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

[EternalVigilance]

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

Oh? Do tell.

Question: Do the "controversial" lose their most important fundamental God-given, unalienable rights?

[Dead Corpse]

I think he’s alluding to this...

http://asp.militarygear.com/2005/03/22/chris-grisham-vs-the-state-of-california/

Chris won that one too...

[Dead Corpse]

Thank you...

[DouglasKC]

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?

Okay here's the deal. It's legal to do this. Period. If the police had to respond to every single call that came in to the police department they would be run ragged.

Look at this way. Supposed someone is driving at 55 MPH and passes a slow driver going 40 mph. The 40 mph does NOT like people driving faster than him. So he calls the cops and says " this guy just passed me going 55. That just seems wrong to me...I felt threatened" and gives police the license plate number.

Should the police even pull him over?

What if they do? A few minutes later a cop sees the driver going 55 mph in a perfectly safe manner. He pulls him over. The guy pulls over. He's done nothing wrong remember. What should the cop say to him?

He would say "Do you know why I pulled you over?". Now if the guy says no, the cop would say "We had a report that you were driving 55 miles per hour and someone felt threatened".

No, sounds totally stupid right?

Well it's the same darn thing. I would be very belligerent if a cop pulled me over because someone called in and said they felt threatened that I was driving 55 mph. Especially if he said "Where you going with your car?". What's it matter..I'm not breaking the law.

That my friend is what happened here. The problem here is that an ignorant citizen has their panties in a wad about someone carrying a gun. They've been duped into believing that only bad guys carry guns by the press and certain elements of the government. So instead of responding to the actual laws cops are responding to cultural bias. And that my friend is what is really scary. Who cares about the law right? It's only what people THINK that's important.

When cops start responding to what people fear and think instead of actual law then what is going to stop that cop from harassing people who get accused of being members of the "tea party". We KNOW those tea party people are a bunch of dangerous, extremist kooks who want to kill negros and rape women. So we have to investigate them when someone sees one and make sure they're NOT killing negros and raping women. You see?

[Mad Dawgg]

"You think its legal to grab a weapon from an officers hands?"

If an officer is breaking the law and/or violating someone's Constitutional rights, you betcha!

[dragnet2]

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

The man was not even found guilty of anything. Why would the DA do that?

What was the message you say the DA intended to send to everyone?

BTW, are you not the same one who said you knew all about this case, and was somehow involved and then told everyone this man had bandoliers across his chest when he was illegally detained?

Where did you get that?

[Dead Corpse]

Perfect example. Well said...

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I’m not ignorant, just realistic.” <<

.
Realistically, a Boot Licker.

We are not required to bow to tyrants.

Its not a crime to stand tall against arrogance from our servants.

[little jeremiah]

Is being a disrespectful jerk (just for the sake of argument) a crime? Boy oh boy, we need more prisons, if that is true.

[Diego1618]

Okay here's the deal. It's legal to do this. Period. If the police had to respond to every single call that came in to the police department they would be run ragged.

You explained it well. I would add..........one of the problems our society has now is what is referred to as "Law Enforcement".

When I was a kid there was no such thing as Law Enforcement Officers. They were called "Peace Officers"....and their job was to keep the peace. Most laws were enforced by the folks themselves....obeying them. There were few..... and they seemed logical and easy to obey. But.... of course today we have laws (it seems) against everything....and need an entire cadre of special folks to enforce them all.

I'm not sure when all this began to change but it probably started occurring right after Viet Nam when most of the other social nonsense began taking hold. It seems that's when this mentality of...."There ought to be a law" became the cure all for everything.