TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84

Sad state of affairs.

mojo84

It's good to see cops recognize and uphold the Constitution while not twisting the laws to show their authority. Check out some if the positive comments by some of the officers.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislatio ... aying-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84

E.Marquez wrote:
"The job of the police is to deal with people who are exhibiting criminal behavior. The more that the police are called to act upon law abiding citizens, the more likely it is for a regrettable incident to occur."
OK, fair enough.

When is it ok for police to contact a person reported to them as out of place, not doing something common, carrying a rifle at the ready, in a area with no obvious reason or common reason for doing so?

Is it never ok, because they have not observed a crime in progress?
Is it ok if they see something that may be a criminal act, but can only know for sure if they contact him?
42.01 disorderly conduct.
:(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
How would you propose an officer, after getting a MWG call, should determine the mans intent, if you believe the officer had no right to stop and talk to Grisham? (I know, many of us do not like the law as written, but for now,, that is not part of the discussion, as it is the law)

[ Image ]
According to the article, he was arrested at the 7000 Block of Prairie View road. The top red line points to his home. The report says that he was first spotted in the area of Airport Road and Old Howard Road. (Bottom red line.)
[Links to questionable Internet sites deleted. DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!!]

Some guy outside of a movie theater not to long ago was not doing anything obviously a crime in it self.... so if police had seen him,, they should have just tipped their hat and walked on, as they observed no crime in progress.. Yes?
How about outside of a navy yard?

When is it OK in YOUR opinion for LEO's to stop a citizen they observe, and or has been reported as doing something that depending on the circumstances may be a crime? Never? sometimes? only if they know in that person mind he will be committing a crime soon?

[/quote]

Looks pretty rural to me. Where is the navy yard or movie theater?

Making contact is not the problem. The way it's done and the attitude makes all the difference.

mojo84

I also think juries are many times made up of low information easily influenced folks that are subject to the best storyteller.

I don't know anything about his attorney but I bet if he had Charles Cotton, the verdict would have been different.

mojo84

This is the kind of abuse most of us want to avoid and prevent by not just rolling over and accepting police abuse of power and authority. And some of you wonder why people are becoming less and less trustful and tolerant of police officers, this is why. There was a time when I would have bet everything I owned that this kind of stuff wouldn't happen in this country. Now talk to me about my "tinfoil hat".

"In Miami Gardens, store video catches cops in the act
Earl Sampson has been stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens police 258 times in four years.

He’s been searched more than 100 times. And arrested and jailed 56 times.

Despite his long rap sheet, Sampson, 28, has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession of marijuana.

Miami Gardens police have arrested Sampson 62 times for one offense: trespassing."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/3 ... tches.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84

jmra wrote:Bet it gets thrown out on appeal. Probably was an idiot in the courtroom (just like he is everywhere) which resulted in backlash from the jury. Bet he convicted himself.

Wouldn't surprise me as I didn't realize until the other day this is the same guy as the open carry activist.

I think he is wrong in some of his tactics but I believe the cops and court are wrong in this particular case.

mojo84

If he didn't protest some at the time and then later claim he was improperly stopped and treated wrong by the cop, the argument against him would be that he consented to what was being done. Just as some did when the lady was molested on the side of the road by the trooper.

Many people have a hard time just standing their taking it when someone, even a cop, approaches them in an aggressive manner and treats them improperly. I think the cop had just as much right to reach for the guy's gun as the guy had to reach for the officer's gun. Just think about how that would have gone if the guy reached for the cop's. The fight would have been on and the guy would probably end up shot.

Wouldn't it be better if the cops followed the law when dealing with us mere citizens when we aren't breaking the law?

mojo84

It was that the rifle was being "rudely displayed".

mojo84

EEllis wrote:
JP171 wrote: that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong
The problem is that isn't what is being discussed, at least not by me. I have clearly stated that if the initial approach was bad then Grisham shouldn't be found guilty. The issue some seem to have is I demand people make a case based on facts and logic. Then of course when they can't name calling ensues. What are we children? Then why act like it?

Watch the dashcam. The initial approach was bad. Therefore, he should be found not guilty according to your words. The video is factual.

mojo84

EEllis wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:
EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.
Wow! Really?
Yes, that is how trials work.

and juries are never wrong.

Sometimes, trials come down to who has the best stroryteller or spinmeister and has very little to do with who was actually in the right or wrong.

mojo84

Looks like there may be more to the Grisham arrest story.

Here's the police dashcam video. Lots of obstruction going on there.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... iting-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 11 matches

Re: MISTRIAL/CONVICTION: Ft. Hood soldier's case to carry AR

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15