TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

Charles, it's good to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

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?

That depends entirely upon whose world you are in.

EEllis wrote:

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?

Why do you feel compelled to be snarky with every person who disagrees with you?

EEllis wrote: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.

The 9th is in San Francisco. Texas is in the 5th District.

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?

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.

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.

EEllis wrote:

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..

That wasn't sarcasm. It was a simple statement of fact. I thought about using sarcasm but rejected it because it's against forum rules.

Note also that I never said I laid out the case. C-dub was the one who said that, to which you replied, "Where? Did I miss it?", which was what prompted my response.

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?

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

Are you?

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?

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?

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.

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.) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SMH. I can't believe you guys are celebrating his conviction. You do realize that what the cops did was wrong and what the prosecutor did was worse? That the prosecutor is anti-gun and took this case personally and pursued it until he got what he wanted? That when you go to Temple the police will now think they were right and the citizen was wrong? Hate the man if you want, but celebrate a loss for the CHL community?