TexasCHLforum.com

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

suthdj wrote:

sunny beach wrote:If it's reasonable then a "reasonable man" would understand it. Just saying.

Assuming we all agree on what a "reasonable man" is.

mojo84 wrote: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.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote: Things like this get thrown out all the time when the police make illegal searches. I have no idea why this actually made it to trial and am further shocked that it resulted in a guilty verdict. That officer basically assaulted him by grabbing for his gun for no legal reason. Stopping to talk to him was not illegal and you've admitted to that. You've also admitted that the officer shouldn't have grabbed the guy's gun. I think everything after that should be on the officer just like any other criminal's friends are charged for a murder if the victim ends up shooting the BG if they are involved in the crime. The officer caused this entire incident to get out of hand by assaulting this guy. It is still a mystery to me why the courts have said we have to shut up and take this kind of abuse from any LEO, local or federal, and then politely ask the government to do something about the government. How wrong is that?

OK lets break this down. How do you know the officer had no legal reason to perform a custodial stop of Grisham? That is the main point and I will agree that if he could not convince a judge of his RS then there was no legitimate police action for Grisham to interfere with thus he should not of been charged. But what do you know that the judge doesn't that makes you so sure about the lack of RS for this stop? Have you seen the affidavit? Do you know, not guess assume or whatever else, but know what the officer told the court what his RS was? Have you researched that so as to see what other courts have said about similar cases? Unless you can answer yes to those questions then all the crap about how "you know", or any of us here including me "knows", is just hot air. Now I get that people can believe one side over the other, have a hunch, think it more likely, all of that. I've got no real issue with someone saying they have doubts about the case against Grisham. What I do have issue with is people who just state things as fact that are not. Get so mixed up in how they think things should be, or they want them to be, that they ignore how things are. State evidence as "proof" that just doesn't show or prove what they think it does. Use bad facts and faulty logic to try and make a point.

Stopping to talk to him was not illegal and you've admitted to that

You seem to think there is some gotcha there but I don't see it. There is nothing that would prevent a cop from simply stopping to talk to anyone ever. The issue would be if the officer had RS to perform a custodial stop. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you are referring to my statement that a person doesn't have to commit a crime for a cop to stop them, yes that is true. The ability of the police to stop is not predicated on proving a crime has occurred but being able to articulate a reason for being suspicious a crime has occurred.

You've also admitted that the officer shouldn't have grabbed the guy's gun.

I said I thought the officer used poor tactics not that he "shouldn't have grabbed the guy's gun", not the same thing at all. I also said that even giving Grisham a pass for the initial resistance because he was surprised his ongoing behavior was more than enough to legally support the charge of interference.

EEllis wrote:

stevem wrote:After watching the video I'm a little confused as what he "interfered" with. The officer just walked up and snatched at his rifle without any sort of statement of intention. Isn't that basic definition assault by offensive contact? Granted the officer had the affirmative defense of presumably intending to snatch it for his own safety, but surely Grisham isn't assumed to be a mind reader here? To be guilty doesn't he have to have intent to commit a crime?

I don't see how anyone could question the interference. Now I do see why one would think the initial stop was bad so any charges should therefore be bad but that didn't happen. Hey give him a pass for resisting removal of the gun because he was surprised, I did mention I thought the cops tactics were an issue right, there were manny other times that he did other things to bring the charge on him. 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. That is interference. You don't get to dictate how a stop goes. If the cop is wrong there are many ways of addressing it but the way Grisham handled it obviously broke the law. You don't get to wait until your kid gets the picture framed right before you put your hands behind your back. Yelling "Shut up I'm talking to your Frigging Sargent right now!" doesn't fly and on a legitimate stop it shouldn't. Any one thing , I would say should be overlooked, but the whole arrest Grisham was trying to take control and causing increased issues.

JP171 wrote:

C-dub wrote:If that's the case, then it sounds as if an officer can tell a believable story, true or false, they can say whatever they want and get away with just about anything.

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

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote: They, obviously, had a right to question him, but "investigate?" It's the investigate part that I'm fuzzy on. None of the callers indicated he had committed a crime and when the officer showed up he didn't see a crime being committed. If Grisham had asserted his right to remain silent, wouldn't that have made their job harder and couldn't that have then been determined to be interfering with their duty? I think he even said that in the video and that he needed to verify that the firearm was safe and or that he needed to verify that he (Grisham) was legally able to posses that firearm. Is there a legal basis for doing that absent a crime or RS that the person had already committed a crime? I'm really trying to understand this, but failing so far.

Question and make contact is not the same thing. They can talk to anyone for any reason but a person can ignore or walk away at any time if they are just "talking". If they have RS, reasonable suspicion, then they can stop someone and question them to investigate their suspicions. With RS you must be able to articulate what and why you had suspensions that there may be a violation. The thing is it doesn't matter what they tell the person at the time, it's if they can articulate it to a court latter. Same thing with arrests, If you get arrested and ask what for and the cop says "For being stupid" you don't get off because there is no "Stupid" charge. When you get arraigned you hear your charges and that's when and where it legally matters. If the cop is allowed to do something, like secure your firearm, then it makes no legal difference what he tells you while he is doing so. You have to look at the actions more than what's said. Also realize a lot of cops learn by rote. They know what they can do but are fuzzy about why and will tell you the wrong reason why they can do something. They can be correct in their ability to do something without understanding the complete legal justification for it.

EEllis wrote:

C-dub wrote: I'm curious about that too. He didn't go interfere with these officers performing their duty. They came to him and even then all he did was orally argue his point and didn't offer any physical resistance. And without having committed a crime grabbed his rifle. What type of response would someone like me receive if I just grabbed an officer's weapon? Even if I only wanted to get a better look at it and not take it? I still don't understand how what that officer did wasn't assault.

Look there are two different things going on here. One was if the cops approach was legal. If they had the right to stop and investigate the guy at all. If not then the rest doesn't matter. If they did then he was obviously not cooperating. He did physically resist, he argued instead of answering or refusing to answer, he basically made the cops job harder which is interference. I'm sorry if people don't understand what that charge entails or if someone thinks it means something other than what it does but on a legal stop the guy could be convicted of interference.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:Look it isn't that complicated. You don't get to decide on the side of a road if a cop has RS or PC for a stop or detainment. That was the problem with this guy. If you don't think the cop is in the right then you say so but comply with their orders. We do have a system in place to deal with officers overstepping but you don't get to hold court on the side of the road. This guy didn't just argue, which can and should be interference at a certain point anyway, but actually physically resisted. You should be able to state your objection, make your point, or what have you, but you don't get to just argue incessantly going on an on as if trying to win by repetition. Don't get me wrong if you comply as needed but just talk in between then that is not interference, but refusing to do something because you want to stand and argue, or refusing to give info because you are not done arguing about what you "think" the law is, then that seems to meet the criteria for interference.

Perhaps you'd like to point out in the video where he refused to comply with their orders? Where he "held court on the side of the road"? Where he "physically resisted"? Where he "argue[d] incessantly"? Please enlighten us backward bumpkins.