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

[E.Marquez]

Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.

Yes Sir

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.

Yes Sir

Oh this is just lovely! Open Carry Texas is getting press coverage and TV news spots and now their leader has been convicted not of a gun-related crime, but of interfering with a peace officer or some such charge. We all know how the media will spin this and they'll do it with a big smile on their collective faces.

From what I know about the case, Mr. Grisham wasn't violating any law and I have no doubt the ultimate charge was trumped up. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the political and legislative arenas because only a relative handful of people will both know and/or believe it. So our job of convincing the general public that they have nothing to fear from CHLs carrying handgun openly is harder, perhaps much harder. Ever since I got involved in Second Amendment issues in 1980 (CHL specifically), I have made a point not to do or get involved with anything that would give even the appearance of impropriety because the media would have a field day. More importantly, it would hurt the cause and everyone supporting it. Jim Baker is a great example. He was neither a Christian nor a pastor, he was a thief, but atheists were quick to point to him as proof that all Christian leaders are frauds. Unfortunately, perception is paramount.

I'm not at all happy about the conviction, because as an attorney I know full well how a person can be railroaded by a hot-headed LEO and unscrupulous prosecutors. But I'm even more upset that someone put themselves in a position that will hurt legislative efforts.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.

Yes Sir

Oh this is just lovely! Open Carry Texas is getting press coverage and TV news spots and now their leader has been convicted not of a gun-related crime, but of interfering with a peace officer or some such charge. We all know how the media will spin this and they'll do it with a big smile on their collective faces.

From what I know about the case, Mr. Grisham wasn't violating any law and I have no doubt the ultimate charge was trumped up. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the political and legislative arenas because only a relative handful of people will both know and/or believe it. So our job of convincing the general public that they have nothing to fear from CHLs carrying handgun openly is harder, perhaps much harder. Ever since I got involved in Second Amendment issues in 1980 (CHL specifically), I have made a point not to do or get involved with anything that would give even the appearance of impropriety because the media would have a field day. More importantly, it would hurt the cause and everyone supporting it. Jim Baker is a great example. He was neither a Christian nor a pastor, he was a thief, but atheists were quick to point to him as proof that all Christian leaders are frauds. Unfortunately, perception is paramount.

I'm not at all happy about the conviction, because as an attorney I know full well how a person can be railroaded by a hot-headed LEO and unscrupulous prosecutors. But I'm even more upset that someone put themselves in a position that will hurt legislative efforts.

Chas.

Yes I think many here are hoping it doesn't have negative ramifications for the next legislative session. Honestly, the coverage of the open carry events seems to have Texas politicians paying attention and in a positive way. AG Abbott has been vocal about his support for it. Lt. Gov Dewhurst has, reportedly, said he thinks we need some form of it.Todd Staples was quoted as being favor, too. The source was the Examiner from a day or two ago (hopefully someone can post a link to it). Perhaps we can make lemonade out of lemons?

SA-TX

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.

Yes Sir

Oh this is just lovely! Open Carry Texas is getting press coverage and TV news spots and now their leader has been convicted not of a gun-related crime, but of interfering with a peace officer or some such charge. We all know how the media will spin this and they'll do it with a big smile on their collective faces.

From what I know about the case, Mr. Grisham wasn't violating any law and I have no doubt the ultimate charge was trumped up. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the political and legislative arenas because only a relative handful of people will both know and/or believe it. So our job of convincing the general public that they have nothing to fear from CHLs carrying handgun openly is harder, perhaps much harder. Ever since I got involved in Second Amendment issues in 1980 (CHL specifically), I have made a point not to do or get involved with anything that would give even the appearance of impropriety because the media would have a field day. More importantly, it would hurt the cause and everyone supporting it. Jim Baker is a great example. He was neither a Christian nor a pastor, he was a thief, but atheists were quick to point to him as proof that all Christian leaders are frauds. Unfortunately, perception is paramount.

I'm not at all happy about the conviction, because as an attorney I know full well how a person can be railroaded by a hot-headed LEO and unscrupulous prosecutors. But I'm even more upset that someone put themselves in a position that will hurt legislative efforts.

Chas.

Yes I think many here are hoping it doesn't have negative ramifications for the next legislative session. Honestly, the coverage of the open carry events seems to have Texas politicians paying attention and in a positive way. AG Abbott has been vocal about his support for it. Lt. Gov Dewhurst has, reportedly, said he thinks we need some form of it.Todd Staples was quoted as being favor, too. The source was the Examiner from a day or two ago (hopefully someone can post a link to it). Perhaps we can make lemonade out of lemons?

SA-TX

The TV coverage of the demonstrations in the Houston area is universally negative, as were the man-on-the-street interviews during the 2011 and 2013 legislative sessions. Greg Abbott, Jerry Patterson and Sen. Patterson have come out in support of open-carry in spite of the negative news coverage, not because of it.

Chas.

[DEB]

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?

He was found guilty of Interference with the duties of an officer, nothing about the firearm, although I believe even if unsaid, it was the bogey man in the Courtroom. But with that said, when would it be legal to interfere with the duties of an officer? Who determines that? I guess the Officer and the State. So, you get waved over, while just trying to get home and minding your own business, and asked to provide a blood and breath sample, refusal or arguing is not an option? Or, Officers pull you over and want to check your body orfices for drugs the Officer believes you might be hiding, you must absolutely submit, without argument? Or someone blows up some pressure cookers at a run, now Officers can just enter your home and require you to leave, don't argue, just comply. Anolther Katrina type disaster occurs, you and your Neighborhood arm yourselves against active looters, Officers can disarm you, no matter what the Law states? Gosh, on and on...I also believe this individual was playing the south part of a north bound Mule, is this now impermisable and punishable? I know the Prosecuter was in a tough place, needing to support his Officers and their perception of their safety. I know this is a tough call, but I always believed in America, freedom is paramount. I am not saying we are North Korea, because we are not, but their and other like Nations, citizens cannot complain, actual crime is probably really in the low numbers, but the Policing Agencies can cause your death for simply refusing any order, the State will always defer to the Officer against the Citizen. Citizen meaning those who are not part of the Military/Police aparatus. Where does one draw the line against immediately arguing against a Police Officer doing what he believes is his/her duty? I don't know. I wish the Judge/DA would come out and clearly articulate the reason they fully prosecuted this man, for simply arguing with a Police Officer. Kind of simplified, but what else does interference with the duties of an officer mean to a lay person, such as myself? Is me writing this down in a Forum possibly interfering with a future Officer? I believe it boils down to being all about the scary black gun, probalby if it was a Mosin Nagant, nothing would have even been reported. So where the Law is not clear, I pray those in power, fully and clearly state, why they did. what they did, and let the voting booth decide if what they did, was right and proper.

[EEllis]

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?

He was found guilty of Interference with the duties of an officer, nothing about the firearm, although I believe even if unsaid, it was the bogey man in the Courtroom. But with that said, when would it be legal to interfere with the duties of an officer? Who determines that? I guess the Officer and the State. So, you get waved over, while just trying to get home and minding your own business, and asked to provide a blood and breath sample, refusal or arguing is not an option? Or, Officers pull you over and want to check your body orfices for drugs the Officer believes you might be hiding, you must absolutely submit, without argument? Or someone blows up some pressure cookers at a run, now Officers can just enter your home and require you to leave, don't argue, just comply. Anolther Katrina type disaster occurs, you and your Neighborhood arm yourselves against active looters, Officers can disarm you, no matter what the Law states? Gosh, on and on...I also believe this individual was playing the south part of a north bound Mule, is this now impermisable and punishable? I know the Prosecuter was in a tough place, needing to support his Officers and their perception of their safety. I know this is a tough call, but I always believed in America, freedom is paramount. I am not saying we are North Korea, because we are not, but their and other like Nations, citizens cannot complain, actual crime is probably really in the low numbers, but the Policing Agencies can cause your death for simply refusing any order, the State will always defer to the Officer against the Citizen. Citizen meaning those who are not part of the Military/Police aparatus. Where does one draw the line against immediately arguing against a Police Officer doing what he believes is his/her duty? I don't know. I wish the Judge/DA would come out and clearly articulate the reason they fully prosecuted this man, for simply arguing with a Police Officer. Kind of simplified, but what else does interference with the duties of an officer mean to a lay person, such as myself? Is me writing this down in a Forum possibly interfering with a future Officer? I believe it boils down to being all about the scary black gun, probalby if it was a Mosin Nagant, nothing would have even been reported. So where the Law is not clear, I pray those in power, fully and clearly state, why they did. what they did, and let the voting booth decide if what they did, was right and proper.

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.

[baldeagle]

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.

[E.Marquez]

Please enlighten us backward bumpkins.

Thus ends my participation in this thread...

[C-dub]

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.

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.

[EEllis]

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.

Point out? Maybe they shouldn't of even approached him, maybe they didn't have RS, but he resisted and argued the whole time. He didn't throw punches but if you can't see that he was resisting there is nothing to discuss because it's blatant and obvious.

[EEllis]

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.

[C-dub]

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.

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.

[EEllis]

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]

By the way I am neither a cop nor a lawyer. This is my understanding and a quick take on the subject without research or references. I'm sure I'm getting some of the buzzwords wrong and phrasing things less than perfectly but I believe it's fairly close.

[C-dub]

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.

I am also neither a LEO or lawyer and have not been either in a past life.

All of this is why I don't understand what duty he interfered with. I still don't know or understand what RS they had to start with.

Also, BTW, Charles knows at least as much as I do about this case and even he is unaware of any laws the guy broke.