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

[EEllis]

Watch the dashcam. The initial approach was bad. Therefore, he should be found not guilty according to your words. The video is factual.

Did the judge see it? The officers superiors? The DA? The Jury? So there a bit more than just a video that needs to be discussed isn't there? That isn't taking sides it is just being realistic. Personally I don't like the officers approach and find that his bad tactics may have been one of the biggest contributing factors in the stop going badly. But until you locate and post the officers RS for the stop it is impossible to factually argue that RS. Sure you don't see it and I'm not certain I could come up with it but that isn't the bar the officer has to meet. He has to make the case that the suspension was reasonable TO HIM and if he does so it doesn't matter if it is to anyone else. He has to convince the judge that the RS was real and honest or the case gets kicked. So since I haven't heard anyone state what the RS was how or why should I assume the judge is wrong?

[mojo84]

It was that the rifle was being "rudely displayed".

[pcgizzmo]

So the questions are this.

1. Should you be nice to the officer and do as he says and if he's in the wrong take it up in court later?


OR

2. Be a jerk to the officer, piss him off and tell him everything he's doing is wrong, get arrested, go to court twice, get found guilty and have to appeal costing yourself tons of money?


There is always a right and wrong way to do things. The cop was wrong from everything we can see but bottom line is the guys' attitude went a long way in getting him where he is today. I've seen these guys in the open carry videos when there questioned and they are jerks. Even if you don't plan on answering them because you legally don't have to there is way to say it with out coming off as a jerk and rarely on the videos I've seen do they pull it off.

[03Lightningrocks]

I just watched that video and I sure thought I was watching a police officer abusing his authority. While I also agree that arguing with a cop on the side of the road is not usually a smart thing to do, he should have been found not guilty. Now we have a power tripping cop that has had his behavior sanctioned by a court. He feels he has been vindicated and will take it up a notch. I would bet on it.

By the way... I am a little befuddled by the President of open Carry whatever not being smart enough to keep his nose clean. He won't be much use to them now. The media will make a monkey out of him.

[pcgizzmo]

He has to make the case that the suspension was reasonable TO HIM and if he does so it doesn't matter if it is to anyone else. He has to convince the judge that the RS was real and honest or the case gets kicked. So since I haven't heard anyone state what the RS was how or why should I assume the judge is wrong?

This is the problem I see with a lot of the latitude the LE has. RS can be so ambiguous and it cost the officer nothing to run you in for whatever and costs you thousands to prove he's wrong. In the end you might not prove it.

Also, why is it that it seems DA's will prosecute even the cases that have little merit just so that a person will cop a plea if they can't afford to fight the charges? They know that the charges have no merit yet they do it anyway. This to me makes them as guilty as any criminal.

This seems like a major problem with our current legal system.

[pcgizzmo]

I am a little befuddled by the President of open Carry whatever not being smart enough to keep his nose clean. He won't be much use to them now. The media will make a monkey out of him.

This is the saddest part of the whole thing. Well, that and the cops screw up. I wonder if OCT is paying his legal bills? Glad I don't send any money their way.

[EEllis]

It was that the rifle was being "rudely displayed".

Again while one of the officers said that to Grisham it doesn't mean it has anything to do with what the officer tells the court. Sure the defence can challenge the RS in a hearing and try to use that against the officer but officers are not required to give RS to those they stop nor are they prevented from lying, at least there on the street, about why they are stopping someone or even what they are being arrested for. SCOTUS has ruled that even if police tell someone they are being arrested for something else as long as there was PC for what the person ends up charged with then it's a good arrest. I can't see RS being held to a stricter rule than PC.

[EEllis]

He has to make the case that the suspension was reasonable TO HIM and if he does so it doesn't matter if it is to anyone else. He has to convince the judge that the RS was real and honest or the case gets kicked. So since I haven't heard anyone state what the RS was how or why should I assume the judge is wrong?

This is the problem I see with a lot of the latitude the LE has. RS can be so ambiguous and it cost the officer nothing to run you in for whatever and costs you thousands to prove he's wrong. In the end you might not prove it.

Also, why is it that it seems DA's will prosecute even the cases that have little merit just so that a person will cop a plea if they can't afford to fight the charges? They know that the charges have no merit yet they do it anyway. This to me makes them as guilty as any criminal.

This seems like a major problem with our current legal system.

Well one reason might be is now there isn't even a chance at a civil case unless Grisham wins an appeal.

[stevem]

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?

[EEllis]

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.

[mojo84]

If he didn't protest some at the time and then later claim he was improperly stopped and treated wrong by the cop, the argument against him would be that he consented to what was being done. Just as some did when the lady was molested on the side of the road by the trooper.

Many people have a hard time just standing their taking it when someone, even a cop, approaches them in an aggressive manner and treats them improperly. I think the cop had just as much right to reach for the guy's gun as the guy had to reach for the officer's gun. Just think about how that would have gone if the guy reached for the cop's. The fight would have been on and the guy would probably end up shot.

Wouldn't it be better if the cops followed the law when dealing with us mere citizens when we aren't breaking the law?

[jmra]

Bet it gets thrown out on appeal. Probably was an idiot in the courtroom (just like he is everywhere) which resulted in backlash from the jury. Bet he convicted himself.

[mojo84]

Bet it gets thrown out on appeal. Probably was an idiot in the courtroom (just like he is everywhere) which resulted in backlash from the jury. Bet he convicted himself.

Wouldn't surprise me as I didn't realize until the other day this is the same guy as the open carry activist.

I think he is wrong in some of his tactics but I believe the cops and court are wrong in this particular case.

[G.A. Heath]

I have finally forced myself to watch the entire dashcam video. Here's what I come away with. The officer should have given some verbal instruction about disarming Grisham, to simply grab a weapon without warning from someone who is not involved in a physical altercation with you is down right stupid more often than not. Up until that point the contact was peaceful. When that happened it changed the whole dynamic of the encounter. When Grisham refused to put his arm behind his back until he got his son to get the camera was, in my opinion, his biggest mistake in this encounter. His combative attitude is his primary problem, but understandable during the encounter after having a weapon pointed at him and being man handled.

Should he have been arrested? No, the officer who initiated the encounter needs some retraining. The other officers are operating under the information they have, specifically what the first officer told them. So those officers are in the clear for the encounter. The prosecution should have refused to take the case, and should not have prosecuted it. Grisham should not have been tried and convicted based on the video, will he win on appeal? I would think so. But there may be more that was done/said in court that we are not aware of, and the jury intructions would be nice to see. Lets keep in mind that the first trial resulted in a mistrial with a 5 for guilty and 1 for not guilty jury vote, the second trial resulted in a 6 guilty vote and a conviction. There is something that we are not privy to in order to get those results, it could be misconduct on the part of the judge and prosecution or it could be something else. When this is appealed and the prosecution has to go before a different judge will be the true test of this verdict.

[JP171]

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

The problem is that isn't what is being discussed, at least not by me. I have clearly stated that if the initial approach was bad then Grisham shouldn't be found guilty. 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. What are we children? Then why act like it?

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