CJ Grisham arrested again today

Stephanie McDonald · Nov 11, 2013

CJ Grisham of Open Carry Texas was arrested today in Austin, TX. Official charge was for trespassing, but it all started over the carrying of a plastic toy pistol.

http://intellihub.com/2013/11/11/cj-grisham-arrested-austin-toy-gun/

eye95 · Nov 11, 2013

That article is more about Watkins. Grisham got barely a mention.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Stephanie McDonald · Nov 11, 2013

True, but it's all the info that is available right now. Kory's on the ground gathering info, but everything has been removed from the Open Carry Texas facebook page. More info to come as available.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

I can't tell if that's the same guy (DPS officer) that always seems to be walking around with a scowl on his face and his handcuffs ready to go, motioning to this peers subtly requesting permission to arrest people. Looks like him, though.

From Facebook (largely unverified): CJ Grisham was arrested for carrying a toy revolver. Two men were arrested for carrying empty black powder revolvers. One man "kicked off" the grounds for carrying a toy revolver.

"Actual charge" of trespassing. I don't think that the capital officers knows what trespassing is.

Edit: commenter says cj and one other were arrested.

KBCraig · Nov 11, 2013

DPS has zero management authority at the capitol. It's under the authority of the State Preservation Board, so unless TSPB had issued notices of trespass to the individuals, they weren't trespassing.

Police can't simply declare they want you off of public property -- not legally, anyway.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my79AFSBjJI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Another video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zjrEYrq0fI

He says Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part 1 Chapter 3. I can only imagine he meant Subchapter J Rule §3.146, which states the following:

(a) Firearms, explosive weapons, illegal knives, clubs, and knuckles, as defined in the Texas Penal Code, §46.01, and prohibited weapons as defined in the Texas Penal Code, §46.06, are not permitted in state buildings or on state grounds covered under these rules, except in the possession of:

(1) a licensed peace officer;

(2) as to a handgun or nightstick, a properly licensed private security officer while working under an approved department contract and the contract authorizes the use of an armed guard; or

(3) as to a concealed handgun, a person who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun, under Texas Government Code, Chapter 411, Subchapter H, provided that such a person may only carry a handgun in a place and under circumstances where not otherwise prohibited by law.

(b) Violations of laws relating to weapons will be prosecuted under the applicable statute. Violations of this section which are not otherwise a violation of a particular statute, will be prosecuted under Texas Government Code, §411.065.

Source Note: The provisions of this §3.146 adopted to be effective March 9, 2004, 29 TexReg 2374

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

That puts us in such a bad lime light.

I'm assuming it was a stunt. Why else carry toy guns? Was the purpose to get arrested over it?

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

Primus said:
That puts us in such a bad lime light.

I'm assuming it was a stunt. Why else carry toy guns? Was the purpose to get arrested over it?

The organization has had meetings with government officials and, unless I am mistaken, were assured that these arrests would stop. The likelihood that he was planning on being arrested seems pretty low from my perspective.

"I'm assuming" That's your [strike]second[/strike] third mistake.

I don't know how to do strikethrough.

Found it

IMO the only thing that puts us in a "bad lime light" is the antagonizing(?) of certain officers after the fact. To some of them I think it's appropriate, however. Perhaps that makes me an *******. IDK. It is what it is, and what it is happens to be an illegal arrest.

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
The organization has had meetings with government officials and, unless I am mistaken, were assured that these arrests would stop. The likelihood that he was planning on being arrested seems pretty low from my perspective.

"I'm assuming" That's your [strike]second[/strike] third mistake.

I don't know how to do strikethrough.

Found it

IMO the only thing that puts us in a "bad lime light" is the antagonizing(?) of certain officers after the fact. To some of them I think it's appropriate, however. Perhaps that makes me an *******. IDK. It is what it is, and what it is happens to be an illegal arrest.

So what was the point of the the toys guns? Thats why I'm confused.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

Primus said:
So what was the point of the the toys guns? Thats why I'm confused.

What do you mean, "what was the point?" Like I said, it is what it is. It is an illegal arrest. If you want to be an apologetic (is that what I'm looking for? I don't think) for the officers just do it. Stop dancing around it waiting for an opportune time to pounce, because one is not coming

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

Nothing to apologize for. If anyone is dancing, it's you on the fact that they staged this.

1) they had toy guns in holsters. Do texans really OC cap guns?

2) he had a bull horn for like 5 people (maybe 6)

3) multiple guys were recording before the PO ever got there.

4) they magically pounce with paperwork to cite the laws of them being there

5) probably most damning.... they wait all the way until he is handcuffed then pulled away to yell "Ha!! It's not even a real gun!! You idiot didn't even check!!"

This is like walking into a police station with a plastic RPG waving it around and get upset when someone shoots you. Again, it appears some guys just do it for the attention. How was this video any different then occupy?

And then the response from the kid (I know he was a kid because he was swearing and had a god awful attitude) actually doing the recording makes us look like DBs. Is that how we want the public to see us? If this was run on the 5:00 news this is how we want people to see us? To bait LEOs then act like that when you get arrested?

How many guys on here keep saying "keep your mouth shut if your arrested, am i being detained, etc. etc.". These guys bait the LEOs then start yelling and antagonizing them when they arrest the guy.

C'mon... please someone tell me I'm not crazy for thinking this.

And again.. another video mean to cause reaction. It seems like 2 a day lately. First a long gun incident, now we are posting and talking about TOY GUN OCing? And nothing to apologize for or defend what LEOs did.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

I debated (and decided against previously) on whether or not to say this, but, I think it's clearly justifiable. You really need to stop saying "us." You don't know the history of the group, or the issues at the capital. Until you care to review, your opinion is uninformed, at best.

Do a search for the first arrests that took place at the capital. Hell, go back further and do a search for the first demonstrations at the capital. If you do, you'll find that the group has completely changed their carrying habits at the capital to be in full compliance with the law. The only ones that continue to operate outside the bounds of the law are the officers making arrests. If it takes lawsuit after lawsuit to effect change, then so be it. It is clear that the arrests being made are illegal - that is the bottom line.

Cameras are always present during OC events - that they were present here does not in any way indicate that arrests were planned or that officers were "tricked" into making false arrests, nor does carrying a toy gun. OC of black powder pistols is legal and these men were not even arrested or charged for weapons related crimes. The charges are not legitimate, and would not have been whether CJ was carrying a toy gun, or a real one of the type the toy was made to appear as.

Learn the issue. Post with some knowledge of the issue.

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
I debated (and decided against previously) on whether or not to say this, but, I think it's clearly justifiable. You really need to stop saying "us." You don't know the history of the group, or the issues at the capital. Until you care to review, your opinion is uninformed, at best.

Do you know who I was referring to as us? I was actually referring to ANY person who believes in carrying a gun. Period. Whether it's OC, CC, revolvers, semis, shotguns, pistols, etc.

YOU make a distinction in your head, the antis who use this crappy behavior as cannon fodder do not. They see gun and use it against all of us. Period.

Pull your head out and realize there is ALOT more at stake then one group of 20 people in one town in one state (if that's the group you were referring too, you never specified). Actions like this affect all of us and never in a good way.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

The only "us" should be those who support the restoration and preservation of liberty. Carrying a gun is only a piece of that. It is not a privilege, it is a right. A right unexercised is a right lost; NOT let's exercise certain rights strategically so that hoplophobe do not get so offended that they try to pass legislation to take away our privileges. These men were within their rights throughout this entire ordeal. That should be your bottom line. Otherwise, you are making exceptions to your stance for liberty. That, I find unacceptable and ultimately detrimental to "the cause." The cause being liberty, not privilege to carry.

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
The only "us" should be those who support the restoration and preservation of liberty. Carrying a gun is only a piece of that. It is not a privilege, it is a right. A right unexercised is a right lost; NOT let's exercise certain rights strategically so that hoplophobe do not get so offended that they try to pass legislation to take away our privileges.

I agree. Except what right were these guys excersising? Right to antagonize? Right to carry plastic cap guns? Right to make liberty minded people look bad? Right to bait people? C'mon, you really can't spin this into a good thing.

Primus · Nov 11, 2013

Even if you were there video taping it.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 11, 2013

Primus said:
I agree. Except what right were these guys excersising? Right to antagonize? Right to carry plastic cap guns? Right to make liberty minded people look bad? Right to bait people? C'mon, you really can't spin this into a good thing.

All of the above. You are for liberty, or you are for privilege. I'm not blindly defending or condoning their actions. You can search my posts and find that to be the case. The fact remains that the arrests were illegal, and these men's rights were violated. If you stand for liberty, you stand against the illegal arrests.

Also note that these men do not owe you anything. They do not owe you acting a manner as is best for the preservation of your state-approved privileges. If they want to do something that is detrimental to your privileges, but that is within their rights, so be it. You don't have to condone it, but as a supporter of liberty you should still stand against their illegal arrests.

Primus · Nov 12, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
All of the above. You are for liberty, or you are for privilege. I'm not blindly defending or condoning their actions. You can search my posts and find that to be the case. The fact remains that the arrests were illegal, and these men's rights were violated. If you stand for liberty, you stand against the illegal arrests.

Also note that these men do not owe you anything. They do not owe you acting a manner as is best for the preservation of your state-approved privileges. If they want to do something that is detrimental to your privileges, but that is within their rights, so be it. You don't have to condone it, but as a supporter of liberty you should still stand against their illegal arrests.

So be it. I tried. I won't even ask if/how they were illegal arrests. Since I know we don't actually have the info needed and I'm sure you wont cite the statute to prove it was "illegal".

stealthyeliminator · Nov 12, 2013

Primus said:
So be it. I tried. I won't even ask if/how they were illegal arrests. Since I know we don't actually have the info needed and I'm sure you wont cite the statute to prove it was "illegal".

Isn't any arrest which is not legally justifiable an illegal arrest? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unlawful+Arrest

You may try

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;

(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a child younger than 17 years of age; or

(2) a felony of the third degree if:

(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury;

(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or

(C) the actor while in custody restrains any other person.

(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;

(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force, intimidation, or deception; and

(3) the actor is not more than three years older than the child.

or

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

There are probably more bountiful and/or more applicable federal laws, as well. Would you like for me to look into that for you?

Primus · Nov 12, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Isn't any arrest which is not legally justifiable an illegal arrest? http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unlawful+Arrest

You may try

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;

(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:

(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a child younger than 17 years of age; or

(2) a felony of the third degree if:

(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury;

(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or

(C) the actor while in custody restrains any other person.

(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;

(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force, intimidation, or deception; and

(3) the actor is not more than three years older than the child.

or

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

There are probably more bountiful and/or more applicable federal laws, as well. Would you like for me to look into that for you?

What does that have to do with them getting arrested?? Do you even know the charges? Was it trespassing?

I didn't ask for a definition of illegal arrest. I meant how do u know it was illegal? How do you know they were improperly charged? You missed the whoooolllllleeee point, hence why I said I wasn't asking you to answer anything.

CJ Grisham arrested again today

New member

Well-known member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member