• December 19, 2014

Grisham found guilty in Temple gun case trial

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:34 pm | Updated: 5:42 pm, Tue Nov 19, 2013.

BELTON — After two hours of deliberation, a six-person jury found Christopher “C.J.” Grisham guilty of interfering with the duties of a Temple police officer, a Class A misdemeanor.

Grisham’s wife, Emily, cried at the announcement of the verdict.

The punishment phase of the trial will begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday. Grisham, an Army master sergeant who lives in Temple, opted to let the jury determine his punishment, the maximum of which could be a $2,000 fine and 180 days in jail.

Grisham’s second trial started Monday. His first trial in October resulted in a hung jury.

The charges, and both trials, stemmed from an incident with Temple Police Officer Steve Ermis, which occurred on March 16 while Grisham and his son, Chris, were on a 10-mile hike for Boy Scout merit badge. Grisham was openly carrying an AR-15 rifle and a concealed handgun, for which he had a permit. Ermis testified that in his 30-plus years as a law enforcement officer it was the first time he had ever encountered someone “walking down a roadway with a long gun.”

The case earned the attention of gun-rights advocates and national media outlets after a cellphone video of Grisham’s arrest, which was recorded by his son, was posted on the Internet and went viral.

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

51 comments:

  • renebuddy posted at 1:15 pm on Fri, Nov 29, 2013.

    renebuddy Posts: 1

    hi as a person on the outside looking in the cure is simple you have given un constitutional powers to a police officer which is is a direct violation of your constitution the second amendment is a straight document, and if all americans would read them this would not have gone to court the jury put state law ahead of the constitution an act of treason they should all be arrested. shall not be infringed is a clause which is being violated and you all need to stop giving your rights and freedom away to police.

     
  • Roody2 posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Nov 29, 2013.

    Roody2 Posts: 340

    tvc, you nailed it!

    Maybe some don't get it because they are listening to biased media outlets. It's not hard to get people enraged to their agenda just by the way they tell the story... as we have seen many times over.

     
  • tvc posted at 2:20 pm on Thu, Nov 28, 2013.

    tvc Posts: 1

    This is not a tough case although some people would like it to be in order to try and make a point.

    Sgt. Grisham was not arrested or charged with a guns crime yet this is wanted by many to be a gun rights case.

    An officer has the authority to disarm someone that he reasonably believes is a danger. Even under Texas CHL laws in the government code, it clearly states that an officer can disarm a CHL holder but the handgun has to be returned immediately unless a crime is suspected or the gun is held as evidence.

    The issue here is only if an officer can reasonably feel threatened by a man that they received a call on and the guy has the weapon slung for ready access on his chest. I would say that if an officer an officer did not feel threatened, he might want to seek another type of employment.

    While it is legal to expose a long gun in Texas, can it be a crime in some instances? Yes. In fact any deadly weapon, firearm are not, can be a crime is carried in a manner calculated to alarm. Whether Grisham was doing that or not was never made an issue by the officers or in court. The officers have the authority under such a situation to detain the person and check out the situation. Maybe the person calling the police is correct and maybe not. If the police have no evidence that the weapon was being displayed in violation of the law, it should be returned and the person allowed to go about his business.

    Grisham wanted no part of that and wanted to make an issue of it. He won his issue of openly carrying a rifle as he was not charged with that crime. His problem was demanding that the officers had no authority to briefly disarm him. He was wrong and was convicted of that only.

    All Grisham had to do was allow the officers to remove the rifle briefly while they conducted a pedestrian stop and had he complied with the law, he likely would have been allowed to go about his business and most of us would never have even heard of Sgt. Grisham. He wanted it to be an issue and he got what he wanted.

     
  • Roody2 posted at 11:06 am on Wed, Nov 27, 2013.

    Roody2 Posts: 340

    Eliza,

    Thanks for the post on the videos. I hadn't seen some of those.

    It doesn't change my mind as to both parties sharing blame that day but it does diminish any last respect I might have had for Grisham.

     
  • Bubba posted at 12:43 pm on Tue, Nov 26, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    grisham was a smartass from the start. When the officer approached, grisham grabbed his loaded rifle. At that point, the officer had every legal right to draw his weapon, and use it, and to disarm grisham, forcibly if necessary.

    grisham was not charged with disorderly conduct, making the demeanor of the 911 caller irrelevant. He was charged with interfering with an officer, and the actions described above merit the guilty finding.

     
  • Alvin posted at 11:33 am on Tue, Nov 26, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @Roody2;
    I feel the Sergeant was acting in a belligerent attitude, but I also think the Police officer had no right to draw his weapon and wrestle the man over to the hood of his car. As stated yesterday, cooler heads should have been the action of the day.

     
  • Eliza posted at 10:28 am on Tue, Nov 26, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 896

    Roody2 you're correct,

    The 1st words out of the man's mouth showed to anyone, he wasn't going to be corporative and allow the officer to do his investigation, of Why the man had the gun.
    From the man's attitude,no gun should have been allowed to remain near the person while they were being questioned.
    One very important thing, there was a kid at the scene,
    the officer had his own safety plus that of the boy to think about.

    Another time was when the man Screamed SHUT UP to the officer in the officers face. Again the boy was on the scene to observe this.

    The officer was trying to do his duty as is required and permitted by law.

    Texas Penal Code;
    § 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES.

    (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
    interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
    (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
    performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
    law;
    ----------------

     
  • Roody2 posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Nov 26, 2013.

    Roody2 Posts: 340

    "I can't see where the Sergeant was at fault."

    For me, it's pretty simple... It's where Grisham's answer to Ermis' question of why he has the gun was "Because I can."

    That was a non-cooperative answer to a legitimate question.


     
  • Alvin posted at 8:28 am on Tue, Nov 26, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    I thought I would stop posting on this issue, but I've seen a presentation which I present now.

    @ Bubba, @ Dr Strangelove, @ Eliza: I've just an audio and video presentation on the thread 'Freedom Outpost'. If you cannot see this thread, it can be viewed at 'liberty@freedomoutpost.com'. From what I heard (audio), read, and saw (video), I can't see where the Sergeant was at fault. When listening to the woman talking on the telephone, their was not any negligible 'stress' that I can concern, she dialed on the 7 digit telephone exchange, she only described 'the weapon' as a 'black gun'. When the Police officer arrived, I did not see 'any movement so as to describe any movement of ignoring the police command to stop or halt, in fact the sergeant turned and proceeded back to the police car'. When the two approached one another, the Sergeant 'allowed' the officer to 'handle' the weapon and it was not until the officer started to 'remove' the weapon that the sergeant objected at which point the officer 'drew his pistol', and in my personal opinion, got belligerent and started 'manhandling' the sergeant. The conversation in the back of the car does not match 'what really went on'. If you want to view this this thread, you can find it under the site as listed, under (copy) 'Texas Veteran CJ Grisham Fined $2,000: Dashcam Video Released in Open Carry Case' (End of Copy).

     
  • Alvin posted at 8:10 am on Mon, Nov 25, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @ Bubba – Thank you.

     
  • Bubba posted at 7:56 am on Mon, Nov 25, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    hopefully this perpetrator will pay his fine quickly so he drops from the news.

     
  • Alvin posted at 7:22 am on Mon, Nov 25, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @Eliza, @Bubba - I must say when you resort to tactics like I've seen these past few days, it makes me wonder and say that the tactics you've displayed here are a cowards approach to ending an argument.

     
  • Alvin posted at 3:23 pm on Sun, Nov 24, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @Eliza;
    Well I guess you are not going to continue our dialogue. If that is so, please supply the answer to one question – (copy) Other then ,I do believe that sometimes we ask for what we get ,especially when you Always seem to be having confrontations with someone, in this case the police., City & State. (end of copy) Is this referring to Mr. Grisham or to me? I am not aware of any problems with the Police, or the State. This city is a different matter. I do have a complaint against the P.U.C. of Texas and the way the P.U.C of Texas and our wires company, Oncor bills their clients, so if that is what you are referring to, I'd be happy to discuss it with you as it involves you all.

     
  • Alvin posted at 9:47 am on Sun, Nov 24, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @Eliza;
    No you've not upset me. And when you say, 'So I won't carry my own argument any further on the subject'. Now that gives me pause to say 'I, Alvin, am out of control on this subject and you do not want to pursue this subject any further'. This is not anywhere the truth.

    What do you mean by; (copy) 'So I won't carry my own argument any further on the subject.
    Only continue believing in what I think is happening.' I believe that is a defeatist attitude. What do you think is happening? There has been threads here on 1.) what about the judge, 2.) what about the mystery woman, 3.) how much time elapsed between the phone call and the police arrival, 4.) how time elapsed between the first officer and the second officer arrival, 4.) your stating that 'it was on a blacktop roadway that is heavily traveled, and 5.) what about the question I posed as to the proper and correct way to carry a weapon so as not to be illegal'. I think these are valid questions. As I stated, I am not excusing Grisham's behavior, but instead question 'Why certain parties are so down on him'. As to the question of gun control, I've said it in the past and I'll repeat it again – 'Guns don't kill people – People kill people'.

    Again, I am not 'upset' while carrying on meaningful dialogue.

     
  • Eliza posted at 8:59 am on Sun, Nov 24, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 896

    @ I don't think that would make a tinker's damm

    I can see I've upset you Alvin-

    So I won't carry my own argument any further on the subject.
    Only continue believing in what I think is happening.
    Other then ,I do believe that sometimes we ask for what we get ,especially when you Always seem to be having confrontations with someone, in this case the police., City & State.
    I agree totally with what Strangelove & Bubba have stated on the subject.

     
  • Alvin posted at 7:41 am on Sun, Nov 24, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    @Eliza;
    Thank you for your making available 3 different video's to be found on YouTube, but there's the rub, I don't get YouTube or I don't know how to get a YouTube video. Forgive my ignorance. You seem to be keying on the fact that he was brandishing a visible firearm which was located on the front of his person and not on his back. What if it was 'visibly on his back'? Would that make permissible? I don't think that would make a tinker's damm. I see it as another excuse to complain, another excuse to complain about 'GUN CONTROL'. As I remember, from viewing the video's, this was a sparsely populated area. Nobody is talking about downtown Lowes, or Walmart, or any other populated area. This was a sparsely populated area. This,to me I believe, suggests a case for 'GUN CONTROL' and nothing more. Now don't get me wrong, I am not excusing Grisham's behavior, but I question just what the motives were. How long was the time interval between the call to the police station and the police showing up? And how much time elapsed between the first officer arrival and the 2nd officer arrival? I seem to remember there was not much time elapsed. I seem to recall, I think it was Grisham speaking, saying 'you're not exempt from the law' to which the officer commented 'Yes we are'. That's the type of attitude I'm worried about. You give a little, they take a lot. What was the reasoning behind pulling a retired judge to sit on the bench bypassing a number of objective judges were bypassed? The verdict was cast 'in his 2nd trial'. Apparently some one or maybe more, thought him innocent. I stand by my conviction that 'when the woman, unidentified as far as I know, calls the police to complain about nothing more than a man is walking down the roadway , black to, white top, it doesn't matter, and the police is in a rush to respond to her call, well that makes me wonder, 'is that all they have to respond to? It's all connected to, I personally believe, what could be classified as being 'Politically Correct'. This society jumps all over itself on being 'Politically Correct'.
    Your opening statement gives me pause for thought, copied: ' We seem to have two different trains of thought on the subject of carrying a rifle in the open when you aren't preforming military duties or law enforcement. Or if you aren't in the woods hunting. And especially if you have a CHL and are carrying a weapon 'concealed' already. Does this imply that the only cases for 'carrying' a weapon would be those that you state here? If that be the case, how does one 'Hunt in the woods' if you cannot transport that weapon to the place where you can 'legally possess the weapon'. It just doesn't make sense.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:36 am on Sun, Nov 24, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    All that really matters is what happened when officers arrived. grisham initiated the activity with his attitude and then grabbed his rifle. he refused to cooperate with officers even when he was on the hood of their car.

     
  • wilcfry posted at 11:11 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    wilcfry Posts: 93

    "Hopefully that is enough for him to have his CHL revoked."

    Hopefully, the law can eventually be changed to be more reasonable. "Any time for any reason" doesn't sound reasonable to me; I'm surprised so many accept this.

     
  • Eliza posted at 9:03 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 896

    @ Alvin,

    We seem to have two different trains of thought on the subject of carrying a rifle in the open when you aren't preforming military duties or law enforcement. Or if you aren't in the woods hunting. And especially if you have a CHL and are carrying a weapon 'concealed' already.
    The excuse for the Grisham case was that it was only out in the open for protection against wild Animals.
    How many wild Animals are you gong to run into on downtown main street, or Lowes or I Hop or Wal-Mart ?
    Your concealed weapon would cause no problem, no one would know it was there unless it would be needed.
    But it would cause a lot of customers or people walking on the street to be uncomfortable, if you were allowed to go into the business or publically carry a rifle. It just doesn't make good sense.

    You told Bubba I believe, that you had saw no videos, but they have been posted all over the internet through YouTube, Below are just 3.
    Different days ,Different Confrontations with the law.

    The 2nd one below, you'll have to pardon for the language used. Its amazing how the DPS officers were supposed to not be offended in the manner they were verbally abused. When all others have a protection against that sort of mistreatment.
    Grisham is in it toward the end and will refuse to remove from in front of the troopers patrol car.
    There's another on YouTube that was posted through Alex Jones interviewing Grisham, which listening to Jones thoughts, has every police officer in the country a form of low life's. Very dis respectful . And not a way to win friends and influence people. Its really a way to turn others off.


    Active Duty Soldier Illegally Disarmed and Arrested Out Hiking With
    March 2013

    Two More Open Carry Activists Falsely Arrested, Near-Riot Ensues
    Oct 26th 2013

    Cj Grisham of OCT arrested at capital for carrying a Toy gun Austin
    Nov 11,2013

     
  • Alvin posted at 6:52 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    Eliza, I don't remember what the conditions were when this fiasco started and he had his Son start filming the engagement. What I remember is he had one weapon, I think it was called an AR-15, clipped to his front. I don't know of a second long rifle. He had, or was reported to have, a second handgun and he reportedly was in possession of a CHL. I don't know what the gear now for the infantry resembles - front mount for speed in taking to arms. I think that if there isn't a harness assembly, then one would have to go for a slung over the back attitude. The second hand gun would, I think, been in some sort of holster, slowing down the rate of drawing and aiming the hand gun. Besides, hand guns are not for distance shooting. Remember, I was in the Air Force, not infantry.

    You say you can't remember anyone reporting an instance such as this, did you get the internet? They were reporting a man sitting on the ground with a Deer or Elk standing over him. There was a second episode where a man was trying to keep a tree and fence between him and the animal. So there s strange things happening.

    I remember the squad car camera was on filming the whole incident, in addition to his Son's camera. I've not seen what started the whole fiasco. I do remember it being said that he was on a 10 mile hike with his son to earn a merit badge. I remember it being said that it was a black top roadway. I think I remember it being said that he was fearful of Wild Boars, Coyotes, and a Puma had been reported in the area. Now I don't think I ever heard what was the route he was going to take, black top road all the way or if he was going to go down into the woods. I agree with you, that if he was going to keep to the black top roadway, he did not have a need for the long gun. I agree with Roody2 that calmer heads should have prevailed. If he had planned to go into the woods, then he might have had a need. But what gets me is where is this country going that people feel 'frightened' by the sight of someone armed. Do they really feel the need or is it just another ploy to call for someone to come out there by creating the turmoil. And do the Police need to respond to that type of call, as I said in an earlier script, when called, can't the Police ask, 'is he coming up to the front door, or is he pointing the weapon at,you, merrily strolling down the roadway' and if the answer is 'no', wish them a pleasant good day. Ever since this fiasco first started, many individuals I feel is hell bent on getting gun control and they will not stop at anything to 'get their way'. I don't feel that the Police should have to answer every call that comes in. Stop and use common sense'. What are the parameters – is the individual merrily walking down the road, does he 'look suspicious', is he acting irrational. These are 'typical' questions that can and should be asked.

     
  • Eliza posted at 5:26 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 896

    @ Re :Alvin --- And Eliza, I don't know what the circumstances were, 'walking down the black top roadway'. As to the disposition of the weapon, I thought I saw a clip on his harness. He wouldn't 'normally' carry the weapon slung over his back. [smile]

    --------
    Did not the man state he needed the weapons he was carrying, 2 of them, to protect him from pumas, hogs, etc.
    If he felt the need to carry them for safety, why couldn't the one at least be slung over the back. These animals he mentioned, aren't going to be setting along side the blacktop road just waiting for someone to come walking past, so they could attack them. I can't ever remember reading that anyone has been attacked by any of the mentioned animals myself in broad daylight not in a populated area. They usually have better sense then to do something like that.

    After all he wasn't walking in the jungles of Vietnam or villages of Afghan were you may need a ready weapon. He was walking along ,with his son, on a blacktop, traveled road which had others living in the area. The others living there had every legal right to be alarmed and call the police to checkout what was going on.
    The man had a CHL and was carrying a powerful weapon as it was, Why wasn't that enough for him?

    Most people have a respect for the law and when there's a group who feel they can yell at, call names to, ridicule etc. our law enforcement. it turns a lot of others away from their cause. I have friends who are part of law enforcement agencies and when the type of behavior is displayed that has been shown by members of this group viewed through their own videos ,I am offended. They are behaving like law enforcement is the enemy, but they are only doing their job. If anyone wants something done along the line of guns and the states gun laws they are going to have to go through the states law makers.Not get into a confrontation, and name calling with law enforcement.

    Our citizens have the 2nd Amendment to keep any weapons we legally own from being confiscated from our homes in case in the future they may be needed, we also have the legal right (in our state at least) to have a CHL if we so like. That makes both your home and body protected with fire power.
    I feel personally, it is a big Boo Boo to ever allow anyone to know what you may have or what you may have on you. I do not feel the need and anyone I know doesn't feel the need, to publicly display any weapon. I believe you are possibly asking for a problem to start from someone who may not have themselves under complete control.

    For the reasons above, I won't support and add to the $52,000 the paper, KDH, states has already been collected by this group. After viewing their actions which they insisted on filming, and showing to the world, casting forever on film ,the name calling to law enforcement, the cameras being stuck into the faces of these men or women. Who some are veterans themselves. Its a group with which I would have no connection..

     
  • Alvin posted at 2:23 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    Well, put me down. Thank you for your so eloquent a speech in manners. It's always so refreshing to hear one of your caliber talk down to me – Your comment: 'Lastly, do not again attempt to direct my activities. I will do as I please, when I please; you don't tell me what to do. I thank you in advance for your cooperation on this point.'. 'The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". Life Members of the NRA know this. I assume that it is automatic that when you attain a life member status, to gain the knowledge that automatically you will know that an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. I'm sorry, but I did not possess that knowledge.

    Your comment about 'What "used to be" is not relevant, nor is "political correctness"; what is relevant is the law and current environment in which we live. Unfortunately, in today's world, citizens react when they see non-law enforcement persons with firearms. Perhaps rightfully so. ' Now why do you think that is so? Is the culture to blame? What has shaped the 'current environment' that is so 'distrusting in nature'.

    And as to your statement; 'I am not a native Texan; I choose to live here. Your status doesn't give you the right to direct my activities,or tell me what to do, or treat me with disrespect. These are not protected forms of speech-it says in the Constitution.', you sir are correct in all aspects, but it does give the right to try to enlighten you as to what a great state this was and could once again.

    You keep referring to 'Police Reports and multiple video's available on line. I do not possess , 1.) copies of the police reports, and 2.) copies of the multiple video's available on line. Perhaps you can print them on this report. I really would like to see them again as I am restricted to memory of them so I can speak with authority on these reports.

    And from another of your inputs to this thread that I believe was directed to'Starkey1957; 'I'm not and I do as I obey the law. That's what law-abiding citizens do. So go ahead and break the law, and you'll get what YOU deserve-a cell right next to this perpetrator.

    I believe, you sir, are so eloquent in your speech delivery. I just hang on your every word.

    And the term 'Sarge' is a colloquialism, not meant to be derogatory in nature. I've known 'many Sergeants' in my time and none, I say again, none of them was ever offended by that term.

    For a little background about me: I was 'pulled over' by a State Trooper one time and when he arrived at the driver side window, I immediately announced that I had a concealed weapon on my person. The officer 'asked to see it' which I promptly handed it to him. He asked for my CHL which I produced. The officer put my hand gun on the hood of my car, in plain view, and we talked. He asked me what speed I was traveling, and gave me a 'written warning for speeding'. I can get a little heavy in the foot', and returned my handgun. All of this was very cordial. But back to this conversation, I don't remember the machinations of this event, so please, put the copy of the Police Reports, and the video if it is still available as I would definitely like to review them.

     
  • Bubba posted at 12:46 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    It sure was misinformation. What is on the record are grisham's comments which can be interpreted as a threat against law enforcement.

     
  • Bubba posted at 12:44 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    Please do not address me as "Sarge". It's disrespectful.

    It's very important for NRA members to know the nomenclature of the firearms and how these nomenclatures are used by the media to spread fear and panic. The vast majority of the time such use is wildly incorrect; we have the duty to correct this issue. It is also incumbent on members to know the law, abide by it, and, unless impossible, support law enforcement where firearms are concerned.

    As such, members and CHL holders know the law and realize that when police arrive how to behave. This does not include having a magazine in the rifle, being a smartass, or grabbing the rifle when an officer is near.

    What "used to be" is not relevant, nor is "political correctness"; what is relevant is the law and current environment in which we live. Unfortunately, in today's world, citizens react when they see non-law enforcement persons with firearms. Perhaps rightfully so.

    I am not a native Texan; I choose to live here. Your status doesn't give you the right to direct my activities,or tell me what to do, or treat me with disrespect. These are not protected forms of speech-it says in the Constitution.

    I am well aware of the sardonic commentary on opinions. Luckily, here in America, you have the right to your opinion, and to be wrong and uninformed, which you have proven here today. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    I believe you are a rude and disrespectful person, who, having had your views rebutted in public, has to resort to the personal attack to make yourself feel better about yourself. This is due to your massive insecurities and poor self-esteem. You're not a doctor, nor do you play one on TV. Please constrain your comments to topics upon which you have actual training, experience, or knowledge.

    I have it in writing from the Department of Veterans Affairs that I have no other mental problems, so I refer your attention to your own previous comments concerning your uninformed opinions.

    Thank you for showing me disrespect and demonstrating contempt and disrespect for my service. It is a sad commentary today that liberals just can't stop themselves from attacking those who have served, even when they themselves are veterans.

    I have tried in good faith to educate you, and you resort to the personal attack and stabbing me in the back over my service. We had names for people like you in service; they weren't polite names. As such, our interaction ends here. I must request you not interact with me further, and I certainly will no longer be responding to your hate-filled postings.

    Have a nice day.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 12:36 pm on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 573

    As I posted on other forums the guy is wrong; Bubba is spot on. It’s not against law to act like a jerk but he would not have the legal trouble he has today if he would have just talked to police officer in a respectful manner. I’m also a retired Senior NCO and most NCO’s I talk to agree with me that this guy is in the wrong here. Bubba is correct this guy is an embarrassment to the NCO Corps.

    He can act like a jerk that’s his freedom however once he put his hand on that weapon the police officer had every right to slam his fat butt on the hood that car and arrest him. I don’t know where he took his CHL class but looks like he didn’t learn anything about Texas Law that is taught in the class. A police officer can disarm you for their safety—fact. You do not have to be armed and a police officer can handcuff you for their safety while conducting an investigation—fact.

    Its jerks like him that gives the Army, gun owners, and CHL holders a bad name. He does not represent me as an NCO, gun owner, and CHL holder.

     
  • Alvin posted at 11:08 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    But that's the point, Sarge, by prescribing to your quoting Texas law to me, which you quote as 'loaded magazine in magazine well in a manner that causes alarm' is disorderly conduct'. As you say, a AR-15 is not an assault rifle and anyone who is a life member knows this. As I am just a member of the NRA and not a life time member, so please excuse me for not knowing the difference, but with all of the illustrations that exist today, picturing a n AR-15 and running the title as 'an assault type rifle', you will have to forgive my ignorance, please. I was in the Air Force, not the Army. But to get back to the core of this subject, you state ' Carrying any "long gun" openly in Texas in a manner that causes alarm (To wit: loaded/magazine in magazine well) is disorderly conduct. When citizens call police to report someone carrying openly, this is causing alarm. The boundaries of this law are the state boundaries of Texas. When citizens call police to report someone carrying openly, this is causing alarm. It use to be when a 'citizen called the police to report 'someone carrying openly', the police would ask, 'is he threatening you in any way, and if the answer was 'NO', then the police would say 'have a nice day'. I say to you, there is too much 'politically correctness in this society, and in Texas for me', and I lump 'political correctness in with the machinations tolerated here in Texas today, and the society in general'. That's not the Texas I grew up in, and I am a native born Texan, are you? Now if you do not want to hear my views on this, well that's too bad. We still have the right to voice our concerns and views in this country. They have not taken that away from us, at least not as far as I know.

    You base your knowledge on 'the police reports and the multiple video's available online. I accede to your view and opinion, I on the other hand look at these same video's and come out with a different view. So what makes your 'opinion' any more valid than mine? You know what they say about opinions?

    I believe you suffer from what would be classed 'NCO'its'. Nobody is supposed to oppose me. And I suggest you are feeling oppressed – not having anybody to boss around. To wit, you concerns about 'any citizen bringing the police to bay, but you openly state 'I will do as I please, don't tell me what to do'. That is a contradiction if I ever heard one'
    Have too, 'Have a Nice Day'.

     
  • Roody2 posted at 10:28 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Roody2 Posts: 340

    Taken from Bubba's post: "Organizer CJ Grisham, an Army master sergeant who was arrested in Temple for carrying a rifle" - My San Antonio dot com

    Arrested for carrying a rifle!?!? That was not what why he was arrested. If My San Antonio dot com printed that, clearly they got it wrong and should be required to print a correction... if they haven't already done so.

    This is precisely the sort of misinformation that inflames the public. Whether or not that was their intent sure leaves one to wonder.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:40 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    I'm not and I do as I obey the law. That's what law-abiding citizens do. So go ahead and break the law, and you'll get what YOU deserve-a cell right next to this perpetrator.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:38 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    I have not changed my position-I posted a quote from the San Antonio news. I did this to outline the perpetrator's comments at that event. Perhaps you didn't understand my post.

    The perpetrator's actions are, in my view, an embarrassment to the NCO Corps, the NRA and Texas CHL holders. I believe I made that abundantly clear. You are correct that none of this has anything to do with rice prices anywhere.

    The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". Life Members of the NRA know this.

    Carrying any "long gun" openly in Texas in a manner that causes alarm (To wit: loaded/magazine in magazine well) is disorderly conduct. When citizens call police to report someone carrying openly, this is causing alarm. The boundaries of this law are the state boundaries of Texas.

    The knowledge I bring to this are the police reports and the multiple videos available online, all of which contribute to the finding of guilty of this perpetrator.

    Lastly, do not again attempt to direct my activities. I will do as I please, when I please; you don't tell me what to do. I thank you in advance for your cooperation on this point.

    I have accurately described this incident and factually described the behavior of the perpetrator. Clearly, you don't like it. That's too bad. You should be outraged that this perpetrator is reflecting his negative behavior on you as a fellow Texas CHL/firearms owner. This perpetrator's actions are not the kind of behavior law-abiding citizens wish to portray in the community.

    Have a nice day.

     
  • Alvin posted at 8:17 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    Now you've changed the context of the message that you were supporting – Bubba – 'an Army Master Sergeant who was arrested for carrying a rifle'? I thought he was arrested for 'interfering with a 'peace' officer'? Which is it? I did not hear any comments, which you can attribute as coming from me, as to 'I thought they, the Military, were not supposed to 'give up their weapon except during terms of surrender'? I too am a member of the NRA, possess a Texas CHL, and have never been arrested, but I do not see what this does to the price of rice in China? Your quote ' The accused had a magazine in his weapon while open carrying – this is considered disorderly conduct'. My I inquire, if the 'long gun was any other type of weapon than what is commonly referred to as an 'assault rifle', would it be considered OK? How far 'out of town' would be an acceptable limit? Did the woman who 'saw this grievance know that that the 'breech was loaded' and that was the reason she called the 'peace' officers? I do not know just 'what took place', and I surmise 'you didn't either' so I am willing to let someone who is more aware of the surrounding circumstances. If you have 'first hand knowledge', then I bow to you. As to his indicated quote, I surmise that he was referring to his arrest, his treatment during the arrest, and was stating 'don't let the 'peace' officers take away your guns. That is my guess at what he was referring too, but I could be wrong so don't use that as fodder for any name calling.

     
  • sharkey1957 posted at 7:47 am on Sat, Nov 23, 2013.

    sharkey1957 Posts: 2

    If you are from Temple and agree with this verdict,....you make my case. You get what you deserve there.

     
  • Bubba posted at 7:06 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    From My San Antonio.com:

    Organizer CJ Grisham, an Army master sergeant who was arrested in Temple for carrying a rifle and whose trial last week ended in a mistrial, asked attendees to keep flags blocking the chambers of their guns.

    “If the SWAT team comes down and starts surrounding us with tactical gear, it only takes a minute to pull them out,” Grisham said of the orange pieces of plastic most attendees have stuck in the cheers of their guns. “But that's not going to happen.”

    What was grisham getting at here?

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:58 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    He had two tries and the law is clear.

    Nothing I have written has been in support of how the officer behaved.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:57 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    I'm a retired Army NCO. I am a Life Member of the NRA, and the VFW. I am a Texas CHL holder. I have never been arrested.

    Yes, I am on this individual's case-as he is an embarrassment to all of the above.

    The jury was the entity to decide if an offense occurred, and they found the accused GUILTY.

    The accused had a magazine in the weapon while open carrying-this is considered disorderly conduct. Upon approach of the officer, the accused was a smartass and reached for the weapon.

    Had this genius sought to "protect himself" from local fauna, he could have very easily carried a second pistol in addition to the .45 caliber pistol he had, and could have easily dropped several elephants with them.

    However, this perpetrator is a hothead and a member of Open Carry Texas, a group of political activists that seek to create incidents of this nature with law enforcement in order to advance their agenda; thus the high-pitched wailing about lawsuits from the perpetrator.

    As such, this perpetrator attracts negative attention-as he is an attention seeker-upon all firearms owners-because that's how media works-and this negative image is then reflected onto law-abiding firearms owners, who are not hotheaded jerks.

    Accordingly, this embarrassment has earned all the punishment headed his way.

     
  • Alvin posted at 3:28 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250

    I tend to disagree. First the weapon was on his front, clipped to his harness I believe. I believe that he was quoted as saying he was fearful, if I can use that word, of feral hogs, which can be defensive if cornered. I don't believe he was fearful of feral hogs on the roadway, but he stated that he was on a 10 mile hike with his son for a merit badge. Nothing has been stated about his 'route they were going to take'. As far as 'a charging feral hog', I would not want to depend on a hand gun for protection against a feral hog. I would want a long gun where you have accuracy. As to Roody2 comments, I agree, calmer heads and emotions were called for that day. As to Bubba comments, you're sure on this guy's case with the quoting of the Penal code – Section 38.15. Interference with Public Duties – commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence ….. Is the arresting officer the one to judge what is and what is not 'Criminal'? That sure leaves a great deal of latitude for the arresting officer I believe. And Eliza, I don't know what the circumstances were, 'walking down the black top roadway'. As to the disposition of the weapon, I thought I saw a clip on his harness. He wouldn't 'normally' carry the weapon slung over his back. As to Roddy2, I have to agree with his assessment – cooler heads should have prevailed.

     
  • sharkey1957 posted at 3:24 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    sharkey1957 Posts: 2

    This jury was clearly wrong. I have watched both tapes and found the cop to be unprofessional at best. I will never visit or come close to Temple again since this is the kind of thing that can happen there. Sad to me that the folks there are so willing to side with a lawless police department.

     
  • Eliza posted at 12:35 pm on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 896

    Agree with Bubba on this, The officer was dispatched to check out a man walking with a rifle in the open, It is an uncommon sight to see. He didn't even have the rifle slung across his back, but easily accessible , If you're on soldiering duty, yes this is acceptable. Or if you're a hunter and out hunting ,but rather unusual to be walking down a black top carrying a rifle in the open as this man was.

    From my film observance ,the officer when he walked up, ask the accused what he was doing carrying the gun, Why wasn't the answer- out with my son on a scout trip - Why take on a confrontation attitude immediately saying ,- because I can - ?

    This is the same attitude that was taken with the DPS officers when the second arrest happened in Austin 11/11/13

    (the 2 Austin videos are listed at the 2nd article the paper did on the case about $2,000 fine allotted by the court.

    The DPS officers were called names ,thugs, bullies, Nazis, ignorant etc. very disrespectful, by the gang who were there with Grisham, it sure doesn't make anyone who respects the police and authority, have any liking for this group. I'm starting to wonder what the agenda really is.

    Protecting our second amendment rights are one thing, to keep any gun we may own from being confiscated from our homes and our ownership.
    But what's the point in carrying a rifle of any type in the open, I think its trying to prove you're something you aren't. If Grisham was afraid of animals in the area ,the 45 he had on him should have been protection enough.
    Anyway I don't think ,the animals he mentioned, come out that much in the daytime, as warm as it was that day and with the traffic going back and forth.

    If I saw someone walking in my own neighborhood carrying a weapon such as the one which was involved, I' am going to call the police also and ask them to find out what's going on, Its not normal unless you are on duty for the military or law enforcement.

     
  • Roody2 posted at 9:43 am on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Roody2 Posts: 340

    "Police Officer Ermis testified that in his 30-plus years as a law enforcement officer it was the first time he had ever encountered someone walking down a roadway with a long gun."

    That statement speaks volumes... An admission that perhaps he could have used more training on how to handle this type of situation calmly, as to not escalate emotions.

    After watching the video, I put some blame on BOTH the Officer AND Grisham.

    Officer Ermis couldn't have been as frightened as he claimed to be because he just walked up to Grisham to take his gun. That action alone could have got the him killed if he was walking up on a "lunatic" gun owner instead of a "law abiding" gun owner such as Grisham was. If Ermis felt threatened, he would have remained at his car and asked him to place his gun/guns on the ground before approaching him.

    Grisham may have been better served if he would have just let the police do their job without arguing/threatening lawsuit, then if done wrongly, he could have filed a suit/complained later if they violated any of his rights.

     
  • Bubba posted at 7:26 am on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    Texas Penal Code - Section 38.15. Interference With Public Duties

    § 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
    interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
    (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
    performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
    law;

    didn't miss the point at all.

     
  • Alvin posted at 5:35 am on Fri, Nov 22, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 250


    I believe most of you are missing the whole point of just what transpired in this case. You don't mention the person who was the source in this, a woman who saw him walking down the road with his son, who 'called the police to report something', and the police officer, who responded to the call. Now we can get to what y'all are talking about. I've seen the both films and for the life of me I can't see where the Sergeant was 'belligerent' and 'offending' to the 'peace' officer. I see it as the 'peace' officer entered the scene, and immediately sought to engage the sergeant, with what I perceive as in a hostile attitude. I see no attempt to 'engage the 'peace' officer in a hostile manner. I do not agree that a 'peace' officer has the right to, what I see as 'manhandle' an individual and not receive some resistance. To me the instigator has some responsibility.
    I've always been of the mind that a solder should not give up his weapon short of surrender. Is that what the 'peace' officer wanted, ordered, him to do? It goes along with the tenure of today's values.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:36 pm on Thu, Nov 21, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    Having completed 24 years of service and retired honorably from the US Army without ever having been arrested, I do not require instruction from your ilk as to what happens in a MEPS-seeing as I once was assigned to HQ, USMEPCOM. Nor do you appear qualified to instruct me on anything else.

    Now, pay attention so I may educate you.

    This trial is not about the firearms involved, but the accused failing to cooperate with law enforcement. The accused is guilty as charged.

    Your comments are dismissed as irrelevant, off-topic ranting equally filled with misspellings.

    Have a nice day.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:30 pm on Thu, Nov 21, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    Please. the accused was charged with interfering with an officer, not his firearms. Act like a jerk and fail to cooperate with law enforcement and you risk this charge.

     
  • Freedom America posted at 9:23 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Freedom America Posts: 3

    In one verbal exchange heard on the son’s video, when C.J. complains to police, “You’re not exempt from the law,” one of the officers can actually be heard replying, “Yes, we are.” - See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13604

    Grisham’s first trial ended October 18 in a mistrial. It was presided over by an allegedly biased Houston judge who was called out of retirement for the trial, while more objective judges were bypassed. According to witnesses, that visiting judge, Neal Richardson, referred to the defendant and his supporters as “local yokels” when speaking to the prosecutor in the courtroom. “The arresting officer lied on the stand”

    The jury was stacked with two jurors connected with law enforcement and a city employee. Think for one minute they won’t support the “Boys in Blue”?

     
  • Freedom America posted at 9:20 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Freedom America Posts: 3

    This is a Travesty and unconstitutional. Americans need to educate themselves on the Constitution of the United States of America, which no State law trumps, even though MSGT Grisham was acting lawfully. The #1 problem with these trials is the lack of ignorance by the jury pool. Government wants to keep it this way as they slowly remove your rights by whatever fictitious hogwash they can propagate. Police officer often believe themselves "exempt" from the law: In one verbal exchange heard on the son’s video, when C.J. complains to police, “You’re not exempt from the law,” one of the officers can actually be heard replying, “Yes, we are.” - See more at:http://americanfreepress.net/​?p=13604 In addition, the County specifically brought in a retired Biased Judge from Houston, to better serve their corruption and cronyism by witholding a fair trial. SHAME

     
  • Freedom America posted at 9:19 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Freedom America Posts: 3

    You Sir, are ignorant of the sworn oath taken upon completing MEPPS: "To uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC." This American Veteran was exercising his Constitutional right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) and the officer clearly violated his 4th Amendment rights by immediately seizing his firearm without having suspicion of committing a crime, without asking any questions as towards MSGT's purpose or intent. This is #1 problem with our citizens today, pure Ignorance of their rights per the Constitution, which supersedes any state law. This is not an embarrassment towards the Military, nor any educated American, yet rather this is a testimony towards how corruption and cronyism prevails in our current government, all 4 branches. (Bureaucracy)

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:45 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    the guilty party in this case has embarrassed the Army long enough.

    AR 600-8-19, Chapter 10 applies. Reduce to E5 for MISCONDUCT.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:38 pm on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    Nonsense. It's completely believable. It's the law.

     
  • Bustyn posted at 10:19 am on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Bustyn Posts: 1

    Unbelievable. It is actually illegal in Texas to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement? A peace officer can disarm anyone at any time for any reason? And I always thought Texas was a conservative state. Sounds more like a police state. Why would law abiding Texas citizens agree to allow police officers to harrass them by demanding that they disarm "anytime, anywhere, for anything"?

     
  • Bubba posted at 7:19 am on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 756

    grisham was not charged with anything relating to his firearm. he was charged with interfering with a police officer, based upon his belligerence and non-cooperative attitude when stopped by law enforcement. These are crimes under Texas law.

    Hopefully, on top of any punishment imposed by the court, the Army will hold a reduction board for this guy, bust him to SSG, and then allow him to retire, to end his embarrassment of the US Army.

     
  • Herald posted at 6:53 am on Wed, Nov 20, 2013.

    Herald Posts: 4

    A Texas peace officer can disarm any one at any time for any reason, it's the law. In addition he is a CHL holder, the CHL law states any time you are asked for ID and you are carrying you must inform and present your CHL along with your ID, he failed to do both, CHL law also states that a peace officer may disarm you at any time for any reason. His conviction was for interference, which is exactly what he did. Hopefully that is enough for him to have his CHL revoked.

     
  • wilcfry posted at 10:44 pm on Tue, Nov 19, 2013.

    wilcfry Posts: 93

    I'm still confused by this. As far as I can tell, it's legal to do what Grisham was doing. And I haven't seen a single story that detailed what exactly he was supposed to have done that wasn't legal.

    If we're going to get arrested and convicted of misdemeanors for obeying the law, there's not much sense in having a law, is there?