Posted on 10/17/2013 1:16:18 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
But how many times do you have to be told that unlawfully detaining a citizen absent reasonable suspicion of a crime is not a lawful duty of a police officer?
If I go in my son's room and find an on-duty police officer in a meth-induced psychosis stabbing my child repeatedly, and I attack him and disarm him, have I interfered with the duties of a police officer? Can I be charged? In your world, apparently.
Which duty of the police did he interfere with?
“You were not there and I was not there.”
We were all there during the viewable part of the video recording, and the video recording clearly shows the police officer violating a number of laws and using dangerously poor judgement. The video also shows Grisham very correctly asking the questions any citizen should ask and has a right to ask to determine whether or not the citizen is required by law to make a response to the officer’s questons and/or orders. Grisham rightfully has no duty to respond to a request for his identity, surrender his firearm, or surrender his property until and unless the officer states his authority for probable cause to do so. If Grisham was under suspicion for the commission of a crime, the officers had the duty to read him his Miranda rights in order for Grisham to state he reserved the right to remain silent and request the presence of an attorney. The officers did not do so before questioning him preparatory to placing him under arrest for what appears to have been an extralegal and false arrest in an attempt to cover up their false arrest.
“The video does not show what led up to the confrontation.”
No, it did not; but we do have enough video to determine the procedures being used by the police officers were apparently unlawful regardless of what happened before the video begins. In the event the testimony of Grisham, Grisham’s son, and the police officers can be validated and impeached as it now appears likely, the police officers knew or had reson to know they were acting outside their authority under the law and attempted to discredit Grisham in advance by putting him under a false arrest. This is a common tactic used by rogue police officers and rogue police departments to punish citizens who get in their way of inflicting extralegal street justice in their eyes.
“I don’t want to here any of your B.S. about your rights. And mentioning 1930’s Germany is ludicrous.”
The word is “hear” and not “here”. Since you are not our master and dictator of censorship, unfortunately for you, you’ll just have to hear about our rights whether you like it or not.
There is nothing “ludicrous” about the situation at all. I’ve known a number of people who were actually arrested by Hitler’s Gestapo and sent to concentration camps who were better treated by the Gestapo upon their arrest than what we see in this video.
“The bottom line is the guy was being a disrespectful jerk looking for trouble.”
If you think Grisham’s statements and actions were disrespectful, then you have just demonstrated that you are so badly lacking in judgement as to make it unnecessary to afford any respect whaatsoever to anything else you may have to say on the subject. As the vidoe so ably demonstrates, Grisham’s statements were the statements he was required to make to determine whether or not the police oficers were acting with or without probable cause for their own actions, orders, and demands to seize the weapons and person of mr. Grisahm. The fact that you refuse to recognize and respect Grisham’s fulfillment of his duties as a citizen puts yourself far outside the pale of reasonable conduct by yourself.
“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.”
By your own actions, you have utterly failed to recognize what is and is not proper politeness and respect for the citizen or the police officers.
Have a difficult time all you want. MPD 1D1, PSA 108, baby. Midnights.
To answer your other misconception, NO I would NOT ignore it. I have the legal authority to engage in a consensual encounter. If I cannot articulate a reasonable belief a crime is happening, I cannot detain the citizen.
P E R I O D.
Let's say some one calls in and reports someone reading a newspaper. Remember, in Texas, carrying a rifle is just as legal as reading a newspaper.
Now let's say the policy show up, and try to take the newspaper. And the newspaper-reader becomes beligerent. Is he now guilty of a crime? Or are the police?
The officer of the government alleged this?
Was this seen on the video?
What was the reasonable suspecion a crime was committed?
Is it not legal to do what he did prior to the government agent showing up?
Bump!
You ran for the tall grass real quick!
Why are you evading the questions?
>> It’s a case about a belligerent citizen looking for trouble and yes he got it.
You see belligerence, we see petulance.
+1 for the citizen.
"I don't care what the law is"
Apparently you don't care what the law is either.
When DHS is pulling his neighbors out of their homes for Aggravated Conservatism, an Agent will turn to BBell and say, "they were belligerent, comrade", and BBell will turn back to his coffee and newspaper.
Absolutely...
I find it very suspicious when people side/support agents of the government, when clearly *no* crime was committed.
Footage from a surveillance camera pointed at the street where officers shot a mentally ill man in the abdomen earlier this week shows the man never walked toward police nor raised a knife to them, disputing a police officer’s narrative provided in a sworn affidavit.
It is just part of life in the country.
You do know that nothing Grisham did was against the law, right?
He was not only within his Rights under the 2nd Amendment, but also under Texas law regarding the carrying of longarms.
And here you sit, siding with law enforcement acting outside its legitimate limits.
Please cite the law that he broke. Not any bullsh*t from teh police report that they are trying to make stick about “resisting arrest”, which from the video he plainly did not do, but what was the probable cause for stopping him in the first place?
What weapons law did he break? Who did he assault? What damage to another person or their property did he commit?
Oh... He didn’t do ANY of that?
Then go sit in a corner while the adults talk.
I saw a police officer interfering with the free exercise of personal liberty by a citizen.
A FAR greater crime IMO.
So, you are convicting this guy based on your “Feelings” about his “attitude”.
How nice...
There was a complaint called in. You think the cops should just ignore complaints?...I once answered a complaint of some people on the Miami River in Ohio who were in a canoe. I was proactive in responding and called in “Yes, I see them. They have a beautiful Grumman canoe. I’m 10-8 (available for further calls) now.” If they ain’t doing anything, I ain’t gonna bother them. I was a Peace Officer, not a JBT.
So, simple police work was not called for?
“Hello, 911? There’s a guy walking down the road with a rifle.”
“Is he shooting at anything or acting threatening at all?”
“No. Not really. But isn’t that illegal?”
“No sir. That is not illegal. Have a nice day...”
See? Easy.
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.