Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop

That PD just opened themselves up for a LawSuit.

They don't care. Wanna get their attention? Have Ft Hood MP's start randomly arresting Temple police and impounding their cruisers and weapons. IIRC, Highway 190 goes right through Ft Hood, and Killeen butts right up against the base.

So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.

Click to expand...

name a SINGLE reported case.... back up your claim. You act like it happens all the time

Why do people feel the need to make up scenarios that either don't happen at all, or happen very, very, very rarely

Click to expand...

The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.

HorseSoldier said:

The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.

Click to expand...

You might be correct but when seconds count the Police are minutes away.

The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers

Click to expand...

To be fair, these open-carrying officers are involved in a lot more confrontations where a gun-grab may happen than a typical citizen will ever experience. Which is why they open-carry in the first place--they have a higher likelihood of needing that weapon so quickly that no cover-garment can be afforded (well, that, and the "intimidation factor"). I'd rather see stats --knowing they probably don't exist-- showing incident rates among open carriers vs. concealed. Even state-level stats for concealed-only vs. non- states wouldn't be helpful, because of the larger numbers of concealers in both.

But seeing as open-carriers aren't being massacred in the streets for their guns with bats, clubs, and cheaper guns, I have to assume that whatever effect carry-style has on attackers' choices is pretty small. Avoiding dangerous scenarios is far more effective at any rate.

Back on topic...
I'm appalled this happened as close to me as it did (DFW), especially since I though Temple was cool. I also didn't realize we had a significant aggressive feral hog problem here yet, but perhaps the Vet knows something I don't. Still nothing illegal about what he did, as far as I can tell, and officers had no call to freak out on him. Most likely this is one of those fateful deals where the cops made an abusive request ("PUT THE GUN, DOWN!") as he was going about his business, and he refused, thus upping the ante. And the rest is history.

In my experience, it is unwise to disobey police officers (by yourself ). I imagine his legal fund will be flush with cash and salivating lawyers.

TCB

PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon

Click to expand...

But doesn't Brady say we're more likely to be killed with our own gun, anyway? What percentage of citizen shooting deaths (omitting suicides if PoliceOne does) involve their own weapon? And for the 64000$ question, how many officers needed the extra second-or-so that open-carry rig bought them on their draw?

You might be correct but when seconds count the Police are minutes away.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.

blakeci said:

name a SINGLE reported case.... back up your claim. You act like it happens all the time

Click to expand...

I won’t claim it’s common, but it does happen.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/t...cle_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html

HorseSoldier said:

I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why there is a discussion about open versus concealed carry here, unless you know of a way to effectively conceal an AR15 on your person and have it readily accessible on a hike. There are plenty of other threads discussing the merits of concealed versus open carry of handguns.

HorseSoldier said:

I'm not saying carry of firearms should be set aside because the police will always be there, I'm just saying that for me, personally, if I'm carrying as a private citizen, I want to have the element of surprise on my side and be able to introduce a firearm into a personal defense shooting at a time of my choiosing rather than a bad guy knowing it is there from the start.

Click to expand...

+1

Element of surprise. Have no desire to OC, even if it were legal here.

OldCavSoldier said:

IMHO: Anybody who carries a firearm outside their clothing, and who is not working on a ranch or other such enterprise, is being extremely foolish. When bad-guys go into a place to rob it and the patrons, who does anybody think will be the FIRST people they shoot? Yes. The ones with the exposed guns.

So, keep your hardware hidden. Then, you can give the bad-guys a nasty surprise when they discover that they are not the only ones with a gun.

Click to expand...

Please ensure you never carry books or newspapers without a camoflauging cover. Otherwise, you might disturb sensitive, ignorant people.

Also, please cite to one of these "shot the open carrier first" scenarios. Plain-clothes Citizens, please, not uniformed LEO or Security guards.

HorseSoldier said:

The largest group of people who open carry in this country are law enforcement officers (who are also trained in passive and active weapons retention measures, which your average open carrying civilian is neither trained on or particularly cognizant of). Google "police officer killed with own gun" for a lengthy list of cases where open carry translated to the carrier being wounded or killed by an assailant with their own weapon. PoliceOne puts the stat at 8% of police shooting deaths involve the officer's own weapon -- and, again, that is in a population that receives specific training concerning retention of openly carried weapons.

People who've never had to fight to retain an openly carried weapon just don't grasp how much vulnerability and how big a potential target you slap on yourself by open carrying. Personally I prefer to stack the deck in my favor and, as an LEO I had body armor, intermediate weapons, a radio/back up and other multipliers that more than offset the risks inherent to an open carried pistol. As a civilian, surprise is one of a limited set of options to rebalance an equation that goes pear shaped.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

DAP90 said:

I won’t claim it’s common, but it does happen.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/t...cle_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html

Click to expand...

that dude's biggest fault was being anywhere near Westover Hills Blvd after dark......scratch that....being near Westover Hills Blvd at all....

Don't hang out anywhere near Gilpin Court either....

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!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Sgt Grisham failed to understand that Texas law regarding open carry of firearms is poorly written and does not provide him with the free pass he thinks it does.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

The difference between his situation and yours was that what he was doing is legal. You were doing illegal activities.

If I'm doing something that's within the law, I'm not going to stop because some idiot either doesn't know the law, or doesn't like what I'm doing.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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)

How is most of this outrage fluff? Military hero or just John Q. Citizen his rights were violated!

Click to expand...

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

You are right about his military status, it doesn't matter! HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED! RIGHT IN FRONT OF A TROOP OF BOY SCOUTS! WHAT DOES THAT TEACH THEM ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION & OUR CIVIL RIGHTS?

Click to expand...

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...

Grisham’s trouble with the law started in mid-March. His son Chris was working on one of the final merit badges he needed to become an Eagle Scout. Chris had chosen hiking.

Father and son grabbed their gear and headed out on a blustery Saturday morning to hike about 10 miles. They were midway through the trip when Grisham turned around and saw a police car.

Click to expand...

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.

full vid (i did not see it posted yet):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4MK3R4PI&feature=youtu.be&a

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?