MISTRIAL/CONVICTION: Ft. Hood soldier's case to carry AR15

[C-dub]

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.

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?

[EEllis]

you say one thing but do another, you are a police apologist no matter what you profess, you have been shown to be wrong time after time and still say the same things, for me I like to see what kind of crazy things your going to say next in support of the police state. the problem as you said isn't in what is being discussed but rather in attitudes and your refusal to accept reality and not planet bob where you reside. You refuse consistently to ever begin to agree that a LEO of any type is wrong in what they do, how they do it and how it is executed in reference to the public. I am not attacking you, you may be a great person and very nice in person, but nothing can change your belief that no matter what happens that the police are right all the time and we as subjects do not have the right to question them or what they do even if the officer committed premeditated murder of the baby just to get the candy

No some, like you, call me wrong but you haven't "shown" anything. Matter of fact my comments in this thread directly contradict your statements about me showing exactly how concerned you are with reality. You just continue to state "stuff" no matter how wrong as if repeating them somehow makes them fact. It doesn't

[EEllis]

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.

[Beiruty]

The defendant would appeal as not to loose his CHL. The crux of the issue is that the defendant never committed a crime before the stop and disarming him violates his 4thA. How the defendant would know what LEO duty he was interfering with?

[EEllis]

The defendant would appeal as not to loose his CHL. The crux of the issue is that the defendant never committed a crime before the stop and disarming him violates his 4thA. How the defendant would know what LEO duty he was interfering with?

I think you are making it too complicated. If he appeals challenging the RS for the stop that's all he needs. Legally speaking it does not matter if Grisham committed a crime or not. It only matters if the officer had RS for a stop. If he had RS then he can legally disarm Grisham regardless as to any crime having been committed. A police officer doesn't have to be omnipotent, just have RS.

[Beiruty]

The defendant would appeal as not to loose his CHL. The crux of the issue is that the defendant never committed a crime before the stop and disarming him violates his 4thA. How the defendant would know what LEO duty he was interfering with?

I think you are making it too complicated. If he appeals challenging the RS for the stop that's all he needs. Legally speaking it does not matter if Grisham committed a crime or not. It only matters if the officer had RS for a stop. If he had RS then he can legally disarm Grisham regardless as to any crime having been committed. A police officer doesn't have to be omnipotent, just have RS.

Good, As I am not a legal expert in detention/arrest business of LEOs. So we agree, that we need to see what is the RS was.
I can legally walk with a chain-saw out of Home Depot. Is there RS to be stopped and detained, if someone called me in and said; "There is a man with a chain-saw leaving Home Depot. Go check him out"

[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;

[C-dub]

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.

No "gotcha" intended. Only confusion at your continued appeasement of this verdict as if jury's have not been misled or flat out lied to before by prosecutors. The release of the RS would be nice because there is nothing in that video that is reasonable on behalf of the officer to validate his actions. I would think that because of the reaction of the community surrounding this arrest the department would be eager to explain themselves rather than hide their motifs like the president, his administration, and the DNC is with all their shenanigans. Maybe releasing the dashcam video was supposed to do that, but if that's all they have they are in deep trouble when it comes to the appeal.

[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.

[C-dub]

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.

You'd think that someone like this would have had a decent lawyer lined up and ready to go.

[jmra]

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;

People need to do some heavy jail time for this junk.

[G.A. Heath]

I'm not a LEO or attorney, but just looking at things and thinking about the video leads me on the following train of thought:

Did the officer have RS for the stop? According to the video officers said there were complaints about someone walking around with a long gun, since we have little legal precident in Texas to determine if that is RS here who knows. We do know that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road (from a legal POV), which would have given the officer a legit reason to stop and ticket him. I believe the supreme court has ruled that an officer can disarm folks if they feel it is required for safety so the disarming of Grisham is more than likely legit from that angle. Finally the way that the officer attempted to diarm, and finally disarmed, him is questionable. Since the officer just grabbed the weapon it makes me wonder if it was a legitimate use of force under the law. If the officer was using illegal force to disarm Grisham does it change things?

[E.Marquez]

"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)

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]

[C-dub]

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.

[mojo84]

"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.