New trial for Grisham to start tomorrow

stealthyeliminator · Nov 17, 2013

Couple of updates on various things. First, the retrial for Grisham starts tomorrow. Just to prevent any confusion - this is for a case from Temple, Texas regarding the OC of a rifle while hiking. This has nothing to do with any activities, protests or gatherings at the capital, it has nothing to do with OC of any pistol or replica or toy, and it has nothing to do with any trespass charges.

Also mentions a few other things from the corruption within the city, a few motions that were made, and the order to release the dash cam footage that the judge is attempting to completely hide from public view.

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/...onse-ags-dashcam-release-order-still-pending/

stealthyeliminator · Nov 19, 2013

Here's a rollup after Monday. http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/11/19/grisham-retrial-day-one-jury-seated-testimony-begins/

Grapeshot · Nov 19, 2013

Hope simply that someone on that jury is famiar with the term "Jury Nullification" and stands strong.

davidmcbeth · Nov 19, 2013

If the guy gets jurists who look at things unemotionally he'll do fine BUT there are always people who get out their handkerchiefs when the news of someone getting shot or stabbed or even the mention of a gun.

He's not guilty of anything.

MAC702 · Nov 19, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Here's a rollup after Monday. http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/11/19/grisham-retrial-day-one-jury-seated-testimony-begins/

article said:
...Ermis described to Assistant County Attorney John Gauntt Jr. how Grisham and his son were walking on the wrong side of the road and could have been arrested for violating transportation code...

...That the pair’s placement on the road was a traffic offense gave him the right to stop and question their presence...

Huh?

You can be arrested for walking on the wrong side of the road?

Is this one of those laws that people don't question because it's not enforced? And then all-of-a-sudden out it comes as RAS...

Welcome to Texas.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 19, 2013

MAC702 said:
Huh?

You can be arrested for walking on the wrong side of the road?

Is this one of those laws that people don't question because it's not enforced? And then all-of-a-sudden out it comes as RAS...

Welcome to Texas.

I asked a local PD guy about the department's 'policy' on open carry, meaning their policy on response to open carry. He replied that it was legal but not a good idea because they are 'creative.' I pushed for clarification and he basically said that there are too many laws for you to not be beaking one and, ironically, he actually said that you'd probably be breaking a traffic law just by walking. Lol.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 19, 2013

Verdict is guilty. Appeal in progress.

Grapeshot · Nov 19, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Verdict is guilty. Appeal in progress.

:banghead:

notalawyer · Nov 19, 2013

Grapeshot said:
:banghead:

Not unexpected based on the shenanigans I've read about up to this point.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 19, 2013

notalawyer said:
Not unexpected based on the shenanigans I've read about up to this point.

What shenanigans and how are they relevant to this case? You don't know. In the first jury it's been said (by a jury member) essentially that they ALL felt as though the charge was complete BS, but due to the instruction from the judge they felt as though they had to vote guilty. One apparently refused to regardless of that instruction. From the sound of it, none of them knew that they actually had the power and authority to vote not guilty regardless of whatever BS the judge spewed from his bench.

notalawyer · Nov 19, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
What shenanigans and how are they relevant to this case? You don't know. In the first jury it's been said (by a jury member) essentially that they ALL felt as though the charge was complete BS, but due to the instruction from the judge they felt as though they had to vote guilty. One apparently refused to regardless of that instruction. From the sound of it, none of them knew that they actually had the power and authority to vote not guilty regardless of whatever BS the judge spewed from his bench.

I was referring to the Judge's BS, the Jury Pool BS, etc.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 19, 2013

notalawyer said:
I was referring to the Judge's BS, the Jury Pool BS, etc.

SORRY!!!! I am emotional right now. Not the verdict I wanted to hear!

BrianB · Nov 19, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
In the first jury it's been said (by a jury member) essentially that they ALL felt as though the charge was complete BS, but due to the instruction from the judge they felt as though they had to vote guilty.

It always amazes me how stupid or naive or whatever these jurors are. Some dude in a black dress tells them "you must" and they never bother to think "or what?". Sad.

Baked on Grease · Nov 19, 2013

BrianB said:
It always amazes me how stupid or naive or whatever these jurors are. Some dude in a black dress tells them "you must" and they never bother to think "or what?". Sad.

Its how kids are raised and taught nowadays. Obey without question, those in power know better than you, obviously. >.<

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth · Nov 20, 2013

After just two hours of deliberating, the jury ultimately found Grisham guilty of interfering with police duties when he refused to turn over his AR-15 rifle to Temple police officer Steve Ermis this past March.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/24015509/jury-finds-cj-grisham-guilty-of-interfering-with-police-duties

Turn over your gun to the government (the very people as to why we can own???!!!).

The 2nd amendment means nothing if so...

I wonder if the jury instructions were changed...from the 1st trial.

Want fair? Move to China .. at least you know they are being honest with you ... "you're getting screwed young man, just telling you up upfront"...

stealthyeliminator · Nov 21, 2013

"Grisham warned of his concerns that police will be able to go back and repeat actions as he experienced. He further admitted being “a little upset about the guilty verdict” after an officer lied on his statements and was caught in open court."

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/11/20/tx-guilty-verdict-brings-grisham-2000-fine/

Video should be available Friday

davidmcbeth · Nov 21, 2013

County Attorney Jim Nichols told KCEN-TV how this was not a case of Second Amendment rights or Grisham carrying the gun. Calling it “well established law” as well as “for everyone’s safety and common sense,” Nichols said the police have the right to disarm an individual during an investigation, that it doesn’t mean the person is always going to be arrested.

I guess Mr. Nichols and me have different political viewpoints ....

Well, think the SGT will be looking at Army action after this?

stealthyeliminator · Nov 21, 2013

Yeah, I think that he just pulled it out of his ass. I certainly haven't ever known it to be "well established," certainly not "common sense" and it certainly isn't for everyone's safety, either. In fact, you could argue that it's quite the opposite (well established), with it being explicitly statutorily legalized for an officer to disarm a CHL holder during a stop or contact. If it was well established law that an officer could disarm everyone they came into contact with, why would this have been needed?

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

Grapeshot · Nov 21, 2013

So if I jay walk when there is no traffic or spit because I have a head cold, I may be disarmed w/o any other cause?

Hmm....may be statutorily legal, but somewhat.......(searching for a word)......illogical.

davidmcbeth · Nov 21, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
Yeah, I think that he just pulled it out of his ass. I certainly haven't ever known it to be "well established," certainly not "common sense" and it certainly isn't for everyone's safety, either. In fact, you could argue that it's quite the opposite (well established), with it being explicitly statutorily legalized for an officer to disarm a CHL holder during a stop or contact. If it was well established law that an officer could disarm everyone they came into contact with, why would this have been needed?

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems like they can just steal everyone's gun anytime they want .... or think that they can.

New trial for Grisham to start tomorrow

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned