CJ Grisham arrested again today

Let me learn you something.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.05.00.html

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:..................

I hate to even bother engage but I'm not smart enough to let it lie.

1) Does the leos have legal authority to boot them from there. Where was that? The Capitol building? If you say NO, then cite why or how.
2) He was TOLD at least TWICE to leave. He refused, but continuing to talk and stand there. There is no legal time to wait for someone to leave. The fact that the LEO had to ask multiple times for him to leave and he didn't, he just stood there and attempted to engage in discussion, is enough to violate this section.
3) Why was the leo there? It appeared they were responding to a call. Could the call have been that there was a dude talking in a bullhorn disturbing people? WE DON'T KNOW
4) what are the actual charges? Again, someone mentioned trespassing so I cited and explained it. There could be other charges that also have legal standing.


Here's your issue (one among a couple). You equate NOT FAIR with ILLEGAL. They are two separate things my friend. Want an example? Disorderly Conduct/ Breach of the peace. Go ahead and stand on side of road with a bullhorn and talk/yell at people. Then tell the LEO you won't stop when he asks you to. Guaranteed you'll get one of those charges. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it legal to arrest on discretion for those "crimes". YES

Oh and here's the cherry: http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag/capitol/

He was previously arrested for having a firearm on Capitol grounds. He got off from a hung jury. So he then goes back to the SAME place with a CAP GUN to ENCITE the whole incident all over again. Yea. real smart.

If someone else has something to add or wants to discuss, I'm open to it even though it clearly is a set up and has NOTHING to do with OCing firearm. Hopefully a bit more productive then this engagement.

Primus, the previous arrest and hung jury experience of CJ ( I've forgotten his last name) had nothing to do with the carry of a firearm at the Texas state Capitol but rather the open carry of a rifle slung across his chest the did not come loose when the Opinion Enforcement Officer (OEO) tried to yank it from the legal possessor. I believe this was in Temple, Tx.

Please at least get your facts straight before you are referred too as an OEO!

No, Primus, you are the one that does not understand. Any act that is not explicitly illegal by statute is legal. There is no statute that explicitly makes it legal for him to be there any more than there is a statute that explicitly says he may green beans on his pizza, or carry a long gun on his back. Laws outlaw things, they don't permit things (unless they're making exceptions to existing prohibitions). I feel as though you should know this already, which would mean that you are simply trolling with these responses. You are the one who needs to cite, cite what gives the officers legal authority to trespass someone from capital grounds (here's a hint, they've done this before, have been taken to court over it, and have lost, so you probably won't find anything giving them this authority).

Regarding your "questions"... KBCraig has already answered them in this very same thread. Yep, you must be trolling. This will probably be my last response to you in this thread.

Just so that I can't be accused of purposefully failing to address anything in your post...
-------------------------------
Let me learn you something.
lol

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.05.00.html

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:..................

I've read that statute a dozen times more than you in the past month.

I hate to even bother engage but I'm not smart enough to let it lie.
...

1) Does the leos have legal authority to boot them from there. Where was that? The Capitol building? If you say NO, then cite why or how. No. I do not need to cite anything, you need to cite what gives them that authority. That's how it works, bub.
2) He was TOLD at least TWICE to leave. He refused, but continuing to talk and stand there. There is no legal time to wait for someone to leave. The fact that the LEO had to ask multiple times for him to leave and he didn't, he just stood there and attempted to engage in discussion, is enough to violate this section. No, actually, it is not. A police officer cannot just walk up to you on the sidewalk, or pull you over on the road, and tell you to go home under threat of arrest. This is common sense, sir.
3) Why was the leo there? It appeared they were responding to a call. Could the call have been that there was a dude talking in a bullhorn disturbing people? WE DON'T KNOW IT'S IRRELEVANT. I imagine those police are always there, they are "the capital police." They probably do not venture outside the playground that often. This is just fluff to make your list of "points" seem longer, when in reality, the only potentially relevant list item is the first. Unfortunately it falls short because the answer to that question was answered in post #5 of this thread.
4) what are the actual charges? Again, someone mentioned trespassing so I cited and explained it. There could be other charges that also have legal standing. The trespass charge does not have legal standing, as is explained in the fifth post in this thread.


Here's your issue (one among a couple). You equate NOT FAIR with ILLEGAL. HAHAHA. You have NO idea what my views on THAT is. They are two separate things my friend. Want an example? Disorderly Conduct/ Breach of the peace. Go ahead and stand on side of road with a bullhorn and talk/yell at people. Then tell the LEO you won't stop when he asks you to. Guaranteed you'll get one of those charges. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it legal to arrest on discretion for those "crimes". YES Boy, that's a dangerous statement. No longer must police officers arrest based on the law and case law, they can now just "use their discretion" ie their own personal interpretation of the law.

Oh and here's the cherry: http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag/capitol/

He was previously arrested for having a firearm on Capitol grounds. He got off from a hung jury. So he then goes back to the SAME place with a CAP GUN to ENCITE the whole incident all over again. Yea. real smart.
JoeSparky has already responded to this. You are blatantly incorrect.

If someone else has something to add or wants to discuss, I'm open to it even though it clearly is a set up and has NOTHING to do with OCing firearm. It has everything to do with OCing a firearm. Firearms were OCed at capital, OCers' rights were violated. Simple. Hopefully a bit more productive then this engagement.

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".

Click to expand...

hey dude- statutes don't make things legal- they make things illegal.

Primus said:

Let me learn you something.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.05.00.html

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:..................

I hate to even bother engage but I'm not smart enough to let it lie.

1) Does the leos have legal authority to boot them from there. Where was that? The Capitol building? If you say NO, then cite why or how.
2) He was TOLD at least TWICE to leave. He refused, but continuing to talk and stand there. There is no legal time to wait for someone to leave. The fact that the LEO had to ask multiple times for him to leave and he didn't, he just stood there and attempted to engage in discussion, is enough to violate this section.
3) Why was the leo there? It appeared they were responding to a call. Could the call have been that there was a dude talking in a bullhorn disturbing people? WE DON'T KNOW
4) what are the actual charges? Again, someone mentioned trespassing so I cited and explained it. There could be other charges that also have legal standing.


Here's your issue (one among a couple). You equate NOT FAIR with ILLEGAL. They are two separate things my friend. Want an example? Disorderly Conduct/ Breach of the peace. Go ahead and stand on side of road with a bullhorn and talk/yell at people. Then tell the LEO you won't stop when he asks you to. Guaranteed you'll get one of those charges. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it legal to arrest on discretion for those "crimes". YES

Oh and here's the cherry: http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag/capitol/

He was previously arrested for having a firearm on Capitol grounds. He got off from a hung jury. So he then goes back to the SAME place with a CAP GUN to ENCITE the whole incident all over again. Yea. real smart.

If someone else has something to add or wants to discuss, I'm open to it even though it clearly is a set up and has NOTHING to do with OCing firearm. Hopefully a bit more productive then this engagement.

Click to expand...

are you intentionally being dumb? criminal trespass on public property? holy god.

hammer6 said:

are you intentionally being dumb? criminal trespass on public property? holy god.

Click to expand...

Not being dumb, being very serious. The statute i cited doesn't say it can't be applied to public property. It just says need to be told to leave by someone who has the authority to tell you leave. I had asked multiple times if anyone knew that these guys DID NOT have the authority, since the assertion was that it was an illegal arrest (meaning that they did not have the authority). I do know that someone mentioned in passing that they don't, I was asking for the source of that. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I'm confused on how this works. I thought whoever makes an assertion "they CANNOT trespass them", would have to back up the statement.

And no one is trolling besides the guy who got arrested.

Primus said:

Not being dumb, being very serious. The statute i cited doesn't say it can't be applied to public property. It just says need to be told to leave by someone who has the authority to tell you leave. I had asked multiple times if anyone knew that these guys DID NOT have the authority, since the assertion was that it was an illegal arrest (meaning that they did not have the authority). I do know that someone mentioned in passing that they don't, I was asking for the source of that. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I'm confused on how this works. I thought whoever makes an assertion "they CANNOT trespass them", would have to back up the statement.

And no one is trolling besides the guy who got arrested.

Click to expand...

That is correct, you are confused. The law does not say "someone with authority." Also, because one is not presumed to have authority, it must be shown that a person does, not the other way around. If it were presumed that every one had authority except specific prohibited persons, then we would need to cite that the officers did not have authority.

Also, no, that statue doesn't say what it can't be applied to, it says what it can be applied to, and so called public property is not there. As far as I know, public property, for the purposes of identifying lawful access, is broken down into several categories. It isn't necessarily immediately obvious from the statute which public property a person may be prohibited from. I think that a look at case law is necessary to determine that. I am not sure. But, in any case, it must be proven that he was lawfully and legitimately trespassed from the property, not the other way around, and that statute alone I do not believe cuts it.

It's also suspect that the cite TAC but charge trespass, but that may just be me not knowing how it works. Or, perhaps, it's just them bsing.

Also, unless the arrest is lawful, it's unlawful. It appears that there is no legitimate charge against these two men, and the history of the issue only contributes to that likelihood. If either of these men are convicted of any crime, I will be extremely surprised. We will see if they ever go to court.

hammer6 said:

are you intentionally being dumb? criminal trespass on public property? holy god.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Not being dumb, being very serious. The statute i cited doesn't say it can't be applied to public property. It just says need to be told to leave by someone who has the authority to tell you leave. I had asked multiple times if anyone knew that these guys DID NOT have the authority, since the assertion was that it was an illegal arrest (meaning that they did not have the authority). I do know that someone mentioned in passing that they don't, I was asking for the source of that. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I'm confused on how this works. I thought whoever makes an assertion "they CANNOT trespass them", would have to back up the statement.

And no one is trolling besides the guy who got arrested.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are confused.
I, in my home and on my own property have the absolute right to be a racist bigot and say to my neighbor, the salesman who comes by, or even the guy who cuts my grass, "Hey, I don't like African Americanes, get off my land." That's all it takes, I can be as racist as I want.................. on my own land.

Were that the case for public property, then any town in America that wanted to could legally keep concerned citizens out of public meetings, just by saying "Oops, sorry 'public' doesn't mean black/latino/Amerindian/white/yellow/polka dot. Public means the husbands, wives and friends of city council members only."

IF you were right, it would be perfectly legal for a city park to have the rule, "Whites Only."

stealthyeliminator said:

That is correct, you are confused. The law does not say "someone with authority." Also, because one is not presumed to have authority, it must be shown that a person does, not the other way around. If it were presumed that every one had authority except specific prohibited persons, then we would need to cite that the officers did not have authority.

Also, no, that statue doesn't say what it can't be applied to, it says what it can be applied to, and so called public property is not there. As far as I know, public property, for the purposes of identifying lawful access, is broken down into several categories. It isn't necessarily immediately obvious from the statute which public property a person may be prohibited from. I think that a look at case law is necessary to determine that. I am not sure. But, in any case, it must be proven that he was lawfully and legitimately trespassed from the property, not the other way around, and that statute alone I do not believe cuts it.

It's also suspect that the cite TAC but charge trespass, but that may just be me not knowing how it works. Or, perhaps, it's just them bsing.

Also, unless the arrest is lawful, it's unlawful. It appears that there is no legitimate charge against these two men, and the history of the issue only contributes to that likelihood. If either of these men are convicted of any crime, I will be extremely surprised. We will see if they ever go to court.

Click to expand...

Your killing me.... but I half agree with a portion of what you said.

To address your bold statement...

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the

I bolded the section where it does state somone with apparent authority. Meaning, if your on private property and the owner can GIVE the authority to the PD to tell you to beat it. If you don't you get charged with this.

As far as the public place goes.... even though it's public you CAN be charged with trespassing...

1) he already was once. I posted the link. It was a divided jury. So it was apparantly a LAWFUL arrest the first time. Now, I know this was due to him having a long gun the first time. The Capitol actually has a written policy that you can't carry on their property, which is what his original charges stemmed from. Again, he wasn't dismissed on the grounds of being a bogus charge the first time. This was basically an intentional redo of his first arrest (hence why so absurd).

He was arrested previously and charged with trespassing (because of the firearm he had). So he fights it in court, gets a hung jury. Then goes back with a cap gun to encite the SAME response.....

2) Public property... the first part of the statute still applies to public property. The question is WHO has the apparent authority. That is why I asked if someone had the CASE LAW that states whether the PD has authority. I agree that if they don't then it was a bad arrest.

I agree with the fact you can tell any person you want to beat it off your property. I agree you can't discriminate against race, creed, sex, etc. on a public property (or even business).

I understand that the Capitol is public property (like a park), but they can still pass policies just like Starbucks, or wal-mart. etc. An example would be, we have local parks that are No trespassing after sunset. So yea, it's a public place, yet you can't be there at night time. Who has the authority to tell you to beat it? The PD.

As said, we'll see how it works out in court. Personal opinion, it was a good arrest in a legal sense.

Dude, wtf are you doing? The case against CJ that resulted in a hung jury was a case in Temple, Texas, not at the capital (that's in Austin, btw). He was not arrested for, charged with or tried for any form of trespass in that case. He did not "get off," he will be re-tried for the same offense. Is anything else in your post worth replying to when you can't even get the basic facts straight?

Read the link

http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag/capitol/

See the funny last word in the URL?

"As many are aware, this past weekend two OCT members were arrested by Capitol DPS Troopers while lawfully carrying pre-1899, replica cap and ball revolvers."

This was dated October 31, 2013.

So unless Capitol DPS Troopers are different people then who arrested him yesterday and unless this is a different "Capitol" then this wasn't his first time.

If somehow this is a different Capitol and different guys, then I apologize. But it cetainly seems like same place same guys.

Policy

"Individuals who carry firearms or other deadly weapons in a manner other than under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code, are prohibited from carrying on the Capitol Grounds or within the Capitol Building or Extension or other state buildings within the Capitol Complex pursuant to Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Chapter 3, Subchapter J, Rule § 3.146 (set out below.) Individuals subject to Rule 3.146 will be respectfully requested to leave the Capitol Building and Extension and the Capitol Grounds or other state buildings and will be subject to Texas Penal Code § 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) after having received notice to leave.”

THAT is the reason he was arrested.

I get it... you just refuse to see it. So be it. I've literally spelled everything out, cited it, explained it and you still won't admit it's what happened.

Primus, that was an entirely separate incident in which two entirely different individuals were arrested. I'm pretty eure I told you this already.

Moreover, a letter from a DPS official does not carry weight of law. The law carries weight of law. I'm done with your ******* trolling. Goodbye.

If CJ was not involved in that case, then I apologize for ascerting that this was his second time. I was under the impression since reading the article discusses his case. My assumption (wrong of me), was that the article and the case were all one thing. They didn't state the members names who were arrested and charged with trespassing, it just said members.

The letter of the law applies when there is a policy in affect such as this.

Again, no one is trolling. I'm mistaken in this was his second time there, so be it. I apologized and moving on.

Even if he was not directly involved, doesn't the article linked above by Primus say that CJ is heading up the organization whose members were arrested?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Even if he was not directly involved, doesn't the article linked above by Primus say that CJ is heading up the organization whose members were arrested?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe CJ Grisham is the founder of OCT.

I believe that all of the arrests have been posted here previously, but here is a recap for everyone.
Scott - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc7DMVXKHG8&feature=youtu.be (He was carrying a rifle, which may have been in violation of TAC but is not Disorderly Conduct. Carry of the BP pistol is not in violation of either)
Gary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fjlUY4ygx0
Terry - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwxwncOKHo0&feature=youtu.be (I am not sure if Terry is officially affiliated with OCT)
Tom and Justin - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RK2ncxom8&feature=youtu.be
CJ and I believe Jacob are this thread.

First arrest was peaceful. Second arrest was peaceful. Third arrest was peaceful. How many arrests does it take before someone can legitimately be angry over the abuse of color of law and the suspension of constitutionally protected rights?

The problem is that the government has the responsibility to maintain good order of places open to the public. To achieve that they may have to employ certain prerogatives that landowners enjoy. This might include charging someone with trespass. The problem in this case is that denying a member of the public to access Capital property denies that person access to the government process. This is a violation of their rights. The absence of a compelling reason to remove someone from governmental activities but doing so anyways is breaking the law, no? Can a police officers actions be both illegal and legal simultaneously?

What exactly was the compelling reason to deny CJ access?

If there is no lawful reason for doing so does it follow that the arrest was also unlawful?

If the cap pistol were pertinent to the reason for removing him, wouldn't the charge reflect that instead of "I told you to leave and I have a badge"?

How would that faire against a 4A challenge?

Help me out here Primus. I would like to understand what your point is.

maybe Grisham should stop living in an anti gun state.... and start living in a free state.

if 1 million fed up texans moved up here to here to WA we'd have the liberals routed... and Washington is a freer state then Texas anyway... just suggesting.... :lol:

half_life1052 said:

The problem is that the government has the responsibility to maintain good order of places open to the public. To achieve that they may have to employ certain prerogatives that landowners enjoy. This might include charging someone with trespass. The problem in this case is that denying a member of the public to access Capital property denies that person access to the government process. This is a violation of their rights. The absence of a compelling reason to remove someone from governmental activities but doing so anyways is breaking the law, no? Can a police officers actions be both illegal and legal simultaneously?

What exactly was the compelling reason to deny CJ access?

If there is no lawful reason for doing so does it follow that the arrest was also unlawful?

If the cap pistol were pertinent to the reason for removing him, wouldn't the charge reflect that instead of "I told you to leave and I have a badge"?

How would that faire against a 4A challenge?

Help me out here Primus. I would like to understand what your point is.

Click to expand...

Well put.

Honestly, I believe the officers saw him and saw the gun. They assumed it was a real gun, so they told him to leave based on that policy (the one I posted). He refused to leave. They asked again. He still refused. So they arrested him. After they arrested him, someone yelled the "I gotcha!" line with finally saying it wasn't a real firearm.

My point is this..... we can assume (safely) that CJ KNEW what the policy was since some of his members were arrested and I'm sure it's a tight crew. Knowing this, they intentionally went there with firearms that looked real, but may not fall under the legal definition. When approached by officers, instead of immediately stating "they are not real", which would have quelled the situation, he instead chose to just yell a bit. THEN and only then, did someone finally speak up and say that it was fake, which is too late. Also, it wasn't even him (if I remember) that said it. It was the taunter doing the video taping.

So again, I believe it was staged (in some degree). As far as the trespass.. think of it like I do (try)... CAN you lock them up for trespass? Yes. SHOULD you? Maybe not. And again, his 2a rights weren't violated because he wasn't even carrying a gun..... his 1a rights may have been since he was giving a speech and was told to leave.

If this was a guy walking around the grounds with his family and he got booted and arrested, then I'd be just as pissed as some. But this is classic, begging for attention and you get it. I hope that kind of cleared up my stance.

Also, as far as the charges (as asked), I believe it was jsut the trespassing because the firearm was fake. Not a texan, but form reading that statute, if the trooper told him to leave, it's enough he has to leave. It would seem they have been given authority (maybe).

So it's like saying I would need a reason to boot you from my business. I wouldn't. Not saying I agree, just seems it came down to he was told to leave and he didn't. He will fight it in court and we'll see the results.