TexasCHLforum.com

Hung Jury declared in Ft. Hood MSGT Grisham Gun Rights Trial

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23732056/hung ... ghts-trial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not sure what this means for the Second Amendment or for MSGT Grisham.

Over all, the news is better rather than worse for the soldier. If he had been convicted, it could have ended his military career.

While being a former LEO and long time supporter of law enforcement officers I strongly feel that the officers were wrong in being so confrontational when approaching Grisham, I feel that Grisham could have handled the matter a bit better. He is really benefited from the fact that he had the presence of mind to have his son continue to video the events of the day.

The officer handled the situation very poorly, the officer's supervisor handled the situation very poorly in backing up an officer who did the wrong thing, and the prosecutors did the wrong thing in their exhaustive search for a crime to substitute for the officer's on the spot charge of "rudely displaying" a rifle which it is perfectly legal to carry in Texas in the manner in which Grisham was carrying it...ie. properly slung.

The whole thing was so unnecessary. Had the officer been better versed on the law, had he approached Grisham with a bit more of the respect due any citizen, had he requested that Grisham hand him the rifle rather than grabbing it, we would have probably never heard of the events.

I hope that there is no re-trial.
I hope that Grisham goes on with his life with all success.
I hope that the members of the Temple Police Dept., including Officer Steve Ermis, have learned valuable lessons about the law and public interaction.

Retrial scheduled for Nov. 18th according to the Temple Daily Telegram.

Open Carry Texas posted on Facebook last night that 5 of the 6 voted to acquit, but they couldn't convince 1 idiot.

CWOOD wrote:Hung Jury declared in Ft. Hood MSGT Grisham Gun Rights Trial

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23732056/hung ... ghts-trial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not sure what this means for the Second Amendment or for MSGT Grisham.

Over all, the news is better rather than worse for the soldier. If he had been convicted, it could have ended his military career.

While being a former LEO and long time supporter of law enforcement officers I strongly feel that the officers were wrong in being so confrontational when approaching Grisham, I feel that Grisham could have handled the matter a bit better. He is really benefited from the fact that he had the presence of mind to have his son continue to video the events of the day.

The officer handled the situation very poorly, the officer's supervisor handled the situation very poorly in backing up an officer who did the wrong thing, and the prosecutors did the wrong thing in their exhaustive search for a crime to substitute for the officer's on the spot charge of "rudely displaying" a rifle which it is perfectly legal to carry in Texas in the manner in which Grisham was carrying it...ie. properly slung.

The whole thing was so unnecessary. Had the officer been better versed on the law, had he approached Grisham with a bit more of the respect due any citizen, had he requested that Grisham hand him the rifle rather than grabbing it, we would have probably never heard of the events.

I hope that there is no re-trial.
I hope that Grisham goes on with his life with all success.
I hope that the members of the Temple Police Dept., including Officer Steve Ermis, have learned valuable lessons about the law and public interaction.

Well said and I agree on all counts. IMHO, there has been a loss of perspective by county officials. Grisham certainly could have been more polite or accommodating, but did his actions rise to a level where, upon conviction, his CHL would be revoked? I do have sympathy for the prosecutor's office in that there was no easy path for them once Grisham made it clear there would be no plea: proceed with a questionable case with a potentially sympathetic defendant or don't back up your PD (whose officers you'll be working with again) and expose them immediately to a civil suit. That said, the DA/CA is elected and has to make tough calls. Since his office only convinced 1 juror of 5, he'll now have another.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:I do have sympathy for the prosecutor's office in that there was no easy path for them once Grisham made it clear there would be no plea: proceed with a questionable case with a potentially sympathetic defendant or don't back up your PD (whose officers you'll be working with again) and expose them immediately to a civil suit. That said, the DA/CA is elected and has to make tough calls. Since his office only convinced 1 juror of 5, he'll now have another.

SA-TX

I was really surprised they didn't drop this at the last minute like the Metroplex Hospital case. I'm even more surprised they are bothering to retry the case after a 5/1 acquittal vote. I think I may start avoiding Bell County.

Waco1959 wrote:

SA-TX wrote:I do have sympathy for the prosecutor's office in that there was no easy path for them once Grisham made it clear there would be no plea: proceed with a questionable case with a potentially sympathetic defendant or don't back up your PD (whose officers you'll be working with again) and expose them immediately to a civil suit. That said, the DA/CA is elected and has to make tough calls. Since his office only convinced 1 juror of 5, he'll now have another.

SA-TX

I was really surprised they didn't drop this at the last minute like the Metroplex Hospital case. I'm even more surprised they are bothering to retry the case after a 5/1 acquittal vote. I think I may start avoiding Bell County.

According to this source, MSG Grisham was found guilty during his 2nd trial yesterday.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Sold ... 12011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope he has pro bono counsel since now he'll need to appeal and win to keep his CHL. Then there's his arrest at the capitol a few days ago. I haven't watched the YouTube video but he claims he was carrying a toy pistol openly and was told by DPS to leave. He didn't immediately leave and was arrested for trespassing.

I'm not a fan of these tactics, but I also don't like the thought of someone, especially a Texan, being told to leave the capitol grounds without a good reason. How much discretion do they have? After all, he was clearly there to exercise his 1A rights and I can't believe it is constitutional for the police to evict him based on the content of his speech / non-firearm prop. I guess we'll see if he fares any better in the Travis County courts.

SA-TX

Justice has been served.. My hope is he gets the full 180 days and $2000 fine, loss of CHL due to conviction of a class A misdemeanor

SA-TX wrote:

Waco1959 wrote:

SA-TX wrote:I do have sympathy for the prosecutor's office in that there was no easy path for them once Grisham made it clear there would be no plea: proceed with a questionable case with a potentially sympathetic defendant or don't back up your PD (whose officers you'll be working with again) and expose them immediately to a civil suit. That said, the DA/CA is elected and has to make tough calls. Since his office only convinced 1 juror of 5, he'll now have another.

SA-TX

I was really surprised they didn't drop this at the last minute like the Metroplex Hospital case. I'm even more surprised they are bothering to retry the case after a 5/1 acquittal vote. I think I may start avoiding Bell County.

According to this source, MSG Grisham was found guilty during his 2nd trial yesterday.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Sold ... 12011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope he has pro bono counsel since now he'll need to appeal and win to keep his CHL. Then there's his arrest at the capitol a few days ago. I haven't watched the YouTube video but he claims he was carrying a toy pistol openly and was told by DPS to leave. He didn't immediately leave and was arrested for trespassing.

I'm not a fan of these tactics, but I also don't like the thought of someone, especially a Texan, being told to leave the capitol grounds without a good reason. How much discretion do they have? After all, he was clearly there to exercise his 1A rights and I can't believe it is constitutional for the police to evict him based on the content of his speech / non-firearm prop. I guess we'll see if he fares any better in the Travis County courts.

SA-TX

I was rooting for him but now that I know he's an Open Carry proponent that doesn't care how he affects the gun community by openly carrying firearms in public then I now have no sympathy. I'm also now calling into question his mental and intellectual abilities knowing he had a pending case and decided to got Austin and antagonize people at the capital with a toy gun.

I now think he's an idiot. Something I'm beginning to think of all Open Carry people that think it's OK to strap on a long gun and waltz around in public just because it's legal thinking that brings good to the Open Carry cause.

E.Marquez wrote:

Justice has been served.. My hope is he gets the full 180 days and $2000 fine, loss of CHL due to conviction of a class A misdemeanor

It is being reported as interference with the duties of an officer a class B Mis

The Boy Scouts have a rule about

"Except for law enforcement officers required to carry firearms within their jurisdiction, firearms shall not be brought on camping, hiking, backpacking, or other Scouting activities except those specifically planned for target shooting under the supervision of a currently certified BSA national shooting sports director or National Rifle Association firearms instructor." http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Hea ... gss07.aspx


From what I've gathered, he was accompanying his son on a Hike for a Merit Badge or Promotion. Regardless of if open carry was allowable, he broke the Boy Scout Rules. While breaking the Boy Scout rules is not a criminal matter, it is not right. Boy Scouting is a voluntary activity, he should have supported and upheld all of its Rules, Laws, and Oath


Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.

EEllis wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Justice has been served.. My hope is he gets the full 180 days and $2000 fine, loss of CHL due to conviction of a class A misdemeanor

It is being reported as interference with the duties of an officer a class B Mis

OK, good catch.. yet still

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to
carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding
the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a
license under Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of age;
(3) has not been convicted of a felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a C lass A or Class B
misdemeanor or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01,
Penal Code, or equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information or
indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B
misdemeanor or equivalent offense;
(6) is not a chemically dependent person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the
proper use and storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been
convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of
an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law

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?

baldeagle wrote: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?

This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

baldeagle wrote: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?

From the video I don't see anything he did wrong. He was carrying legally as far as I can tell. I will say that if he was a little more polite he might have gotten treated a little better. That goes for the officer as well. My point of view is that neither party acted the way they should have.

That being said. It's evident at least to me by the fact that this guy going to Austin and walking around at the capital with a toy gun while this case was going on that he is not of sound mind and judgement. I am for OC but I am not at all for the OC crowd that has been openly displaying fire arms and causing the gun community and in particular the CHL community that might want open carry at some point lots of grief. They are not furthering their or our cause.

So, I have to be honest and say I'm torn. He was tried and like it or not found guilty. Party of me want's the crazy OC'ers to see this and think twice about doing it but also part of me knows he really wasn't doing anything illegal and brought up on false charges.

Like it or not public opinion is what matter and if we don't start changing public opinion in a good way we might be in for a rude awaking some day. We can't shove OC down the public's throat.

Is this the same Grisham that heads Open Carry Texas?

Chas.