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.
Too bad detaining a citizen absent reasonable suspicion isn't a lawful duty of the police.
Did the agent of government allege this?
Where on the video did he commit this crime?
If you could be specific.
His actions deemed him to be reasonably suspicious.
Okay, it's official. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Reasonable suspicion isn't some vague concept. You must articulate the specific crime you suspect to be in progress when the police originally approached him and tried to take his rifle.
Hint: there wasn't one.
He was walking down a country road with a rifle and his teenage son.
What actions made him suspicious?
That is apparently to much for some to comprehend. That a police officer's authority has limits and exceeding those limits puts their actions outside the legal bounds of their duties.
It’s simple. His attitude. Attitude is everything and his attitude towards the cops, who were responding to a call, was very confrontational. As I said before, you were not there and I was not there and the video does not show what led up to the confrontation. By the guys own admission the cop was being cordial. None of this would have happened had the guy not been such an a$$hole.
The response from the government agent was: "Once I find out there is no issue".
So even the government agent admitted the had no, "Reasonable suspicion" about any crime.
By your own admission, right here in black and white, you don't care if he violated any law. He deserved to be arrested because of his attitude with the police.
Absolutely stunning.
I can’t argue with you. You have no sense of reality.
If you could be specific.
His attitude. Attitude is everything
You seem a bit ignorant.
Once again,what crime was committed here?
BBell clearly does not understand the U.S. Constitution or Texas law.
I’m not ignorant, just realistic.
Then why are you evading the questions?
Sorry but I don’t live in la la land. And from what I can see the Constitution and Texas law have nothing to do with this case.
What crime was committed here?
Interfering with the duties of a police officer. There, I answered you again.
Actually, no. You're a fascist. I don't mean that as a personal insult, but rather a description of your apparent ideology. You believe that the police ARE the law, rather than that the police enforce and tend to the law. You believe that the police determine your rights, rather than protect them.
You believe, evidently, that it is the men who hold the power, not the Consitution, and that the citizen ought not to question those men.
You sound like an anarchist to me. I have a difficult time believing you were a police officer. You are telling me that if you got a call about a suspicious person with an AR-15 walking down the road you would ignore it?
The Constitution and the law may be irrelevant to you but in most courts they still have a passing interest in it. A fair number of FReepers think it's important too.
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.