soldier refused to hand of his weapon – leading to his arrest. However, the video shows that Grisham complied with their demands.

    One of the officers told Grisham that anyone holding a gun is considered dangerous, according to a 15-minute video obtained by Fox News.

    “In this day and age people are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers told a handcuffed Grisham. “They don’t care what the law is.”

  52. Greg McGowan April 22, 2013 at 1:10 am #

    Does the cop have a dash camera? HMMMM?

  53. Radical Dude April 22, 2013 at 1:25 am #

    Cops have the same rights anyone else has, basically. Rights are a function of natural law.

  54. t. April 22, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    YF: As always its a good debate and you add much. But look at his story…line 6 specifically. Its legal to carry unless its done in a way to cause alarm. Think about that statement. IF as seen in the video you’ve gogot this big guy dressed in black carrying an AR in a combat sling across his chest. Now IF (as is reasonable to believe from the video, his story, and most people experience) he is walking along, dressed in the way, rifle sling across his chest (combat style) and he has his hand on the pistol grip (which, as experience should tell most he would…that’s why a grip is there, to grip)….do you not think that that would cause alarm in most sane people?
    It may not have been his intention to harm or alarm anyone. But his carelessness of his approach, his desire to carry like he did in the military, his thinking it was “cool”, whatever reason that he chose his carry style, appears to have been needlessly provocative.
    As I said earlier, the actions of folks like this are the kind that really hurt the idea of “open carry” and an “armed public”. People open carry all the time, all over the country with no problem. But this guy had to push that. Kind of like the kid out west (Portland maybe) that carries an AR style 22 and then goes out demonstrating…hoping for and initiating law enforcement contact. Very bad and dangerous ideas and practices.
    In this incident, his reaction to the officer(s) just made things worse. If he hasn’t acted like an idiot this contact probably could have ended far differently and he could have continued his hike.
    Look at the totality that we can see in the video, and read in his story. IF someone called that just makes it that much of a stronger case. But just from his story and the video, the officer looks like he did the right thing.

  55. Big T April 22, 2013 at 9:18 am #

    @ t
    What a surprise! t. is wrong again and again and again. Please save your self some time and stop reading his troll bait junk

  56. slappy April 22, 2013 at 9:49 am #

    Shawn, I have as of yet to read or hear about someone walking down a road in Texas and get attacked by an animal in which you need an assault rifle to protect yourself. He said he was hunting feral pigs. You can’t do that from the road. You have to be away from the road so he lied about that.

  57. KAZ April 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    This is a very simple contempt of cop video. The Vet stood up for his rights and ends up getting charged with a crime that should only be handed out to someone who is interfering with a police officer investigating a “real” crime. An investigation that finds no wrongdoing is therefore not worthy of handing out a contempt of cop charge.

    I seriously hope this guy lawyers up quick to get this dismissed early.

  58. YankeeFan April 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    I found this in a so called update:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/texas-police-dept-provides-statement-to-theblaze-on-vet-arrested-after-rudely-displaying-rifle-plus-a-texas-firearms-attorney-weighs-in/

    Excerpts:

    After insisting that there could be more to this case than what’s shown on the video, Flint said it doesn’t appear as if Grisham ever resisted or failed to comply with the demands of officers. The police were within their right to investigate the situation after receiving a 911 call, the attorney explained, but an officer still has to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or could be committed at a later time before detaining a suspect in the first place.

    “There are certain things that one might be advised to do when dealing with police officers and you are in possession of a firearm,” Flint told TheBlaze. “I always advise people to make an officer feel as safe and comfortable as possible. But just because that’s good advice doesn’t mean that has to be done.”

    and

    In Texas, concealed carry holders are required to disclose possession of their firearm and provide identifying information as well as a valid concealed carry permit to police officers, Flint explained. He also noted that police are within their authority to disarm Texans while questioning them in order to ensure the safety of officers involved. The firearm must be returned unless they determine a crime has been committed. It’s unclear whether Grisham’s firearms have been returned to him.

    But if someone in Texas is “carrying a long arm, a rifle or a shotgun, that is legal in the state of Texas… So there is no real probable cause there for a stop or for the police to detain any person for any amount of time,” the attorney added, speaking in generalities in regards to the law.

    and

    Grisham was first charged with resisting arrest, however, the charge was downgraded to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty. Flint said if he were defending Grisham, theoretically, he would likely push for a case dismissal, based on the facts that are known at this point. He again insisted, though, that more facts may surface that could change the case dramatically.

    “Based on the facts themselves, if there’s not evidence that he was resisting in any way or trying to interfere with what they are doing, then this would be a case that would be suitable for getting dismissed,” he added. “Whether based on lack of probable cause or lack of evidence to detain or arrest him

  59. t. April 22, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    YF: Kinda sounds like what we were talking about. My opinion was based solely on the “facts” as presented in his story (including the law he cited) and the video clip. Still not enough info.

  60. YankeeFan April 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    T,

    I agree totally. The lawyer quoted said that basically as well. Not enough Info!!

  61. Ariel April 24, 2013 at 7:25 am #

    One of the issues on comments not threaded is always what is directed at whom, as well carrying baggage reading from one comment to another.

    t.,

    My response was to your April 21, 2013 at 8:10 am, which was specifically directed at me. Your: My comment about Miranda was meant for @donj3nko for his ridiculous comment on 4/20 @ 11:21, isn’t applicable. In your comment to me (about others): “I don’t really care what you have to say about things, you’ve already had that chance (its. why the “don’t talk to the police mantra is so wrong) before you were arrested.” I took that one way, you may have meant it another, especially if you were talking to someone else.

    Your: “As I r said many times, don’t talk. It’s more often to your detriment to do so, but that’s ok. (Editorial: It’s OK because it’s more often to our detriment?)” I have no idea how many times you’ve said that, I neither hang on your every word, nor keep a sheet of “t.” quotes to refer to; I can only go by what you said specifically directed at me. YF has history with you, which is why he gently admonished me about you, but I don’t. As I wrote, the ACLU and every CDL says “don’t”, and you so obviously agree with them by your quote. Distinguish between the mantra and what you mean by “don’t talk”. I see a distinction without a difference.

    Your anecdotal example is nice. “In the overwhelming amount of street encounters, unless you are truly guilty, speaking with the officers is always a better choice (unless you are wanting to engage in attempted deception)” Notice your two assumptions. It’s why both the ACLU and CDLs, as well you, say don’t talk, because police assume by their “real-world experience”. BTW, inconsistency doesn’t equal deception in all cases, it is just as likely confusion in some cases. I have real world experience in dealing with the same issues, but without a tool-belt on my hip and the push of “respect my authority, even when I have no clue but I do have my authority.”

    Almost all rifles are high-powered. It’s the whole point of a rifle. Look up a chart on rifles and joules (mass x muzzle velocity). A 30.06 has about twice the joules of a .223. Is a 30.06 a “higher-powered” rifle? As an aside, if you could pick being hit in the upper arm by a .45 from an old military Colt pistol versus a .223 rifle, which would you pick? I assume the much lower powered .45.

    The better use is “rifle” and “low-powered rifle”. “High-powered” is a fear term, just like “assault-rifle”. Combining that with “trotting”, “hand on grip”, it’s your rhetorical device. You even use the word “strutting” in your 1) response to me (which is making shit up again). It’s not grammar, it’s semantics. There’s a big difference.

    “where I work he laws is slightly different in wording than what the author lists starting on line 5 of his story. But they are essentially the same and many / most places have similar laws. ***BTW*** what the heck are you talking about with “then your concept of pre-arrest is not germane”.???” Uh, because “essentially the same” is not “the same”? You can’t go from one state to another and make judgement.

    You might want to pick up a broom and a dustpan on your comment back to me. What a mess.

    Anyway, I’m sure your a good guy.

  62. t. April 24, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    Ariel:
    To your second paragraph. It doesn’t matter if you e seen what Ive said before or not….look to the comment itself and don’t get so caught up in minutiae (its a blog site comment section). As for the ACLU and CDL. I could care any less about what the tell you to do. While in line for an elevator in the courthouse this morning an attorney pointed to his new young client and said “if its dress like that and has a badge on its chest, don’t talk to if”. I snickered a little to myself. When the attorney and I were on the elevator alone we spoke about how many times his client would lie to him and them commented that if he would have just told us (the police, not me specifically as I didn’t know him) the truth in the first place, he probably wouldn’t have gotten into trouble. When I say I don’t care if you talk or not, it’s because I don’t care. If I have evidence that something happened, and one party telling me what happened and saying you did it, but you remain silent when spoken too… The decision is easy for me. You go to jail and I only have to writing and testify about one side of it. So don’t talk. BTW as an aside, most attornies want you not to talk to the police. They want you to write them a fat check and then they will tell you, way more often than not, to talk to the police. If you don’t see a difference you need to look harder

    Paragraph 3: It’s MY opinion. Based on MY experiences. No assumptions. And I did t say anything about inconsistency. I said deception. That’s intentional. Big difference. If you have “real world experience in dealing with the same issues” then you should be smart enough to know the difference

    4: Really. I’d pick a .22. Would it have been better if I would have described it as a rifle with a round designed and primarily used to kill humans? Because that what it is.

    5: Walking / strolling / trotting / shuffling / sashaying / hiking….pick your word. He said his was hiking and walkiing. Hiking could be at any speed. I made up nothing just used a different word. Get over yourself semantics guy.

    6: Not making a judgement. Explained that where I work, what he did would have been illegal. As the same in most places, states. Form HIS description of the law, and based on HIS statement about what occurred, and based on HIS video, it looks very much like he violated the law. Now I don’t know if that law (in Texas) is a specific intent type of statute or not (meaning that he had to intend to menace someone….oh sorry, for you it has to be “in a manner that isn’t calculated to cause alarm”.

    In sum: My opinion based on the “facts” as presented by the author are that he violated the law as he listed it. Now all of the other talk about “what if” there was a caller, where his hand was on the weapon and what not, is just discussion. Reasonable inference from what is told and seen would leave someone with my e person e to believe that someone probably called about him and that he was probably waking along with his hand on the “pistol grip” of the rifle. He may not have meant to cause any “alarm”. But he apparently did. That’s not even getting into his reaction to the officers which is even worse. And again…as simple and clearly as I can say it: Don’t talk if you don’t want to. More often than not that will be detrimental to you, especially if you are in the right. Clear?

  63. Mr. Bawkbagawk April 25, 2013 at 1:22 am #

    Dont. Feed. The. Trolls. how fucking hard is that?Ariel stfu already with the verbal diarrhea. make your point and move on replying to these assholes just feeds the trolls. so QUIT IT! you will not get a reasoned debate from them that isnt why they are here. they are here to troll, so quit taking the bait . christing bunch of simpletons.

  64. t. April 25, 2013 at 7:28 am #

    Gawk: What wasn’t “reasoned” about my response? Is it that youmdont like / agree with it? That doesn’t make it unreasoned.

  65. Pig Hater April 25, 2013 at 8:16 am #

    Gettin all smarts up in this mo fo on a nigga. Damn bitches 4 40s in and my sneer is to shoot these picks

  66. Common Sense April 26, 2013 at 7:49 am #

    Before long, this guy will be digging his tornado shelter and watching the school bus schedule…

  67. t. April 26, 2013 at 10:21 am #

    Common: Ideally think that guy in Alabama was Wolf. He hasn’t been back since that happened.

  68. Common Sense April 26, 2013 at 12:53 pm #

    …I’ve thought the same thing.

  69. David Swan May 5, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    This video is classic. I asked a local cop to come and harass me in Afghanistan 6 mos. ago and he pussed out. But, when Im back in the states thye are more than happy to harass me. Talk about a bunch of fucking pussies. I even told him to bring friends and I would pay for all of their plane tickets. No go. When its a level playing field the cops dont wanna play. Only when they have the advantage will they mess with you. Thank god our military and contractors are not like most not all but most cops a bunch of PUSSIES. Slappy, T and Common are for sure gutless pussies. Sorry guys but, thats reality.If you were not you would not be on here talking your shit. Dismissed.

  70. johnny May 10, 2013 at 1:56 am #

    Stupid cop lmao I hope he gets fired over this shit . How u gonna be a cop and not know the law . He should of beat the brakes off that cop and kept hiking

  71. APATWAR November 4, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

    All police officers are criminals in this country. Period.

  72. Ariel November 5, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

    APATWAR,

    As much bullshit as all cops are paragons of virtue.

Leave a Reply