Trial Of Soldier (FREEPER) Chris Grisham, Who Carried AR-15 Rifle On Public Street, Goes To Jury

Opposing Views ^ | 10/18/2013 | By Jonathan Vankin

[Pilsner]

A few weeks after this hit the news I saw a guy marching down the highway in my county, holding aloft a a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, with a weapon from the AR-15 family slung over his back.

Never saw anything about it on the news, so either nobody called the cops, or nothing untoward happened when they visited with him.

[GeronL]

bump

[Responsibility2nd]

See post 216.

[Repeal The 17th]

bbell has it posted over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3080731/posts

[deport]

It would interesting to the split in the jury. I believe it takes two or more
to hang a six person jury....

[Responsibility2nd]

Keep in mind the charge was obstructing or resisting and not for lawfully carrying.

So - taking the strict letter of the law to the extreme - he could be technically found guilty.

Do you think the DA will retry? I don’t think so.

[deport]

Yes I know that the weapon wasn’t the basis of the charge.
He’ll probably not be retried, imo. I suspect with all the
attention that has been given to the case the DA will let
it lie.

[Gene Eric]

Thanks!

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the update ping.

[Responsibility2nd]

IMO the DA already extracted a pound of flesh (and more!) from Grisham. He sent a clear message.

This is not the first time Grisham has been at the center of controversry. And I’m guessing it won’t be the last.

[deport]

I hope he can get out of military without ruining his many years of service.
I know things can get tough and hard to take sometimes.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/stalking-soldier-arrested-disarmed-by-texas-police-some-facts-opinion-and-analysis/Page-2.htm

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

Vet: That’s quite a beat down you gave that guy. I almost felt sorry for him... almost...

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

You chose to be a serf who cowers to the lords of the manor. We choose to be free men.

[Private_Sector_Does_It_Better]

“I saw a police officer interfering with the free exercise of personal liberty by a citizen.”

BINGO!! Very well said!

[Hot Tabasco]

Post 216.

Back Atcha......Post 114 and Post 176

[Hot Tabasco]

I didn’t run for the tall grass. It’s just you can’t argue with an idiot.

Maybe that's why you're being ignored by the rest of us........

[Hot Tabasco]

Question: When securing a scene

"Securing a scene" is a lawful response to an alleged crime that has just been committed...........

Unfortunately for you bro, there was no crime committed here...........as we keep telling you over and over and over...ad nauseum.

But keep it up, we need you for our October poster boy for the new "stupid of the month" calendar.

[Hot Tabasco]

Grisham could have gone to his grave being 100 percent right - but also 100 percent dead.

And if my aunt had balls, she would have been my uncle. At least she wouldn't have been accosted by an obnoxious, over zealous cop who has absolutely no knowledge of the constitutional rights of the people he is paid to protect.....

[Political Junkie Too]

It’s simple. His attitude. Attitude is everything and his attitude towards the cops, who were responding to a call, was very confrontational.

Here is a link to a video of a completely different case. Tell me what you think about this woman's "attitude."

The Freerepublic thread is here. The link is in the thread.

Border check point officer vs young woman in car..'it's none of your business'

Note... the YouTube video has been taken down. I hope the LiveLeak video is still active. It really is worth watching, as this woman is a 20-something year old with her husband videotaping the encounter. She is hardly the confontational type, and you can hear her nervousness in her wavering voice as she stands her ground.

In this case, the woman was stopped at an immigration checkpoint near the border, but on a normal USA road. What looks to be young border agents become arrogant with the woman when she refuses to let them search her car without any cause. They direct her to move to a "secondary holding area," and she refuses to leave the road, demanding to know why she's being detained.

The woman interpreted secondary holding as being detained, and asked if she was being detained or was free to go? She refused to be detained for the simple act of exercising her rights.

The question then becomes, back to your point, how much deference is a common citizen expected to give law enforcement? Would you agree, at least, that there is a minimum expectation that declining to give law enforcement permission to search is not de facto admission of guilt of something that can be used against a person immediately to hold them?

In this case, refusing to answer questions about where one is going with their legally carried gun is not de facto evidence of guilt of something that requires police hostility?

-PJ

[Dead Corpse]

Interesting.

Despite the annimosity upthread, thank you for the ping.