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.
My father lived in a small 3rd class Pennsylvania city. Back in the 1930's, he would often go home after high school and get his double-barreled shotgun.
He would carry the gun (broke open) through the city up to a crow blind just outside the city. No one thought anything of it. No neighbors ever complained, no police ever stopped him.
How the times have changed.
Responsibility2nd has been corrected in previous threads concerning Master Sergeant Grisham’s correct rank. He refuses to use his correct rank, which was EARNED.
I watched the video. He did nothing illegal. The police sergeant said the law does not apply to the police. He asked why he was being detained and they couldn’t say. The video started well after the altercation started. WELL after. He had a cool head with the police who stated clearly that laws do not apply to them.
The only person who I’ve read who claims to know the “whole story” is Responsibility2nd.
This was police abuse. Period.
Oh, you mean like your own typical reaction:
I know more about it than knee-jerk liberals like you. First remove your head - then shove your comments up where your head is.
So tell me, who are you, the pot or the kettle?
Once again.... Epic Fail Bro!
TEMPLE (October 17, 2013)—Jurors deliberated for almost eight hours Thursday without
reaching a verdict in the trial of Army Master Sgt. Christopher “C.J.” Grisham of Temple.
They were dismissed and ordered to report to resume deliberations Friday morning.
end snip
If I remember correctly, and I can occasionally still do that, when I was a Sergeant E-5, I was addressed as Sergeant; when I was a Staff Sergeant E-6, I was still addressed as Sergeant; when I was a Sergeant First Class, I was still addressed as Sergeant: when I was a Master Sergeant, I was still addressed as Sergeant; but when I was a First Sergeant, I was then addressed as First Sergeant; when I was a Sergeant Major, I was then addressed as Sergeant Major, and when I was a Command Sergeant Major, I was then addressed as Command Sergeant Major.
Now, either my memory has slipped after twenty-four years of retirement, or the U.S. Army has changed somewhat since I retired in 1989 after thirty years service.
It does appear, that the police officers were abusing the law *because they could,* and they were *working up* a case without cause, *because they could.*
Any law enforcement officer who turns away from our Constitution, and particularly away from being exposed by our First Amendment, should be dismissed without benefits and pay.
A good cop, will with considered effort, properly identify himself and relate to any party asking, what are the statutes by which he is authorized to act within the capacity of his office within the common law, in addition to the statutes that apply to his reasoning for stopping you.
Because, it is the law, not the person, who stops you, and without knowing the law, the person *does not have* cause to stop you.
Yet the self-absorbed “department policy” bureaucrats demand their due, as too many judges turn *their own cheek* away from such judges duty to focus upon abusive, bad, and sometimes tryannical police behavior and practice(s).
Yes, but when your rank was written in abbreviation it was SGT, SSG, SFC, MSG, 1SG, SGM or CSM.
You weren’t referred to as SGT for all of those ranks.
I wouldn’t refer to the Command Sergeant Major of the Army as a SGT.
A friend of mine went to a one room schoolhouse in western Pennsylvania in he late 20s and early 30s. There was a small school bus that went through the countrysided to pickup the students to take them to school and home again at the end of the school day. The young children, pre-teenagers and teenagerrs, boys and girlls, carried firearms to school whenever they wanted to do so. When a pheasant perched on the log rail fence outside the schoolhouse, the teachert called a recess long enough for a boy or girl to take aim and shoot the bird off of the fence to take home for dinner.
During lunch or recess, the teacher took them hunting and fishing. When they shot deer, the deer were tied across the hood of the school bus to take home. When the school bus stopped, the boys helpedd the other children to take the game up to the farmhouse, before going on to the next home. Imagine trying to do that in today’s idiotic environment.
Nothing like a contradiction in argument is there?..........
The bottom line is the guy was being a disrespectful jerk looking for trouble.
BTW I am no fan of LEO's but you need a certain amount of respect in a polite society if expect to be treated politely.
That says so much there is no need to add anything to it.
You aren’t “freeping”. You are, however, sticking to the Klowne Posse script...
And they are kind enough to prove it on damn near every thread they post on.
BTW I am no fan of LEO's but you need a certain amount of respect in a polite society if expect to be treated politely.
Actually, in my police academy it was stressed repeatedly that it was irrelevant to the situation at hand how nasty, rude, profane, uncivilized, or just plain disgusting a citizen acted toward us. We were to remain polite and courteous in the face of even the most outrageous verbal attacks, and were only to make an arrest or take action when the citizen violated the law, or within legal precedent (i.e., Supreme Court decisions). We were reminded ad nauseum that we are the servants of the people, and that there is no expectation of civility on the part of the people we serve.
I'd say about 20% or fewer police officers adhere to this philosophy, but nonetheless, this was the standard expressed to us in our training.
It is against doctrine for a police officer to respond negatively to a rude citizen.
“... I don’t want to here (sic) any of your B.S. about your rights...”
-
That is just about the stupidest thing I have ever seen anyone post on FR.
Ever.
True.
You people are out of touch with reality. This is not a case about your civil rights. It’s a case about a belligerent citizen looking for trouble and yes he got it.
That statement is also very informative in the same vein as the other one. The RTKABA is not a civil right it is a natural right sometimes referred to as a human right.
Explain to me why your right to keep and bear arms has any thing to do with this case.
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.