Mistrial In Case Of Soldier At Center Of Gun-Rights Debate

http://www.kwtx.com ^ | 10/18/13 | Nick Delgado

[taxcontrol]

You are incorrect. Evidence is NOT required, probable cause is NOT required. What is required is “reasonable suspicion” a much lower standard. See Terry vs Ohio

[Joe 6-pack]

"I could postulate a number of potential offenses, but the one most likely to be relevant to the situation would be poaching as it hunting out of season or without proper license (since the report indicated that it was a rural area)."

And what would you postulate had he been open carrying in an urban area?

I could postulate you're a kiddy porn addict because you have an internet connection. Just turn your smart phone over to the nice officer now so he can clear you of any wrongdoing. You have nothing to hide, right?

[LaRueLaDue]

That. You got it.

[TigersEye]

I’ll take Yon’s words over his. He seems to be a complete buttwart!

I read Yon's entire article. He makes an almost irrefutable case that Grisham is an unstable attention whore who is probably a danger to himself and others.

Yon doesn't make any point whatsoever that Grisham was at fault in any way in the incident with the cop in Temple, TX or that the cop acted lawfully though.

[MaxMax]

Exercising ones Constitutional rights is not grounds for detainment.
What was clearly done was a civil rights violation of the 2nd Amendment.
People seem to be stuck on Color being the only civil right in America.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “but hopefully after this is over there will be some training done in the police force to where it doesn’t happen again to someone else.” <<

.
I hope nobody is holding their breath.

[taxcontrol]

Well, there is the catch all ... “disorderly conduct” (which defines an offense, in part, as “displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm”). Now the fact that someone was already alarmed enough to call in a police report would be enough to support reasonable suspicion.

Now I understand you may not like the current laws and how SCOTUS has ruled on them. But the current state of affairs is that just about anything can be used to support “reasonable suspicion” as I have tried to show.

- walking down a rural road with a gun on your shoulder (poaching)
- walking down a city street when some liberal pansy metro-person gets all upset (disorderly conduct)

[xzins]

and then questioned as to his actions to establish if he was a treat.

Nope. He was a trick.

Happy Halloween!

[TigersEye]

I came away with much the same impression, just short of thinking Yon is a looney tune. “He doth protest too much” leaps to mind while reading his screed like a blaze orange cow in a field of grass.

[taxcontrol]

Not according to Terry vs Ohio.

And as long as the standard remains “reasonable suspicion”, the rights of the citizens can and will be trampled on. If you dont like this current state of affairs, work to elect politicians who will change the laws and require a higher standard like probable cause for a stop.

[yldstrk]

cops think they are the only ones with a right to a gun and they are wrong

[Georgia Girl 2]

According to him who cannot be named on this site initials AJ californian’s have been moving to TX in droves and when they get there they bring their nanny state attitudes with them and its ruining TX.

I can say all the New Yorkers and other yankees who have moved to GA have not done us any favors. Atlanta is now nanny state central. They leave the chitholes they came from and then create a new chithole where they move to.

[William Tell]

taxcontrol said: "Evidence is NOT required, ..."

I'm sure that any "articulable reason" which would justify a Terry Stop would be admissible in a court of law and thus would constitute "evidence".

What "reasonable suspicion" would allow you to detain Grisham for poaching?

[William Tell]

taxcontrol said: Well, there is the catch all ... “disorderly conduct”

Yes. And at least one state ( I can't remember which one) has passed legislation clarifying that simply bearing arms in public is NOT disorderly conduct.

It won't be disorderly conduct in ANY state as soon as the courts stop ignoring the Second Amendment.

[DJ Taylor]

"He makes an almost irrefutable case that Grisham is an unstable attention whore who is probably a danger to himself and others.

At the risk of offending the strong anti-law enforcement element here on Free Republic, try to put yourself, for a moment, in this police officer’s shoes.

You have responded to a frightened citizen’s 911 call and you come upon a heavily armed man acting in an unstable, erratic, uncooperative, and confrontational manner. What would you do to defuse the situation?

Your options are to either double-tap or disarm. You can’t just walk away.

[TigersEye]

You have responded to a frightened citizen’s 911 call and you come upon a heavily armed man acting in an unstable, erratic, uncooperative, and confrontational manner.

That is an interesting hypothetical but I haven't seen any evidence at all that Grisham was acting in an unstable, erratic, uncooperative, and confrontational manner.

[marron]

If you’re walking in the woods where there are wild hogs then you should go armed.

[taxcontrol]

Yes, and that is exactly what we need more of. Sadly, recent events in Washington tell me that many will have to be replaced before we get there at a national level. Perhaps the states are our only refuge now.

[Dead Corpse]

Having hunted wild hogs in Texas... There is much truth to your statement.

I used a Winchester .30-30 with 220 gr soft-point bullets. A 10mm with 180 gr Hornady XTP’s for backup.

[taxcontrol]

I’m sure that any number of reasons could be strung together... walking down a road ... known rabbit and or small game area ... Rifle known to be a small game caliber (.223) ... Carrying a bag to potentially hold illegal game (backpack)

My point is that if anyone of us can come up with these “reasonable suspicions”, LEO’s can as well. A sad state of affairs and one that will only be corrected if we put in place legislators who have and present a strong defense of the 2nd Amendment. That will only happen if gun owners get involved in the election process.