1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nathan, Apr 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PavePusher

    PavePusher Well-Known Member

    And that demographic is also wearing rather distinctive clothing, and directly confronting criminals.

    Now cite to statistically meaningful numbers of instances of Jane/Joe Citizen being done in for open carry, by criminals.
  2. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Well-Known Member

    I don't know if the proponents of open carry really want to go down that road of defending it on elusive statistical grounds since the reality is that the stats say only a miniscule amount of private citizens will ever be involved in a defensive shooting at all. If you're betting on things mostly working out in your favor, why carry at all? If you're preparing for a worst case scenario, why give your opponent an edge by telegraphing your capabilities?
  3. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Well-Known Member

  4. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Well-Known Member

    Wait so open carrying a long rifle is illegal now?! Since when? Wow. As far as the dude asking the cop, "so, just because a guy has a gun makes him dangerous," I would have pointed out to the cop that he too is carrying a gun and because of what he just stated with his own words I suppose it would be feasible for him to be assumed as a threat as well. You see my point here? What an idiot. Rights are not rights if you have to be arrested, have property seized, and then go to jail and court to prove that they are indeed rights. That is ridiculous. I hope dude has a good lawyer. Now if he was doing something illegal with it then that is a totally different story. Now it makes me wonder if I should be carrying any of my rifles in my eberlestock or mystery ranch packs!!!!!!!!
  5. CapnMac

    CapnMac Well-Known Member

    There is a possibility that MSgt is old enough (or was raised) back before the Texas CHL, when one of the few times we ordinary citizens could carry (at all) was "while engaged in an activty where such carry is commonplace." Back then, you could put a K-22 in a holster before you went bank fishing (where you might be among water moccasins and the like). That you could carry a sidearm while hunting. (But not while hiking or backpacking a trail--a time when a person would be most likely to accidentally raise the ire of an entire pack of javelina . . . )

    For those who have not been in the Waco-Temple-Kileen area, there are not too many good places to go for that 10 mile hike for Eagle. Where the MSgt & his boy went is one of those few places. It's also a place where feral pigs and javelina run, and also the sorts of 'people' who dump dogs to go feral live too. The kind of place you really want to borrow your buddie's beater truck to drive to and park.

    So, did anyone else note what amount they think will be needed to "win the good fight"? That the defense fund target is $11,000? (Which may explain why this is being "hyped"--eleven grand is nothing to just whistle up.) Also telling--to me--was the pull quote from the Bell County prosecutor, that he wanted to see that the weapon was destroyed, and could not return to the "streets."
  6. MaterDei

    MaterDei Well-Known Member

    You guys should really stay on topic. This is not about Colorado law or about OC vs. CC.

    This case is about the police infringing on somebody's rights. The police were in the wrong and even they admit it based upon what they charged MSG Grisham with. Their charge against him is not weapons related and I suspect that they will lose a civil case.

    As an American and especially as a Texan I'm appalled by this and hope that a message is sent loud and clear to those who desire to trample on our rights.
  7. rugerdude

    rugerdude Well-Known Member

    Well, apparently the way the law is written, it isn't exactly a clear-cut case of him obeying the law. Also, I'm not saying we should roll over and let the police do whatever they want, but you don't win fights with police on the streets, period. You win them in court. If you want to be belligerent with them while they're arresting you, fine, they'll call in back-up and have all the more witnesses on their side of the issue, and it only makes a better case for them when they want to say you were not compliant.
  8. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Well-Known Member

    Where you have to cough up thousands of dollars for defense, the cops get paid overtime to be there, and even if you prevail you may never get your guns back.

    What I can't figure out is why they --police mostly, but the government in general-- keep poking at the bee hive. I think they *want* to provoke someone into shooting. (which according to the Supreme Court in John Bad Elk v. U.S. is not necessarily illegal)
  9. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    That was the point I made, but Grisham is playing emotional issues to gain favor for his cause.

    Well first of all, it did not happen in front of a troop of boyscouts. See, even you were taken in by the fluff and outraged by it and you didn't realize it had happened. Grisham said they were on a boyscout hike, but the only people on that hike were Grisham and his son.

    From the link cited in the OP...
    Misdirection is a wonderful thing as are irrelevant emotional information.

    His rights were violated? There are two opposing views. There is his view that he complied and the cops view that he did not. The claims in the OP article says that he can be seen complying and apparently offer that as proof that he was always complying, but lots of people "comply" when they are already in custody, LOL. It doesn't mean they were complying before they were in custody.

    If he really did comply, then yeah, maybe his rights were violated. If he didn't comply, nothing I saw in the video indicates any sort of violation of rights. It looks like fairly typical, if not overly kind, dealing with an argumentative armed person.
  10. slamfirev10

    slamfirev10 Well-Known Member

  11. smalls

    smalls Well-Known Member

    I'm not saying get belligerent. I'm saying I won't just give in, or lay down because someone is ignorant of the laws.

    I won't kick or scream, but I won't sit there, either.
  12. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Well-Known Member

    That has worked rather well in the past to make people aware of rights violations...
  13. MErl

    MErl Well-Known Member

    Discussion of TX law is on topic. CO law not directly, sorry for bringing that part up. He was violating TX law, at least in a grey area.

    The cop was within the law to confront and disarm. The cop probably would have been within the law to arrest him under different charges, not sure about that part of TX law.

    If this had been in CO before the changes or another state that allows unlimited open carry and this happened it would be different. The case is that what he was doing in TX was against the law.

    The escalation and results were wrong, that happens quite often when people do not comply 100% with police. Even when people are in the right and stand on their rights it leads to escalation. That is a general police issue and not a topic for THR though.
  14. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Well-Known Member

    I hate to say this, but both were lacking in interpersonal communication skills. This incident could have easily been avoided with the correct amount of communication between parties.
  15. smogmage

    smogmage Well-Known Member

    I'm so glad to know you speak for everyone on what is and what isn't for discussion here. I'm also so glad to know you agree with our rights being trampled on until a court sorts it out well after the fact and after much turmoil for everyone involved. Clearly it wouldn't be better if those sworn to uphold our rights didn't trample all over them in the first place.

    I honestly don't understand most of you guys here on this board. Willing to just go the route of England and Australia, moaning and groaning all the way down the road to total confiscation.

    Where have all the Patriots gone? Where are all the Brave Men who are willing to give up their Lives, their Fortunes, their Families to Keep Their Scared Honor?
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2013
  16. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Sure enough, it got krupparms yelling (all caps text in his post) about the horrors of what was witnessed by a "troop of boyscouts" that didn't even exist. So it is very good for getting people emotionally involved. I don't disagree at all with that assessment. I just tend to see that when folks provide a lot of emotional and often unrelated content in their arguments about how they were wronged instead of specific documentary insights, that the case being claimed isn't as strong as claimed. We shall see.
  17. smogmage

    smogmage Well-Known Member

    Don't know if anyone caught the other amazing one liner from the Sgt.

    "We are EXEMPT from the law"
    Hows that for a second class citizen for ya.
    Whatever happened to equal protection under the law, hell for that matter THE RULE OF LAW. This is clear cut trample all over the Rights of the Individual for the sake of the collective to "Feel Safe".

    EXACTLY what our country was founded AGAINST.
  18. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Well-Known Member

    If you would stop and think for a whole minute maybe you would know why the officer is correct.;)

    Hint #1: It has NOTHING to do with being a "second class citizen".
    Hint #2: Read the applicable Texas law before you start complaining about the rule of law.
    Hint #3: Like a lot of folks in this thread you are posting without having a clue what Texas law is or how it applies.
  19. savhmustang80

    savhmustang80 Member

    Texas incident

    Ok, here is my take, and MErl I do think that this is a valid topic for The High Road, 1) per my understanding of the TX statute- the guy has not committed and arms violation under state law. The carrying of a long gun, in the area he and his son were walking I dont think can be deemed a public place. Yes it was along a public road, but I think public place would be a stretch for the prosecutor. As the statue does not cover long guns and it appears consensus shows it can be a dangerous area concerning wildlife- I believe he is good. 2) He was lawfully carrying his pistol concealed and the officers (I believe the Sgt) basically allude to that in the video- so there should be no charges there. 3) Note what he was arrested for- resisting arrest. There is no mention of an arms arrest, nor have I seen anything further indicating that additional charges were brought. I believe he should have his weapons returned to him.

    Now I haven't seen additional video showing where the officer attempted to grab his weapon, I have just seen the immediate aftermath prior to him being disarmed. I do believe that the officer has the right to question and detain him in order to ascertain the situation. I do not feel that the guy was actually resisting arrest. Based on the video it appears that the officers elected to arrest him on something for CYA purposes. If the officer did in fact make the first move to grab the weapon without asking him for it then the officer is pretty damn stupid and will probably get hosed for it. I think you can tell from his reaction as the arrest went further that he realized he was in a bad situation of his own devising.

    The comments made by the Police Sergeant are more troubling to me, and I think will cause more long term issues for that department than the actions of the initial officer (which will probably only cost them money). I have been in a very similar situation with the police, and generally try to avoid them like the plague now. Luckily it didnt involve firearms, but it did demonstrate how your freedoms can be destroyed on a whim. I wish the best of luck to the guy in his suit. It's going to be a long and expensive road for him, eye opening too, but I think in the end he will win, and hopefully be able to buy some class III stuff if he gets compensated well.
  20. wow6599

    wow6599 Well-Known Member

    dogtown tom, if you and the officer are correct, I am very glad I don't live in Texas.

    In the context of the video, I can understand the officer (on duty) being exempt from the law(s) in regards to carrying a rifle down a public road, but other than that I would like to know how/why they are exempt from laws that govern Texas citizens?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page