TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote: Seriously though I could see the " in a manner calculated to cause alarm if the weapon was being carried at combat ready, high or low ready but it was none of these, it was capricious and arbitrary on the part of officers and he was arrested simply for contempt of cop. The DA chased all he could find just to support the officers instead of doing the right thing and telling the officers they were in a dark stinky place.

So you agree that how one carries can make a difference it's just that you don't think the manner in this case would be sufficient. Well that's fine because I never said that I think it should be enough either. Mind you I believe the court has said so by the verdict, but if it were left to me I don't think I would tend that way. What I don't agree with is tha automatic assumption of ill will to everyone who disagrees.

baldeagle wrote: I found it interesting that when the foremost expert on this forum on all matters legal expressed his opinion you felt it necessary to once again disagree and demand that your "facts" be agreed to. So I merely pointed that out by highlighting your "but". I don't understand why you can't simply say thank you, Charles, for providing your expert professional opinion and leave it at that.

While I respect Mr. Cotten I believe I am allowed to have a differing opinion and say so. I didn't demand anything. I stated that I felt the way in which he referred to one issue was a bit misleading, to me at least, and I made a contextual comment on his view on pretext stops. Mr Cotten, like all of us has, has a viewpoint that color his comments and it's worth noting that he is a fervent gun rights advocate. Now I'm happy that's so and am very grateful for all his work and I honestly attribute much of my ability to have a CHl to him. That doesn't, in my mind, make him some neutral arbiter of all law and morality.

[sarcasm]Why are you trying to suppress my first amendment rights?[/sarcasm]

C-dub wrote:You may agree with everything or nearly everything I've written and are just arguing to make a point. That would be even more insulting than if you actually believe that it is okay for the police to do whatever they want if they can articulate some bogus RS to continue on some fishing expedition. It may be what we have and it is sickening that some get to choose what they will or won't enforce depending upon their own personal beliefs. This man, as wrong as he may be about his methods to push OC, was railroaded and it was all started by this one officer. IIRC, that prosecutor also has some issues with firearms in the hands of the public?

From my viewpoint, and the law, that if they can articulate it well enough for a judge to believe it, then it is not bogus. You believe that this system allows officers to make choices based on personal beliefs but what they should ignore SCOTUS and operate based on what? Maybe their personal beliefs? I'm not getting how that's better? Railroaded implies some lack of process and I don't see that here. Grisham was trying to push the boundaries of what was legal. There is always going to be a grey area where things can go either way and he was in that grey area. That is why we have jury trial. If everything was self evident there would be no need. Here the facts are all there the interpretation was the issue. The court interpreted the law the same way as the officer. That's not railroading thats our legal system.

C-dub wrote:After what Chief Justice Roberts did to this country regarding obamacare, I don't have as much faith in them any longer. Also, there are many things in this country that were once legal and thought to be good ideas, but were eventually either overturned or repealed.

Well what is the other option then? I mean we are here discussing the legality of a police stop and you what, want to disregard pointed SCOTUS rulings? Or just the one that don't support your view? How does that help understand current law and what may happen to people who chose to engage in certain activities? I may agree 100% that having a rifle in a front sling "patrol" style shouldn't be RS for a stop but if the courts find it is RS then shouldn't that info be out there? Shouldn't people be fully informed of the possible results of activities be? Is it really fair to condemn police officers for not understanding the law when they arrest someone and are are fully able to secure convictions on charges filed from that arrest? Sure the laws may change and even legal interpretations will also but who should cops look to if not SCOTUS?

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I will anyway

Fixed it for ya.

Do you have to? Is this about the actual subject of the thread or a passive aggressive insult?

Again

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:Say what you will about Pretext stops but they are the law of the land and one of the unanimous judgements by SCOTUS.

Dred Scott was the law of the land at one time. There is nothing that sanctifies the nine justices and makes them the arbiters of truth. They have been wrong many times and will be many more, most recently with Obamacare.

We have to have some framework within which we operate. The judicial system we have may be imperfect but it is what we have. If people operate within that system then it's a bit hard to claim they are violating the law when they are following the law. You want to have a discussion about morals then fine, but how the heck do you have a legal discussion and then say SCOTUS means squat? Declare yourself Sovereign and move on already.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

EEllis wrote: But, in a manner of speaking it could. If "people" find that manner of carry alarming and courts find that alarm reasonable then ......

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but it's killing me! A LEO must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not that someone doesn't like what another is doing. Carrying a rifle is not unlawful, except in certain prohibited areas.

Pretext stops are lawful, but it should not be so. They are nothing but a method of violating the constitution. LEOs argue that it empowers them to prevent certain crimes and while possibly true, it comes at far too high of a price.

Chas.

I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I thing it's a bit of a misrepresentation to say that that there is no difference between carrying in a manner that concerns or alarms people and carrying in a way people just don't "like'. While I wouldn't personally assert as fact, except that the court case does make it fact, that the manner in which he carried automatically establishes RS in this case. It's obvious that the manner of carry could establish RS without a doubt.

Say what you will about Pretext stops but they are the law of the land and one of the unanimous judgements by SCOTUS.

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?

Remember we are not talking about if it was legal but rather if there was RS, two separate subjects. Activities that are completely legal an provide RS.

But, in a manner of speaking it could. If "people" find that manner of carry alarming and courts find that alarm reasonable then ......

C-dub wrote:I'd say that based on how calmly that officer approached Grisham he wasn't too concerned about safety and the position with which that rifle was being carried. And being a soldier, that is probably how he is used to and comfortable carrying a rifle.

Which side of the road is the correct side? I thought I saw one place where it said he was walking against traffic, meaning the left side, but wasn't he on the right side in the dashcam? If that's what the RS boils down to that's pretty lame.

Maybe the officer just didn't want Grisham to know he was concerned? That was just what was reported of the testimony so YMMV. I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with. Honestly if anything that would make RS more likely. "Well it's how I'm used to carrying my rifle in a warzone" As to the other possible charge I would agree that if that plays a part it would be a purely technical violation that they would never really ticket someone for. SO? It is well establish that cops can and do use such techniques to justify stops and it's legal. It may be lame but that's no legal defence.

tomtexan wrote: I had no idea that walking on the wrong side of the road was illegal in this state. Never have heard that. Now driving on the wrong side I could understand. But walking? And which one is the wrong side? Going with the traffic or against?

Don't know for sure. I think that you are supposed to walk facing traffic but honestly I never knew there was any legal requirement.

C-dub wrote:I wonder if the jury even got to see that video. In all that we've seen I can't see any RS to do what that officer did. It would be to that department's advantage to inform the public what that RS was. If this is what they are hanging their hat on then it's pretty thin to transparent.

Well I read a reporters account of the officers testimony, paraphrased of course, and there the main reason for the stop was the call and that the rifle was on a chest sling. You can argue about what difference that makes for RS but I've never heard any court cases about how it would affect RS and my searches came up with nothing. The whole point of carrying a rifle in such a manner is to be able to use it quicker like if you carried a gun at low ready. It definitely would be much more disconcerting walking up on someone carrying like that versus slung over the shoulder. Also mentioned in the second trial was that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road and could receive a ticket for doing so. So without anything else that would enable a custodial stop all on it's own and thus allowing the officer to disarm Grisham. Since it's the first time mentioned I don't know how the court views such things but since I know you can retroactively apply PC I wouldn't be surprised that you can do so with RS also.

baldeagle wrote: Why do you feel compelled to be snarky with every person who disagrees with you?{/QUOTE} You're calling me out for being snarky? Not to be snarky but that is hypocritical as heck?

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:I'm not really arguing that the cop did do right here, that's is the problem. What I am arguing is that your arguments suck basically.

I rest my case. You argue your beliefs, then you say the other person's argument sucks, therefore you are right. When someone resorts to ad hominem, as you do, it's because they don't really have a good argument. The fact that you think your arguments are so sterling doesn't make them so. Other people see that. Why can't you?

No when you make specious arguments I can objectively say your arguments are bad. Heck you speed more time trying to figure ways to insult or bait me than you ever do actually making your case. Then you complain because I don't address the case! I respond to you and almost nothing you post refers directly to the case.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:You and many others misrepresent facts, procedures, heck reality, to try and prove something.

No, we misrepresent what you perceive to be the facts, procedures and reality. We provide an alternate point of view. And you reject it out of hand, because only one point of view can be right - yours. Life isn't like that. No matter what you believe, no matter how strong you think your argument is, there will always be someone who sees things differently and disagrees with you. The greatest learning in life comes when you learn to listen to those alternate points of view and learn from them rather than calling people stupid and saying their arguments suck.

The world is flat is not an alternative view it's wrong.

baldeagle wrote: This isn't an I win you lose forum. This is a discussion forum. Just because you think your arguments are far superior to everyone else's doesn't mean they are. It simply means you think they are.

No but that they are factually accurate does mean they are superior to arguments that are not.

Nothing you posted has anything to do at all with this case. I say again IF there was good RS then in any other case Grishams level of resistance would easily rise to the level of interference, and in many cases it would even be charged as resistance.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How is it appeasement to say you can't judge the RS without knowing the RS?

Why is it OK for you to assume the officer had RS when you don't know the RS but not OK for others to assume the officer did not have RS?

That wasn't my assumption before the verdict though I did think it was foolish to think that bystanders would have a better idea what local judiciary would accept as RS than a cop who had to deal with that judiciary, but that's a different subject. I said IF RS was good... See how that works? But, one good reason now would be, legally speaking, courts are considered "Finders of Fact". So legally speaking if the court says the cop had RS then, well, he had RS for all legal purposes unless a higher court says otherwise.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:You don't see anything on the video but you are not a cop with years of experience

Are you?

Nope and the court could care less about if I have RS it's the cop who makes the stop that needs it.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:and you also don't know if there are any other circumstances or evidence that also played a part in the officers RS.

Do you? If you don't, why do you assume he had RS?

Because he doesn't look like a rookie who has never had to provide RS to a court.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:There is also a line between what you might think it should be, and I'm talking about all laws here, and what the courts say the law is. Several times it has been said that mere possession of a gun if legal to do so doesn't give RS but that doesn't always hold true. There was just a decision in Fed court about a civil case in Georgia that say oc of a handgun does give automatic RS.

Do decisions in civil cases impact criminal cases? Are you aware that cases decided in one jurisdiction do not apply to other jurisdictions until a similar case is tried in the alternate district?

Yes civil rulings can impact other things. In this case it would impact the courts rulings on admissibility and permissibility not directly effect any criminal case anyway.And saying that cases in other districts don't have any effect is strange and I really don't get your logic. "cases decided in one jurisdiction do not apply to other jurisdictions until a similar case is tried in the alternate district?" At the lowest level mo judge has to follow any decision, it's not till a case goes up the chain that it gathers more impact but even then it really only holds the greatest weight for courts that are under the direct guidance of that higher court. So no a texas court has no legal requirement to except the precedent of a unaffiliated federal court but that also doesn't prevent that Texas judge from taking the ruling into consideration if he want. It does show that "gun doesn't provide RS" refrain isn't as ironclad as some seem to think tho. That isn't the only case just the most recent that I've seen

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:That just came out this year. Seeing that an officer could make a stop in good faith with just a gun for RS. Now whatever I personally believe and how I would want police to act you should judge it based on the actual law not what random individuals believe should hold true.

Would that include you? Because a decision in a federal court in Georgia does not apply to Texas until a similar case is decided the same way in a Texas court.

Heck if it's not the 9th then no federal ruling holds in Texas short of SCOTUS but that doesn't prevent them from looking at the case and it does show the cracks in the "Gun does not equal RS" refrain.

baldeagle wrote: Despite multiple threads about questionable police behavior you have consistently held in each case that the police did nothing wrong. (If I'm wrong about that, please post a link to the thread where you argued that the police did something wrong.)

I'm not really arguing that the cop did do right here, that's is the problem. What I am arguing is that your arguments suck basically. You and many others misrepresent facts, procedures, heck reality, to try and prove something. I don't respond when someone says "I think X is wrong" with anything but maybe my opinion on "X". But the problem is that even if I agree that X is wrong we come into conflict when people say "X is wrong and (insert specious argument here) is proof. I'm not arguing about X rather the specious argument.

baldeagle wrote:You have argued that you have been right and everyone else is resorting to ad hominem because they don't have a good argument to refute yours. (Which, BTW, makes you guilty of committing ad hominem. Your argument sucks is not a form of argumentation.)

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.

While you will grudgingly grant that there might have been some little thing that an officer did wrong, you consistently insist that we citizens, who are supposed to be free men, should simply comply with the police officers' demands without complaint or protest.

I have been arguing what the law is not what "you" or "we" should do.

baldeagle wrote: The police are not always right. Yet, according to you, that doesn't matter. We should still comply. I suspect our founding fathers might have some disagreement with your position, but I doubt that would dissuade you. You apparently would argue that they should have paid the tax, not dumped the tea into the harbor and followed proper protocol and channels to make their protest of the tax known to the king.

You argued earlier in this thread that Grisham's mere speech constituted interference with the officer,

Yelling "Shut up I'm talking to your Frigging Sargent right now!" doesn't fly and on a legitimate stop it shouldn't.

State law expressly exempts speech: "(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged consisted of speech only." (Texas Penal Code 38.15) So nothing Grisham said can be used to charge him with interference.

Saying doesn't Fly is not the same as arguing anything

When a cop says put your hands behind your back you don't get to tell him no wait until I am ready. and resist him moving your arms.

Watch the video. He wasn't cuffed until after he handed the camera to his son, which the officer clearly allowed him to do. The officer never asked him to put his hands behind his back until after he handed the camera to his son.

You don't get to wait until your kid gets the picture framed right before you put your hands behind your back.

The officer allowed him to give the camera to his son, so he apparently disagrees with your assessment. Once the son had the camera, Grisham put his hands behind his back and was cuffed.

Wait you think the officer didn't think Grisham resisted? OK

TPC 38.15 states "(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:"

TPC 6.03 defines criminal negligence: "(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

Please explain how Grisham's behavior rose to the level of criminal negligence under the law. You cannot use his speech, only his behavior.

Evidently the DA proved it to a jury. Why should I be able to do better? Or have to? I think he may very well have been resisting but due to no preceding crime and greater chance of losing the DA opted for an easier win of interference. I personally think the only real question is the RS and believe anyone who thinks otherwise has such a unrealistic view of our courts that I'm not the one to explain it. I think a good argument can be made about the RS being bad but one argument has no effect on the other. You seem to think because you disagree with the RS that means Grishams actions can't rise to interference when in a good and legal stop that is exactly what a normal court would say about said actions.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote: Possibly. I've laid out the fallacy of that officer's and the DA's case that many others here also see. Maybe I'm the ignorant one. However, I think it was just a case where they didn't want to be shown up by that man.

Where? Did I miss it?

Yes, of course.

I actually meant that. Were did you lay out the case because I don't remember anything that resembles your statement your sarcasm aside..

C-dub wrote:I'm not questioning the right of the police to question someone like this. What I have a problem with is the officer grabbing and attempting to take the rifle away from him without any reasonable or legal basis. GAHeath has reminded us that the SCOTUS has affirmed LE has the right to disarm us in the name of safety. The only thing unsafe going on there was that officer, without warning, grabbed and tried to disarm this man that had done nothing illegal.

It's all in how you phrase a statement isn't it? You say "without any reasonable or legal basis" but we know for a fact that one court disagrees with that. You make an issue of the fact that Grisham had done nothing illegal, and that's true, but it in no way affects the legality of stopping and disarming him.