Posted on 10/17/2013 1:16:18 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The fate of a Fort Hood soldier who was arrested in March while openly carrying an AR-15 rifle down a road in Central Texas is now in the hands of a jury. The trial of Christopher Grisham has drawn the ardent interest of gun-rights advocates nationwide.
Grisham, an active-duty Army Master Sergeant, was accompanying his 15-year-old son on a 10-mile hike back in March. The hike was part of the younger Grisham’s Boy Scout activities.
Grisham and Christopher Grisham Jr. were walking along Airport Road in West Temple, Texas, when they were approached by police officer Steve Ermis.
The police had received a call from someone alarmed by the sight of a man walking in public carrying a military-style assault weapon.
When Ermis confronted the elder Grisham, the soldier protested. Shortly, the teenage Grisham whipped out is cell phone and recorded the incident. That video can be seen in its entirety below.
At trial, which concluded this morning, Oct. 17, Ermis testified that he did not know why Grisham was carrying the high-powered weapon and that aspects of Grisham’s behavior were troubling to him.
Grisham faces a misdemeanor charge of interfering with the duties of a police officer. According to court records cited in the press, the soldier resisted when the cop tried to get him to put his hands behind his back. He also refused to hand over his rifle.
It is not illegal to carry a rifle in Texas.
Gun rights advocates have taken up Grisham’s cause. Blue Rannefeld, lawyer for the National Association of Legal Gun Defense, gave the defense’s opening statement and blasted Ermis for going “above and beyond to control and intimidate” Grisham.
When the younger Grisham testified on his father’s behalf, he said the rifle was for fending off feral hogs that had been spotted in the area.
He also said that Ermis drew his own gun and aimed it at the back of the senior Grisham’s head when the solider refused to surrender his rifle.
Bite me comrade
AKA:
A Constitutional Right.
#1. If you know so much about this case, how is it possible there were no bandoliers strapped across his chest?
This alone seems to impeach everything else you've state here.
#2. If this was all a set up, and all planned, why did the video not even start until the cop was out of his car with his hands on him?
Explain to me what your right to keep and bear arms has to do with this case. I am an NRA member and I noticed the NRA did not jump all over this case. Maybe because the NRA used common sense and realized this guy is just an a$$hole looking for trouble.
Well, I've actually been a police officer, and I'm telling you the police were wrong.
I hope the jury agrees.
We'll just have to see.
This is not a case about your civil rights.
I never said it was.
It’s a case about a belligerent citizen looking for trouble and yes he got it.
So you advocate the arrest of belligerent citizens? Man, are you on the wrong forum.
Do you not have any common sense?
I did not see any crime here.
What crime did you see committed here?
I'll leave up to the other posters to decide which of us is posting without common sense.
What are you talking about? That is what this is all about.
What crime was committed here?
You may not want to hear about rights. That’s your problem - they exist. We have no duty to be respectful to an abusive civil right violating officer operating outside the law.
You have nicely summarized the problem with some posters here. The police cannot, I repeat cannot detain a citizen unless they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is happening, has happened, or is about to happen.
The only thing the police can do absent reasonable suspicion is to engage in a consensual encounter, in which the citizen is free to leave at any time.
Grabbing the citizen's lawfully carried firearm is not part of a consensual encounter. It is completely irrelevant what is said by the citizen unless it implicates a crime. The citizen can call the officer a douchebag and make fun of his mother... it does not matter.
Once the officer grabbed the rifle, he was acting beyond his authority.
Gnaw me jerkwad.
I have an airport road near me. And guess what? There is an airport on it. I think I will grab my AR-15 and go for a walk down it. When the police,inevitably, stop to question me I will tell them it’s my right, get belligerent with them and try and keep walking. Can you not comprehend this?
I did not mean that your question was indicative that YOU couldn't grasp it, just that you hit the nail on the head.
Whatever, I blather on. You were right, is what I mean.
Ahh your an intelligent one aren’t you.
What are you talking about? That is what this is all about.
What crime was committed here?
Why are you evading the questions?
I am being belligerent.
You see that as some kind of crime?
Interfering with the duties of a police officer.
Ah, we arrive at the disconnect. Just because you THINK something is bad, doesn't mean it is illegal. Just because you THINK someone "had it coming", doesn't mean they legally do.
If there are no legal restrictions on carrying a rifle openly in your jurisdiction, and you walk down your airport road with an AR-15, and the police approach you, YES YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KEEP ON WALKING.
Freedom comes with a price, FRiend. Could there be dangers involved? Sure. Doesn't matter. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.