Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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.

 

[smogmage]

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.

 

[dogtown tom]

smogmage 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.

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.

 

[savhmustang80]

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.

 

[wow6599]

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

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?

 

[HOOfan_1]

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.

It only took 3 or 4 events of Daniel Harless threatening to murder people for anything to be done about it.


Actually it took a youtube video and a lot of EMOTION to even get his misconduct to be reviewed. Then it only took about 3 months for anything to be done about his clear misconduct.

You know what the most ridiculous thing is about that case though? The arbitrators left the door open for Harless to become a police officer again...http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x2105837634/Fired-Canton-officer-Daniel-Harless-wins-back-his-job


If the guy this thread is talking about were walking down a city street holding the gun in his hands, I would agree, he was just making an ass of himself (although still protected by the second and first amendments). In this case, it is clear he was walking down a back country road (no lines even painted on the road and a dirt road in the background) in the middle of NO WHERE, with his rifle slung. So no, I don't feel he was looking for attention, and I don't feel he should just have to shut up and let the cops violate his rights.

Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread, one of the officers stated "after what has happened, you can't carry around this type of rifle"...so they admit they specifically didn't like it, because it was an AR. If he had a Winchester 1894 slung over his shoulder...I wonder what would have happened.

"after what has happened"....what has happened does not matter at all, unless "what has happened" involved a new law being passed. The Constitution doesn't become invalid during this nation's ever increasing knee jerk periods.

 

[smogmage]

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.

Last time I checked the 2A read something along the lines of
TO KEEP AND BEAR, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It doesn't say, well you can keep it in your house but if you take it outside and someone feels uneasy, well then the police will lock you up and take your guns.

 

[TarDevil]

A little courtesy on both sides and this encounter most likely would have ended differently. When the PD receives a MWAG call, they're pretty much obligated to at least investigate. Why is being polite and showing a little cooperation a violation of our rights? Why not just answer the cop's question. Instead the officer encountered a belligerent attitude.

I'm still not saying Grisham's arrest was justified and I do think his civil rights were violated. However, if ANYONE... including a conversation with an anti-2A... were to ask me why I carry, I would try to present myself in a respectful way and explain why I chose to exercise my 2A rights. If I can be polite to the average guy on the street, why not a cop as well?

 

[dalepres]

This is not about communications and respect. It's about the Constitution, the law, and liberty.

For the poster who said he talked himself out of a serious situation where he was in the wrong, well, that's definitely about respect and communications. You've done something wrong, intentionally or not, and you're hoping to convince the officer to use his discretion in a way that effects the intent of the law by telling you what you need to do to be in compliance and getting you in compliance but doesn't end with you in handcuffs.

When you are not breaking the law then you have no obligation to be respectful. The police have an obligation to know the law and enforce the law as written, rather than how they wish it was or based on their emotions. That's not to say it's smart to get into a belligerent argument with them. Your day goes better and his day goes better with out the high stress of a belligerent discussion. A little human kindness goes a long way - as long as it is possible to be kind. We don't know where this discussion went from civil to argumentative but being argumentative is not grounds for arrest.

Hopefully we can remember that it is not people like Grisham, whether we like him or not, who should scare the public; it's of the lack of people like Grisham that they should be afraid. Had people been carrying guns in Aurora, many less would have been killed or harmed - perhaps no one would have been because the shooter would have expected a response rather than no response. Had staff or security guards been armed at Newtown, less people would have been killed - perhaps no one would have been since the shooter would have expected a response rather than no response.

Our goal should be to exercise our rights to the fullest. Carry a rifle openly in Texas. Carry a handgun openly where legal. Eventually, if we all do our part, the norm will be to see lots of folks carrying guns and bad guys will think twice.

Jesse James never robbed another bank after the Northfield, Minnesota raid. How does that compare to bank robbers today, in our disarmed society?

 

[JoeDorn]

Handguns. I'm pretty sure open carry of a rifle is perfectly legal unless you are deliberately disturbing the peace with it. (But it's been quite a few years since I lived there.)

From what I've read, THE KID should press charges for false arrest.

Until recently if you had a pickup in Texas, it was considered obscenely undressed without a least one long gun in the rear window. Unfortunately the feral community found this a ready source of retail stock and the practice ceased.

I have met the individual at a local Tea Party function termed the 'Day of Resistance'... While I agree with his stance I believe he was pushing the issue...

There is little or no danger from feral pigs or big cats although both are in the county. None of the dangerous animals listed are normally not out at the time of day that the incident occurred.

The city involved, Temple, Texas, has a mayoral election coming up and the TEA Party has arranged a town hall meeting with both candidates. I am sure this will be presented.

BTW, Temple would much rather have its officers running their IH-35 speed trap than wasting their time on non-revenue production. I should hope this ends up being a negative revenue producer and C.J becomes a millionaire...

 

[zxcvbob]

Until recently if you had a pickup in Texas, it was considered obscenely undressed without a least one long gun in the rear window. Unfortunately the feral community found this a ready source of retail stock and the practice ceased.

I used to live in Temple, on the west side of I-35. I had a beater 3/4 ton pickup, and it had a gun rack in the rear window. When I moved to MN I still had the pickup, and once when I was moving to a new house I put a gun in the rack -- lucky for me it was just an airgun (still illegal to display, but I didn't know that, I thought a real long-gun was legal like that.) Cop pulled me over at night; the silhouette probably looked like a sawed-off shotgun. The cop was more of an Andy Taylor type than a Barney Fife, and I was respectful and apologetic. He told me to put it behind the seat, and don't do it again.

I don't want to draw too much of a parallel with Sarge's case. I was breaking the law and didn't know it, but "no harm no foul". That's how it should be. And when you're NOT breaking the law, it should go even easier: "We got a call of a man with a gun; had to check it out. Have a nice day"

 

[dogtown tom]

savhmustang80 .... 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.

Sorry, a public road is a public place. It doesn't matter if you are the only one standing in the middle of the road.....its still a public place.

As the statue does not cover long guns...

Nonsense.
Read the citation from the Texas Penal Code posted earlier. FIREARM means FIREARM.

 

[dogtown tom]

smogmage

Quote:
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.

Last time I checked the 2A read something along the lines of
TO KEEP AND BEAR, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It doesn't say, well you can keep it in your house but if you take it outside and someone feels uneasy, well then the police will lock you up and take your guns.

Sorry, but when in the past 200+ years has the Second Amendment been infringement free?

Texas law is clear and while you & I might not like state or local laws.........they DO APPLY until a court rules them unconstitutional. And the "display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS a CRIME in Texas.

TarDevil A little courtesy on both sides and this encounter most likely would have ended differently. When the PD receives a MWAG call, they're pretty much obligated to at least investigate. Why is being polite and showing a little cooperation a violation of our rights? Why not just answer the cop's question. Instead the officer encountered a belligerent attitude.

Nailed it.

 

[waterhouse]

I have not seen the video, but to address a few points:

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.

Texas Penal Code 1.07 DEFINITIONS:

(40) "Public place" means any place to which the
public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes,
but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of
schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities, and shops.

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.

It depends heavily on the District Attorney in the area, but it is common practice to not charge for a lower crime that is an element of of a higher crime. For example, if someone tosses a small baggie of drugs on the grounds while the cops are chasing them, they are often charged with just tampering with evidence instead of tampering with evidence AND the lower drug possession charge. As possession of the "evidence" (i.e. drugs) is an element of the tampering crime, often the lower charge is dropped.

In this case (and I wasn't there and don't know for sure), the Probable Cause affidavit would likely read something like "Mr. X was placed under arrest for Disorderly Conduct: displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. He then resisted arrest . . ." In other words, the fact that he was only charged with resisting arrest does not mean that there wasn't an initial weapons charge that led to the arrest.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Sorry, a public road is a public place. It doesn't matter if you are the only one standing in the middle of the road.....its still a public place.

So are the wildlife management area all around Texas...is hunting with an open carried gun illegal there as well?

And the "display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm" IS a CRIME in Texas.

Clearly in the video he was on a back country road in the middle of no where....if those cops thought he was carrying it "calculating to cause alarm"...they need remedial training

 

[savhmustang80]

Texas Incident

Dogtown Tom- I stand corrected and enlightened. Sucks for you guys out there in TX. Down here in FL now, but lived most my life in GA- walking along a country road armed wouldn't fall under that definition here. That being said-not something that I would do.

I see your post regarding the statute on openly displaying a firearm with the intention to cause alarm. I guess everything will hinge upon the DA's interpretation of "intention to cause alarm".

Hell, in Georgia they actually want you to carry openly. And a street would be good to go as well. Just another reason not to go to Texas. Thought Texas was the firearm holy land, you guys got to bring things up to snuff!

_________
Previously of Kennesaw, GA- Guntown, USA

 

[PabloJ]

Given all shooting incidents that happened walking down county road with assult-style weapon is bound to get someone anxious and call the police. The police is going to treat any reports of person with firearm very seriously because such people pose potential danger to everyone.

 

[robhof]

robhof

High reward civil suits causes the department's rates to go up substantially and will result in the termination of problem officers. Many years ago I lived in south Dade county Fl. and the local swat were just getting up and coming, however they were used on more than a few questionable drug house incidents and actually killed a 78yo man when he yelled as they broke down his door, the family got a $3million settlement and the swat team was disbanded for 2 years and many officers were terminated. Turns out people were calling pesky neighbors in to police, from pay phones and swat would show up and break in. Now ALL calls must be verified by detectives and official observers. So I certainly hope the guy sues and asks for millions, enough to scare the insurer. Personally I'd find the best lawyer and tell him that the reward is all his, if he wins.:banghead:

 

[TarDevil]

...if those cops thought he was carrying it "calculating to cause alarm"...they need remedial training

No telling what they thought prior to his uncooperative responses when first approached. If I came across someone with both and AR and an attitude, I'd be leery.

Again, I don't think his arrest was warranted. But why go through all the expense of proving a point when a little courtesy might avoid it.

 

[HOOfan_1]

No telling what they thought prior to his uncooperative responses when first approached. If I came across someone with both and AR and an attitude, I'd be leery.
.

Well the video only shows him after they had already cuffed him...so we can't say he was uncooperative. Maybe the cops were initially the ones with guns an attitudes.

Being a jerk isn't against he law either....

Again, he was in the middle of no where...if they thought he was out there trying to cause alarm...they need remedial training

 

[TarDevil]

Well the video only shows him after they had already cuffed him...so we can't say he was uncooperative. Maybe the cops were initially the ones with guns an attitudes.

Being a jerk isn't against he law either....

Again, he was in the middle of no where...if they thought he was out there trying to cause alarm...they need remedial training

By his own admission, he refused to tell the officer why he was carrying the AR. In the long video, his verbal assault preceded the cuffs.

Being a jerk indeed is not against the law. Being a jerk while carrying an AR WILL get anybody's attention.. including mine and most certainly that of an LEO.

I repeat... they were obligated to investigate because they were dispatched. He could've politely responded to their questions then likely been on his way, sparing the angst of his son and the legal fees.

 

[NelsErik]

Additional Information<--READ!

 

[slamfirev10]

courtesy repost b/c so many are saying "the vid only shows....."

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4M...ure=youtu.be&a

EDIT: looks like the long vid had been pulled

EDIT #2: here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A8r4MK3R4PI

 

[TarDevil]

That video has been killed.

Edit: beat me to it!

 

[CoRoMo]

I imagine that he's going to sue. Glenn Beck advised him today to get a civil rights attorney and file suit. My guess is that any attorney then requested that Grisham remove the YouTube video immediately.