Evidently laws dont apply if someone feels "uncomfortable" -AKA hiker Arrested in TX

[CCHGN]

Stopping someone for open carrying in an open carry state is not "Policy." If there is a man of Arab decent in a store with a back-pack does that mean he is a terrorist? Does that give the police the right stop and search said person just because someone saw a "terrorist" in a store? Just because there is a complaint does not mean a crime has taken place. I do not know the specific laws in TX, but in FL you may open carry as listed below. Just because you are open carrying while engaged in the below activities does not give Law Enforcement the right to confiscate your firearm. They must have a reasonable suspicion to detain or search that person. The only acceptable reasonable suspicion that you would be able to articulate would be if you noticed a minor with a firearm and you stopped them to verify their age. Even then if you are wrong you have just committed a civil rights violation.

790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.--
(3) LAWFUL USES.--The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:
(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
(j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place;

Nope, following up on an investigation is policy. Approaching a person who is carrying a weapon in a threatening manner is policy. Checking to make sure they can legally have a gun is policy. Holding the gun(s) while in contact is policy. Detaining a person who refuses to give you ID is policy. Btw, quoting statute is not enough, you must also include case law, where judges have interpreted those statutes.

 

[bayonet_53]

Nope, following up on an investigation is policy. Approaching a person who is carrying a weapon in a threatening manner is policy. Checking to make sure they can legally have a gun is policy. Holding the gun(s) while in contact is policy. Detaining a person who refuses to give you ID is policy. Btw, quoting statute is not enough, you must also include case law, where judges have interpreted those statutes.

Actually, I am a State Law Enforcement Officer that specializes in fishing/hunting, and no you do not need case law. If I had to wait on "case law" then how would I ever be able to enforce a law, or do I just arrest everyone and let the judicial system figure it out. It is not for a judge to legislate from the bench. Case Law is derived when there is a needed clarification to law and usually deals with constitutional matters. If you were writing policy then you would be getting a lot of Officers sued for civil rights violations. No where in my agency's policy am I directed to disarm persons lawfully possessing a firearm.

The Legislature voted on the above statute making it law. It is clearly spelled out what lawful use and possession is. Not to mention that I have also attended several classes on how to interact with people recreating while open carrying. Just because someone is open carrying a firearm is not justification to confiscate the firearm. I deal with armed people on a daily basis, and I can assure you I do not disarm my fellow citizens. Just because someone has a "black rifle" slung in front of them does not make them a threat. If that was the case then I would have to confiscate and detain every hunter that I run into.

CJ Grisham decided to make a stand against an unlawful 2nd and 4th Amendment violation by public servants who think that they operate above the law by their own admission. There must be REASONABLE SUSPICION to stop someone. Once you have a suspect stopped based on REASONABLE SUSPICION you then develop PROBABLE CAUSE. If you cannot develop PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been/being committed then you must let the person go. You can only detain a person long enough to determine if there is a crime/violation based on reasonable suspicion. It appears that in TX you are able to open carry. Based on that alone it is too bad if you do not like the way he had his rifle slung; there was no violation other than some liberal that saw a man with a black rifle walking down the road. When the TX officers realized that the man had done nothing wrong they then used the old fall back that he was obstructing a peace officer. There were no firearm violations filed against him.

Also being a Law Enforcement Officer I have to deal with all types of people, and in many instances the way I interact with the public affects the outcome of the interaction. I would never tell someone that I am above the law, or that because someone is lawfully carrying that they are a threat just because they have a firearm. Typically when I run into someone that is carrying I will ask (key word "ask") that person to not touch the firearm. If it is holstered I will ask them to keep it in the holster. If it is slung I will ask them to just keep there hands away from the firearm, and if they are holding it I will ask that they place it against a tree just while we are conducting business. You can disarm people while you are dealing with them, but you had better damn well be able to articulate why you felt it was necessary to take away someones firearm.

Sure, when I come up on someone armed my Officer Safety is at DEFCON 5, but I am not going to show that to you. I am going to remain calm, composed, and respectful. On the other hand if a threat does show itself I have already played out in my mind what my courses of action will be, and all of them end with me going home to my family. I have found that when you treat people how you would want to be treated, or better yet how you would want your family members treated that I generally have a 95% compliance rate. Most of the time I get a handshake and a thank you even when I find it necessary to cite someone. If you are a LEO then you need to have your training department go over 790.25 because if you violate someone's civil rights you will be solely responsible if you are sued, not your agency, and you will not have agency representation.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a double edged sword. It applies to the people we serve and even more so, it applies Law Enforcement Officers that have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their state.

 

[Fletch]

Interest post bayonet. It's a little surprising to see a law officer defend this guy's actions. I went back and watched again and he was being combative from the word go. They actually were asking him to keep his hands away from the firearm as you stated you do as well. I think it was his agitated state that caused them to disarm him. If he would have calmly produced ID and been respectful chances are they would not have disarmed him. The treating others as you would want a family member treated is great way to conduct one's self and I commend you for it. You obviously have great patience.

I would say this guy was not treating the officers how he would like to be treated if he was in their shoes. He made it all about himself imo. Maybe he is ticked off at the latest attempt at gun control, as many of us are, but that wasn't the time and place to make a stand. He had the camera ready to go and was looking for a confrontation. Thought he was going to show "the man" how smart he was and give a constitutional law lesson on the street and then put it up on youtube. I kind of enjoyed watching such an obviously narcissistic asshole have his little game blow up in his face. The officers could have gone without the law doesn't apply to us bit but they were in a back and forth verbal pissing match and he basically put the words in their mouth. Could have been handled a little better on that end I suppose. Reminds me of the saying: Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I have never been arrested but had one encounter with a law enforcement officer that was goading me to act up so he could give me the ride downtown and maybe even rough me up a little bit. He was far more out of line than the officers in the video, if they were at all, and I had the sense to swallow my pride and keep my mouth shut. I wasn't about to start threatening them like this guy did even though my rights were being violated. I am no worse for the wear for having to take crap from him. No skin off my back in the long run. If I would have got all high and mighty about my rights then I know he would have came up with disorderly conduct or some other bogus charge and then I'm out a whole lot of money to try and prove my innocence. I have no desire to sit in a jail cell, even if for only a few hours, just to have the self satisfaction that I didn't let that cop get over on me. But the thing is, by keeping my mouth shut, I actually got over on him. He wanted a reason, any reason to stuff me in the back of that car and it would have made his day. I didn't take his bait and I'm sure it pissed him off a little. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. The vast majority of my interactions with law enforcement have been positive and mutually respective conversations.

 

[wildrider666]

If the dumbass would have been complying instead of arguing and filming: it would have been a none issue. Dumbass got what he was fishing for. Trash like that will get open carry repealed.

You can be 100% right or 100% wrong all that matters is the Officer's decision at that point in time. A judge or a Supervisor will sort it out soon enough. Armchair quaterbacking don't change a thing.

 

[Fletch]

Googled this guys name and it appears this isn't his first controversial act. He has had a blog in the past and has written as a ccw/firearms "expert" and seems to like to get into controversy. In 2009 he used his blog to protest school uniforms at his children's school and evidently said some not so flattering things about the school administration. The Army didn't like it and made him shut down the blog which he bitched about. Read some more stuff and now he is wining about the possible ramifications to his military career and his transfer is on hold until his legal issues play out.

I guess he thinks he is making a courageous stand but to me he is an idiot for jeopardizing an 18 year career in the Army. Generally they don't like their soldiers standing out and being overly political and they have already had to call him down once before. This may not end well for him and all these blogs will no doubt talk about how shameful it is that the Army would turn it's back on him and link it to Obama somehow. The military has NEVER encouraged this type of hey look at me behavior. I mentioned him being a narcissistic personality in an early post just from seeing the video and after reading up my first instincts were only confirmed. This guy is a loud mouth who can't get over himself and isn't half as smart as he gives himself credit for.

Looking at that big gut on the Youtube video it looks like he needs to be put in the early morning porkchop platoon for some extra PT as well. Poor physical conditioning along with the multiple incidences indicates a serious lake of discipline for an active duty soldier. The USMC would have shaped him up or sent his pudgy little ass packing years ago.

Wildrider you are right about that kind of crap having negative implications for open carry. This may ruffle some feathers but I shook my head in disbelief at the pictures from the pro gun pier fishing event a while back. Guys on the pier fishing with their AR15s locked, loaded, and at the ready. I just can't imagine suiting up like I'm ready for a 3gun competition and going fishing. Yep that's a great image for the newspaper to sway public opinion. These loudmouth kooks and their antics are not doing the majority of gun owners any favors.

 

[Fletch]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/st...as-police-some-facts-opinion-and-analysis.htm

Okay..... Wow! This guy may be a serious mental case. The above link is a pretty damning write-up on what I now consider to be a complete loon. Michael Yon is a former Green Beret and considered by many to be the premier independent combat journalist of the times. States that in all his time as active duty and a writer he met two soldiers who he thought were potentially lethal nutcases. One, a decorated officer, committed suicide after his horrible deeds were outed. The other is CJ Grisham.

Glen Beck gave this idiot a platform and is defending him as well. I wonder if he knew off all this before hand. This Michael Yon is a professional journalist and states that he would be held liable in court if what he was saying had no factual basis but he has no worries of that. I hate seeing conservatives just reflexively jump on a bandwagon like this because it fits the narrative of "they are coming after our guns". I am no fan of Obama and am well aware of the gun laws he would love to enact, but I think many are suffering from an Obama derangement syndrome that is just making them not think logically before speaking and jumping to conclusions on some things. Supporting a guy with this kind of background is going to end up making a lot of people look stupid, radical, and nullify any valid arguments they had against gun control. If the claims of this journalist are indeed true I have no problem in saying this CJ Grisham is not mentally fit to own firearms.

Just look at the photo.....Crazy Eyes:shocked:

 

[Dwatts1984]

Everything this dude did was wrong. I know quite a few LEO's and the one thing they all stress to me is the uneasy feeling that any ordinary citizen could be their end. Coming from someone who hated LEO, I understand that LEO's are people as well and they can be nervous and uneasy. Staying calm and being courteous usually helps to smooth over a situation. Yelling and freaking out acting like a belligerent moron usually will result as this did. I do think that procedures probably weren't followed to the letter, however he made matters worse with his attitude.

Just my piece.

 

[Fletch]

Everything this dude did was wrong. I know quite a few LEO's and the one thing they all stress to me is the uneasy feeling that any ordinary citizen could be their end. Coming from someone who hated LEO, I understand that LEO's are people as well and they can be nervous and uneasy. Staying calm and being courteous usually helps to smooth over a situation. Yelling and freaking out acting like a belligerent moron usually will result as this did. I do think that procedures probably weren't followed to the letter, however he made matters worse with his attitude.

Just my piece.

They have good reason to have that uneasy feeling and it's what keeps them going home to their families at night. Anyone remember the sovereigns that took out two cops in Arkansas on a routine traffic stop? A 14 year old brainwashed kid came out of the passenger side with an AK and the poor guys didn't stand a chance. The video shows how quickly a cop on a routine stop can be in the shit. Later in the video it shows the father giving a speech wear he talks about if the day comes and he has to shoot cops. How far is the Grisham guy away from believing his rhetoric and painting good cops doing their jobs as tyrannical government agents and taking action? These officers have no way of knowing the mental state of the people they are dealing with and when a guy with an AR on his chest at the ready is getting agitated and semi-aggressive you disarm him. That was an extremely dangerous situation for the cops Texas. For all they know the kid could have been armed as well. Extremely irresponsible of Grishman to put his son into that situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d_y-gLm9Hrw#!

 

[joe]

I am not a lawyer or law enforcement officer. People keep tossing around the term confiscate his firearm.

Is this a legal term? What is the legal definition?

It seems in my ignorant mind that an officer would want to separate an individual from their weapon for safety during a stop or investigation. To me there is a difference between confiscation & separation. An officer takes my weapon & sets it on the front of my car unloaded then gives it back at the end of the stop IMO he did not confiscate my weapon.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Viking1204]

That guy is one sorry ass excuse for a Army Veteran and a father. He was confrontational from the start and after reading some of the crap about him online he obviously looks for trouble. I'm sure a .45 is more than adequate to protect yourself on a hike but this guy made sure he was displaying a rifle a lot of Americans relate to in a negative way. My guess is he did that to draw attention to himself. As gun owners we shouldn't support behavior like that. He didn't have to get arrested if he would have just listened to the officer. Good example there Dad, get yourself arrested because you're an idiot and make your kid cry and have to be taken home in a squad car. Anyone that thinks his actions were just needs to think about it a little more and go back and watch the video again. He starts out yelling at the officers and doesn't quit until he figures out he's getting arrested. Complete idiot in my book and nothing anyone says will change my mind on that. He purposely tried to inflame the situation when he could have easily followed the officers orders and been on his way.

 

[Snow Bird]

I just read the entire link that Fletch provided and if even 1/2 of it is true that guy IS a nut case. I know it was a long time ago and I was in SAC but you wouldn't have gotten away with that kind of behavior in your personal life. You did NOTHING to make the mil look bad in public. Maybe it was SAC or just our base but his behavor would have been a no no and he sure wouldn't have gotten to the rank he was or keep his top secret clerance. Hell one of the guys had a pair of glasses his grandmother had owned and tried to wear them. That when they were called Ganney Glasses and they would not let him wear then. Looked to much like a Hippie. I think my uncle was issued those kind of glasses when he went into the air force in the 50's At that time if you were as over weight as much as this guy looks you were put on a diet and went to PT. If you didn't get into shape you were discharged. Granted we had it alot easer than the army but you had to be in shape. Things have changed. IF you could beleave my bruother he was discharged after 14 years 2 tours in vietnam because he wouldn't lose enough weight. He was Army so things sure have changed in the Mil. Of all the vets I have met I have never met one who hasen't taken SOME pride in being a vet even if they hated being in the service. I know there has to be a few but I have never met a vet that the first words out of there mouth was that I was in Afganastan and used it to try to make some kind of point . I am with others here that the guy should have his Top Secret Clearance taken away. His supervisors should look at his actions off base and be taken into conserdation. Years ago it would have been. What is given can be taken away.

 

[CCHGN]

Actually, I am a State Law Enforcement Officer that specializes in fishing/hunting, and no you do not need case law. If I had to wait on "case law" then how would I ever be able to enforce a law, or do I just arrest everyone and let the judicial system figure it out? ...........Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a double edged sword. It applies to the people we serve and even more so, it applies Law Enforcement Officers that have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their state.

Well, you answered your own question, but as a LE, I'm surprised you say what you say........I agree that everyone should be, but I especially expect LE to be up on case law. AFA case law being only for Constitutional issues,,,well,,,really?


For instance, the State statute on brandishing, they passed the statute and cops began interpreting that to mean that if your gun inadvertantly reveals itself, from bending over or the wind blows the cover open, etc, y'all charged and arrested for brandishing. Case law revealed that those cases were not, in fact, brandishing and had to define that concept, to include INTENT. In fact, an amendment was just passed to "carve into stone" that concept. Now, if a LEO was up on case law, they'd know that they couldn't charge a CWL for brandishing in the case that the gun was inadvertantly exposed and so, in a case where you rolled up to assist and a fellow officer wanted to charge the traffic stop with brandishing, you asked about it and it turns out it was inadvertant, you'd advise against the charge and inform the officer, based directly on your knowledge of case law.

Btw anyone can own Jon Gutmacher's book, Florida Firearms: Law, Use and Ownership( 7th ed.), a "Reader's Digest" of case law.

 

[CCHGN]

I am not a lawyer or law enforcement officer. People keep tossing around the term confiscate his firearm.

Is this a legal term? What is the legal definition?

It seems in my ignorant mind that an officer would want to separate an individual from their weapon for safety during a stop or investigation. To me there is a difference between confiscation & separation. An officer takes my weapon & sets on the front of my car unloaded then gives it back at the end of the stop IMO he did not confiscate my weapon.

Please enlighten me.

Well, the fact is when folks reject reality( aka the truth), their perception goes askew as well. Definitions get blurred, context goes out the window. They will see things and use terms that support their twisted, alternative reality.

 

[bayonet_53]

Well, you answered your own question, but as a LE, I'm surprised you say what you say........I agree that everyone should be, but I especially expect LE to be up on case law. AFA case law being only for Constitutional issues,,,well,,,really?


For instance, the State statute on brandishing, they passed the statute and cops began interpreting that to mean that if your gun inadvertantly reveals itself, from bending over or the wind blows the cover open, etc, y'all charged and arrested for brandishing. Case law revealed that those cases were not, in fact, brandishing and had to define that concept, to include INTENT. In fact, an amendment was just passed to "carve into stone" that concept. Now, if a LEO was up on case law, they'd know that they couldn't charge a CWL for brandishing in the case that the gun was inadvertantly exposed and so, in a case where you rolled up to assist and a fellow officer wanted to charge the traffic stop with brandishing, you asked about it and it turns out it was inadvertant, you'd advise against the charge and inform the officer, based directly on your knowledge of case law.

Btw anyone can own Jon Gutmacher's book, Florida Firearms: Law, Use and Ownership( 7th ed.), a "Reader's Digest" of case law.

I never said anything about brandishing. I like how you brought it up though and then gave me a lesson on the topic. Thank you for the education. Being a Law Enforcement Officer I utilize discretion. I always weigh the INTENT of the person vs the letter of the Law. Anyone that has made an arrest due to the wind blowing someones shirt and exposing a firearm is a poor excuse for an officer. I do not need case law to tell me that. Once again case law is brought about when there is a need for clarification of a law, and usually involves Constitutional/Bill of Rights matters. Clearly a person cannot control the wind and therefore intent is absent. Seems pretty clear to me.

Also, you do not have to speak in generalities with me "if a LEO was up on case law." I find it condescending. Have some courage. You can call me by my screen name or by my first name -Jim or by you or by whatever other expletive you may choose to use. I can handle it; I have thick skin. You also do not need to twist my words. I said case law "usually" involves Constitutional matters, not "only" as you decided to change my words. Guess what, your above reference with arresting for brandishing is a seizure of a person which falls under the 4th Amendment.

You never did answer either as to the legality on whether or not I should detain and disarm all the hunters and fisherman I run into. Due to the logic of the video if "you have a gun....you are a threat." I do know what the state law states, and under those circumstances those people are lawfully possessing. Once again, I would need reasonable suspicion to detain and disarm someone. If I am disarming solely based on Officer Safety then I had better be prepared to articulate why I thought that the person was a threat. In a court of law "he had a gun...he is a threat" will not cut it, and I may find myself facing civil rights violation. Merely possessing is not reasonable suspicion. I cannot demand peoples papers without reasonable suspicion; otherwise, I am committing a civil rights violation.

In the courtroom of GCGF the defendant has been found guilty of being overweight and a loudmouth. The reality is that he did not commit a crime. The officers detained the defendant without advising him he was being detained. They then realized that they did not have a firearm violation; so, they then have a little pow wow and decide to use cover all of obstructing a peace officer.

Hey, when all else fails go after someones credibility to distract from the facts. You may not like the defendant. You may think he is fat, POS, dirtbag, mentally unstable, Douchebag, and dishonors all veterans. But, when you get down to what took place it was a bad arrest; maybe we will get some good case law from it.

BTW anyone can own a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[CCHGN]

I never said anything about brandishing. I like how you brought it up though and then gave me a lesson on the topic. Thank you for the education. Being a Law Enforcement Officer I utilize discretion. I always weigh the INTENT of the person vs the letter of the Law. Anyone that has made an arrest due to the wind blowing someones shirt and exposing a firearm is a poor excuse for an officer. I do not need case law to tell me that. Once again case law is brought about when there is a need for clarification of a law, and usually involves Constitutional/Bill of Rights matters. Clearly a person cannot control the wind and therefore intent is absent. Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, I used that as an example of brandishing as a simple law that was misinterpreted by LEO and had to be clarified by case law, cause you said it doesn't matter. There is plenty of "case law" history of alot of folks getting arrested for that very thing.. I was reserved to respond to you, as clearly you have taken this personal and I feared you might, but I'll tip toe thru this anyway. Ok, you seem to think case law involves Constitutional/Bill of Rights. I say it's simply a matter of Cops misinterpeting a law and a judge having to reinterpet it, some of them incorrectly and then the Supreme Court to ultimately. The vast majority is civil laws btw and have nothing to do with the Constitution/Bill of rights. In my mind, any reinterpretation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights results in an ammendment, like womens' right to vote and freedom of slaves, etc.

Also, you do not have to speak in generalities with me "if a LEO was up on case law." I find it condescending. Have some courage. You can call me by my screen name or by my first name -Jim or by you or by whatever other expletive you may choose to use. I can handle it; I have thick skin. You also do not need to twist my words. I said case law "usually" involves Constitutional matters, not "only" as you decided to change my words. Guess what, your above reference with arresting for brandishing is a seizure of a person which falls under the 4th Amendment.

You said you don't need case law. I'm trying to show where case law is essential, to avoid bad arrests and trials and law suits and settlements. I don't see how a LEO could do his job without it. I wasn't refering to you, I was speaking in general.

You never did answer either as to the legality on whether or not I should detain and disarm all the hunters and fisherman I run into. Due to the logic of the video if "you have a gun....you are a threat." I do know what the state law states, and under those circumstances those people are lawfully possessing. Once again, I would need reasonable suspicion to detain and disarm someone. If I am disarming solely based on Officer Safety then I had better be prepared to articulate why I thought that the person was a threat. In a court of law "he had a gun...he is a threat" will not cut it, and I may find myself facing civil rights violation. Merely possessing is not reasonable suspicion. I cannot demand peoples papers without reasonable suspicion; otherwise, I am committing a civil rights violation.

Yes, I did answer your question, you chose not to see it. So you don't discern whether someone is someone is carrying a firearm in a threatening manner vs a non threatening manner and act accordingly? The dude in the video was carrying "at the ready" not slung arm, would that not make difference to you? The real issue is, is your policy to take hold the gun while questioning? While checking to see if the person can legally have it? The officer did explain why he stopped the guy, why he wanted his weapon and then why he's placing cuffs on him.

In the courtroom of GCGF the defendant has been found guilty of being overweight and a loudmouth. The reality is that he did not commit a crime. The officers detained the defendant without advising him he was being detained. They then realized that they did not have a firearm violation; so, they then have a little pow wow and decide to use cover all of obstructing a peace officer.

Hey, when all else fails go after someones credibility to distract from the facts. You may not like the defendant. You may think he is fat, POS, dirtbag, mentally unstable, Douchebag, and dishonors all veterans. But, when you get down to what took place it was a bad arrest; maybe we will get some good case law from it.

BTW anyone can own a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Well, imo, all else didn't fail....it went down like it did. From what I see , the cops intent was to approach the guy in a civil manner, check him out, inform him of what he looks like, suggest he sling his rifle and let him go, but he objected to them approaching him, questioning him, asking for his ID, everything they lawfully had a right to do. He's an idiot and got what he deserved. As I said, I have NO evidence that he's a vet at all. I don't know any vets that act that way.

 

[bayonet_53]

Well, I used that as an example of brandishing as a simple law that was misinterpreted by LEO and had to be clarified by case law, cause you said it doesn't matter. There is plenty of "case law" history of alot of folks getting arrested for that very thing.. I was reserved to respond to you, as clearly you have taken this personal and I feared you might, but I'll tip toe thru this anyway. Ok, you seem to think case law involves Constitutional/Bill of Rights. I say it's simply a matter of Cops misinterpeting a law and a judge having to reinterpet it, some of them incorrectly and then the Supreme Court to ultimately. The vast majority is civil laws btw and have nothing to do with the Constitution/Bill of rights. In my mind, any reinterpretation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights results in an ammendment, like womens' right to vote and freedom of slaves, etc.







You said you don't need case law. I'm trying to show where case law is essential, to avoid bad arrests and trials and law suits and settlements. I don't see how a LEO could do his job without it. I wasn't refering to you, I was speaking in general.



Yes, I did answer your question, you chose not to see it. So you don't discern whether someone is someone is carrying a firearm in a threatening manner vs a non threatening manner and act accordingly? The dude in the video was carrying "at the ready" not slung arm, would that not make difference to you? The real issue is, is your policy to take hold the gun while questioning? While checking to see if the person can legally have it? The officer did explain why he stopped the guy, why he wanted his weapon and then why he's placing cuffs on him.



Well, imo, all else didn't fail....it went down like it did. From what I see , the cops intent was to approach the guy in a civil manner, check him out, inform him of what he looks like, suggest he sling his rifle and let him go, but he objected to them approaching him, questioning him, asking for his ID, everything they lawfully had a right to do. He's an idiot and got what he deserved. As I said, I have NO evidence that he's a vet at all. I don't know any vets that act that way.

Again, case law usually involves matters of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. What is an arrest? Is it not a 4th Amendment seizure? What should I do about laws on the books that do not have any sort of case law associated with them? I use discretion. If you want to move away from case law and Constitutionality then why not pose an example that does not involve the Constitution/Bill of Rights?

When I stated that I did not need case law, I was referring to my post that listed the State Statute on lawful possession of a firearm after you posted that I need to include case law with the statute. It is clear and concise and does not need judicial clarification.

You need not patronize me. It is clear that your post was directed at me. There is also no need to tip toe around the subject own what you say. I assure you my feelings will not be hurt.

Again, I run into people open carrying all the time. Most hunters carry at the ready with the barrel pointed in a safe direction. Should I interpret that as "threatening?" What about a camper on a nature hike that is carrying a rifle slung in the front. Am I within the confines of the law to stop, detain, and disarm the camper? What law did they violate? Where is my reasonable suspicion?

You are misguided on where the intent lies. It did not matter what the intent of the officer was in this case. It is, what is the intent of the defendant. Was there a credible report that the man was acting in a threatening manner? None of the officers made any accusations that he was pointing or aiming the rifle at any one or acting threatening. The reason given for the stop offered by the officer was so that he could verify that the defendant is allowed to possess the gun legally. The reason for the stop is what is going to be challenged in a court of law. If there had been a report that he was directly threatening anyone he would have been laid out at gunpoint. The idea of a threat was not interjected until after the officers informed the defendant that they are exempt from the law. The officers told the defendant that "you have a gun..you are a threat," and then the arresting officer went on to say "and I did feel threatened." Clearly the officer did not feel threatened or his approach would have been substantially different. The officer got into a pissing match with the defendant, and when he was confronted on the legality of the stop started backtracking. "I'm threatened, I'm exempt from the law, I'm going to make sure you can legally possess the gun." This is a bad arrest! You say he had the firearm at the ready. What I saw was that he had it clipped into his pack via the chest strap through the carrying handle with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

So what law did he violate? You are right in that the officer did want to approach the man in a civil manner, but that is called a consensual encounter in which the man is free to not talk to the officer or for that matter stop. I can walk up to anyone and engage them in conversation. I can ask them for ID, if they murdered anyone, if they are doing drugs, committed any crimes etc....,and so long as I do not have reasonable suspicion they can tell me to pound sand and walk away. The minute that I deprive them the right to leave verbally or physically then I have detained them. If you are going to detain someone you must have reasonable suspicion. Mere possession is not reasonable suspicion in a open carry state.

Did the officer observe a violation of the law? I believe that he did not, and therefore did not have reasonable suspicion to stop, detain, disarm, and then arrest. The officer turned a consensual encounter into an arrest based on verifying lawful possession with no reasonable suspicion.

I will offer a quick example of personal experience. I was dispatched to a call involving gill netting in the St. Lucie River. Gill netting is a felony. I called the complainant to corroborate what information that I had received from dispatch. The complainant assured me that he saw two men gill netting from a small blue boat off of a point near a massive oak tree. I arrived to the scene by vessel. From a distance I observed the suspect vessel and watched them as they retrieved a net from the water. From my training it was clearly a haul seine net, which is legal. I called back the complainant and informed him what I had observed. The complainant was unaware of the legal use of a haul seine. A complaint does not equate to a violation of the law. Now, I could have ran straight to the vessel seized the net and the catch based on the complaint. I'm sure the commercial fisherman would have some words to say to me if I did that. I am also sure that I could turn the verbal disagreement into an "obstruction" or "resisting" arrest quite easily. I am also confident that our judicial system would find that to be a unlawful arrest based on the premise of the initial stop.

If you believe the man is a douchebag and a shame to all veterans then stand by what you say. I am going to reserve personal opinions about the man who was in a very stressful situation that acted less than civil when detained by officers that believe that they are exempt from the law. His personal attributes do not detract from the fact that he has rights. The officer stated the reason that he stopped the man was to verify that he can lawfully possess the firearm. What was the officers reasonable suspicion that he was unlawfully possessing the firearm?

 

[Fletch]

I don't think the comparison of a game warden interacting with hunters and this situation is an apples to apples comparison. It's a given that hunters will be armed and the presence of a firearm is not going to alert a fish & game officer to the same level as your average cop on the street. I imagine if a fish & game officer is working in Brownsville for whatever reason and sees a thug with a gun he is going to go on high alert and treat him differently than Bubba on his way to his deer stand.

Hunter in the woods with his firearm is completely normal. A guy "hiking" down the road with an AR clipped to his chest ready to rock n roll is not the norm. That already puts the officer on alert and then the guy gets combative and it's really a no brainer to remove his firearm. What this video doesn't show is that the officer informed him he was going to remove the firearm and Grisham swatted his hands away and stepped back causing the officer to draw his weapon. He is damn lucky he wasn't shot in front of his kid and I imagine some cops with an itchy trigger finger might have fired on him at that point.

He chose to escalate things at that point putting himself, his son, and the police officers in danger. It's obvious the police officer showed restraint in deescalating the situation to the point of feeling comfortable to holster his weapon. Am I the only one who heard Gisham tell the officer to shut the f*ck up I'm talking? In what world is that considered appropriate behavior and a way to talk to law enforcement. If I said that to a cop I would be expecting to have my face in the asphalt and have no doubt many officers would hammer someone's ass to the pavement in that exact situation.

Grisham filed a petition with the city council just days earlier for them to affirm their commitment to the 2nd amendment. This was a straight up publicity stunt that blew up in his face. Hiking on a public highway with his son for an eagle scout merit badge with an AR at the low ready position locked and loaded? Has he never heard of nature trails? Just happened to have a video camera ready to go? Was telling the boy to call the lawyer and talking about a lawsuit before they even stuffed him in the car. He pushed the envelop to the point of having an officer draw down on him with his son standing just feet away. So many ways that could have went sideways. If it can be proven he set out with intent of a confrontation I could see new charges being filed one being child endangerment.

I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree and see how this plays out in the legal system. I don't think he is going to like the outcome and probably cost himself a military retirement. This guy put his own petty ego and obsession with HIS perceived rights ahead of the welfare of his family. Safe to say I'm not a fan. I'm sure he and many others will say he was courageously standing up for his children's future against government tyranny and so on. Two entirely different points of view.

 

[wildrider666]

Fini?

 

[CCHGN]

Again, case law usually involves matters of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. What is an arrest? Is it not a 4th Amendment seizure? ,.......If you believe the man is a douchebag and a shame to all veterans then stand by what you say. I am going to reserve personal opinions about the man who was in a very stressful situation that acted less than civil when detained by officers that believe that they are exempt from the law. His personal attributes do not detract from the fact that he has rights. The officer stated the reason that he stopped the man was to verify that he can lawfully possess the firearm. What was the officers reasonable suspicion that he was unlawfully possessing the firearm?

He was carrying that AR in public irresponsibly.

The 4th A was about British soldiers seizing homes as HQ and stores and property in the name of the King. The BoR was directly as a result of how the King was mistreating the colonists and was not , has not, can not, was never intended to be ammended. I'm talking about ALL the other State/local statutes/ordnances, which do have case law.

We seem to be having problems with perception and context. The comment, "we're exempt from the law" was a knee jerk reaction to a dude spouting off about his misinterpetation of a law. Of course, they're exempt from a law that doesn't exist.

I stand by my intial assessment that he's a DB and an idiot and got what he deserved. He's lucky he didn't get shot. Most anywhere else, he would. I wonder what ECSO or PPD would handle him. How would you handle him?


My position is, all LEO should be up on the case laws, so that when they see a situation, they perceive and deal with it correctly. How can you enforce the law if you don't know what the current exact definition is? In other words, show me police brutality or false arrest and I'll show you a cop who doesn't know case law and is misinterpeting the law. I'll go so far to say that if a cop says that they don't need case law, that cop intends to interpret the law on his own- judge, jury and executioner.

 

[bayonet_53]

I don't think the comparison of a game warden interacting with hunters and this situation is an apples to apples comparison. It's a given that hunters will be armed and the presence of a firearm is not going to alert a fish & game officer to the same level as your average cop on the street. I imagine if a fish & game officer is working in Brownsville for whatever reason and sees a thug with a gun he is going to go on high alert and treat him differently than Bubba on his way to his deer stand.

Hunter in the woods with his firearm is completely normal. A guy "hiking" down the road with an AR clipped to his chest ready to rock n roll is not the norm. That already puts the officer on alert and then the guy gets combative and it's really a no brainer to remove his firearm. What this video doesn't show is that the officer informed him he was going to remove the firearm and Grisham swatted his hands away and stepped back causing the officer to draw his weapon. He is damn lucky he wasn't shot in front of his kid and I imagine some cops with an itchy trigger finger might have fired on him at that point.

He chose to escalate things at that point putting himself, his son, and the police officers in danger. It's obvious the police officer showed restraint in deescalating the situation to the point of feeling comfortable to holster his weapon. Am I the only one who heard Gisham tell the officer to shut the f*ck up I'm talking? In what world is that considered appropriate behavior and a way to talk to law enforcement. If I said that to a cop I would be expecting to have my face in the asphalt and have no doubt many officers would hammer someone's ass to the pavement in that exact situation.

Grisham filed a petition with the city council just days earlier for them to affirm their commitment to the 2nd amendment. This was a straight up publicity stunt that blew up in his face. Hiking on a public highway with his son for an eagle scout merit badge with an AR at the low ready position locked and loaded? Has he never heard of nature trails? Just happened to have a video camera ready to go? Was telling the boy to call the lawyer and talking about a lawsuit before they even stuffed him in the car. He pushed the envelop to the point of having an officer draw down on him with his son standing just feet away. So many ways that could have went sideways. If it can be proven he set out with intent of a confrontation I could see new charges being filed one being child endangerment.

I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree and see how this plays out in the legal system. I don't think he is going to like the outcome and probably cost himself a military retirement. This guy put his own petty ego and obsession with HIS perceived rights ahead of the welfare of his family. Safe to say I'm not a fan. I'm sure he and many others will say he was courageously standing up for his children's future against government tyranny and so on. Two entirely different points of view.

The examples I gave of interactions with those engaged in hunting, fishing, and camping are completely relevant and they are a direct "apples to apples" comparison. You would be wrong to assume that I am not alarmed when I come upon anyone that is armed. To be in a state of complacency just because I am dealing with a hunter could be my undoing. As I posted earlier, I am constantly playing out in my mind every scenario I can imagine if the person I am dealing with decides to breaks bad, and how I will react. Again, in my thought process all scenarios end with me going home to my family. You will not be able to see that. What you will see is a calm, composed, and respectful officer asking "How was your hunt, or Are the fish biting?" Are you aware of the amount of convicted felons that engage in hunting/poaching? Do you think that they are going to want to go back to jail for a firearms violation? Would I be wrong to assume that some of them may be willing to trade my life for their freedom?

The way that Grisham conducted himself in the verbal back and forth was wrong. He may also be bat excrement crazy. We may even see him tomorrow in the headline news, but that does not take away from the fact that it in that instance in that moment that when the officers detained him they did so unlawfully. When you strip away all the false bravado and battle of egos and look at the essence of what happened there is only one conclusion that can be derived. Bad Arrest!

Look at the video once again. What did the officer state was the reason for the stop? I heard the officer say "I am going to disarm you..once I find out there is no issue then I will have you on your way." Right there the officer assumed that there was an issue only based on a man carrying a rifle in a open carry/right to carry state. Mere possession is not reasonable suspicion. If Grisham had indeed acted in a threatening manner to anyone there would have been multiple units on scene from the get go. They would have conducted a high risk stop on Grisham and he would have been proned out on the ground before being cuffed. That is not what happened though. So, the intent of the officer was to talk to Grisham and then let him go. That is a consensual encounter as I have previously described. Grisham then asks if he is "doing something against the law." The officer's answer is "until I can find out if you can legally have the gun and you can be out here." He then places Grisham in handcuffs. Therefore, the officer must have REASONABLE SUSPICION to believe that Grisham is unlawfully possessing the firearm. When the officer said he needed to find out if Grisham can legally have the gun we are talking about whether Grisham can have a firearm period; not about how he chose to carry it. Anything after this point in the video is a null issue. The "F" bombs Grisham drops in earshot of his son, the officer's telling Grisham that they are exempt from the law do not matter!

When this case is heard in a court of law the only thing that is going to matter is the reason for the stop, detention, disarming, and arrest. If you cannot clearly articulate the reasonable suspicion for the detention then the arrest is unlawful. The officer will have to prove that he had credible information that Grisham was unlawfully in possession of a firearm.

I am disheartened though that you would like to have a police force that slams peoples face into the asphalt for using vulgarity. Does that go both ways? Can I walk up to a citizen and curse them while in uniform? If I do, should they be able to slam my face into the asphalt? Any officer that cannot maintain their composure, and decides to use violence against citizens as a form of punishment should be in jail where they belong.

I am not defending Grisham; I am defending the Constitution/Bill of Rights