TexasCHLforum.com

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?

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.