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

[baldeagle]

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?

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

Are you?

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?

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?

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.

[baldeagle]

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]

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? But, one good reason now would be, legally speaking, courts are considered "Finders of Fact". So legally speaking if the court says the cop had RS then, well, he had RS for all legal purposes unless a higher court says otherwise.

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

Are you?

Nope and the court could care less about if I have RS it's the cop who makes the stop that needs it.

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?

Because he doesn't look like a rookie who has never had to provide RS to a court.

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?

Yes civil rulings can impact other things. In this case it would impact the courts rulings on admissibility and permissibility not directly effect any criminal case anyway.And saying that cases in other districts don't have any effect is strange and I really don't get your logic. "cases decided in one jurisdiction do not apply to other jurisdictions until a similar case is tried in the alternate district?" At the lowest level mo judge has to follow any decision, it's not till a case goes up the chain that it gathers more impact but even then it really only holds the greatest weight for courts that are under the direct guidance of that higher court. So no a texas court has no legal requirement to except the precedent of a unaffiliated federal court but that also doesn't prevent that Texas judge from taking the ruling into consideration if he want. It does show that "gun doesn't provide RS" refrain isn't as ironclad as some seem to think tho. That isn't the only case just the most recent that I've seen

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.

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.

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.)

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. You and many others misrepresent facts, procedures, heck reality, to try and prove something. I don't respond when someone says "I think X is wrong" with anything but maybe my opinion on "X". But the problem is that even if I agree that X is wrong we come into conflict when people say "X is wrong and (insert specious argument here) is proof. I'm not arguing about X rather the specious argument.

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.

I have been arguing what the law is not what "you" or "we" should do.

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.

Saying doesn't Fly is not the same as arguing anything

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.

Wait you think the officer didn't think Grisham resisted? OK

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.

Evidently the DA proved it to a jury. Why should I be able to do better? Or have to? I think he may very well have been resisting but due to no preceding crime and greater chance of losing the DA opted for an easier win of interference. I personally think the only real question is the RS and believe anyone who thinks otherwise has such a unrealistic view of our courts that I'm not the one to explain it. I think a good argument can be made about the RS being bad but one argument has no effect on the other. You seem to think because you disagree with the RS that means Grishams actions can't rise to interference when in a good and legal stop that is exactly what a normal court would say about said actions.

[jmra]

[texanjoker]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

[E.Marquez]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

Yet another reason to dislike Mr Grisham. .. his actions taint others ...

This next trial of Mr Grisham should be as enlightening as the first.

Perhaps it's time to change the thread title.

MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15

While it WAS accurate at the time, it's now misleading...He was convicted... Seeing as we are not allowed to start a new thread that has much the same content but under a more accurate name..... if this is to be the continuing one.. perhaps change the title to something reflective of his current position.
" Previously convicted Grisham, arrested again. Charged with Trespassing."

[suthdj]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

They can railroad him out, charge him ,put him in a dark hole of a desk job until he retires, or do nothing. It all depends on his commands view on things.(edit to fix spelling)

[E.Marquez]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

They can ralroad him out, charge him ,put him in a dark hole of a desk job until he retires, or do nothing. It all depends on his commands view on things.

Railroad?

That sounds so sinister..

Perhaps they could simply administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

Or charge him under one or more articles of the UCMJ that also apply, and then administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

The UCMJ and AR 135–178

[suthdj]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

They can ralroad him out, charge him ,put him in a dark hole of a desk job until he retires, or do nothing. It all depends on his commands view on things.

Railroad?

That sounds so sinister..

Perhaps they could simply administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

Or charge him under one or more articles of the UCMJ that also apply, and then administratively discharge him using the very black and white regulations that clearly show him (in my opinion) to be in violation.

The UCMJ and AR 135–178

Exactly what I said "Railroad" not saying it ain't legal it is just wrong. JMHO. After serving as many years as he did, they force him out with no retirment that is flat out wrong.

[baldeagle]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[jmra]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[gringo pistolero]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

I sincerely hope I hear about it when the wheel turns and what goes around comes around.

[E.Marquez]

Exactly what I said "Railroad" not saying it ain't legal it is just wrong. JMHO. After serving as many years as he did, they force him out with no retirment that is flat out wrong.

I assume your just guessing at all this? (that's not a flame or snide comment.. just an observation, no disrespect intended)

If you can cite your source I'd love to go though what your reading.

Assuming your guessing....
1st; Admin separation has nothing to do with his retirement.
2nd; His past actions mean squat if his current actions are counter to his service obligations. As it should be.... you can be the greatest American in the history of the world last year, but be a disgrace or otherwise violate service regulations today and you deserve action.
3rd; Even if the command wanted to both separate him and deny his retirement benefits, it would take a complete separate board, convening authority, and level of approval. It's basically as big a deal as general court marshal.

Lastly, that's not railroading in any way I can see other then putting on some tinfoil. Those are black and white regulations he has access to, gets classes on, is charged with knowing and enforcing on his subordinates.. So he can not claim ignorance that he did not know his disgraceful and likely violating UCMJ actions were going to cause him issues.

[EEllis]

Why do you feel compelled to be snarky with every person who disagrees with you?{/QUOTE} You're calling me out for being snarky? Not to be snarky but that is hypocritical as heck?

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?

No when you make specious arguments I can objectively say your arguments are bad. Heck you speed more time trying to figure ways to insult or bait me than you ever do actually making your case. Then you complain because I don't address the case! I respond to you and almost nothing you post refers directly to the case.

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.

The world is flat is not an alternative view it's wrong.

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.

No but that they are factually accurate does mean they are superior to arguments that are not.

Nothing you posted has anything to do at all with this case. I say again IF there was good RS then in any other case Grishams level of resistance would easily rise to the level of interference, and in many cases it would even be charged as resistance.

[C-dub]

I wonder if the jury even got to see that video. In all that we've seen I can't see any RS to do what that officer did. It would be to that department's advantage to inform the public what that RS was. If this is what they are hanging their hat on then it's pretty thin to transparent.