• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New trial for Grisham to start tomorrow

stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Yeah, I'm not trying to get way off topic, or act like we have it so rough here compared to the rest of the US, but Texas is pretty bad when you think about it. To carry a handgun at all outside of your car in public, you have to have a CHL. What a lot of people don't realize is that when you do get a CHL, you gain the "privilege" of carrying your handgun but you actually forfeit other rights (to me, pretty important ones, at that...). For example, in Texas you don't have to ID yourself to law enforcement unless you are actually placed under arrest. Get your CHL and happen to be carrying? Not anymore.

The way the statute is phrased it would seem that you not only have to present your CHL along with your DL, you actually have to present it any time law enforcement demands it, whether they have RAS or PC or nothing at all. It simply says that when a LEO demands ID you must present both. Not when a LEO lawfully demands ID, but when a LEO demands ID. And then the disarmament statute, and then that they can (AND WILL) run your gun's serial number when they disarm you.

So now, they can simply walk up to you without RAS or PC and demand ID. You must legally present your CHL. Now they want to disarm you "for their safety" per Sec. 411.207. Now that they've legally disarmed you and are in "lawful possession of" the firearm, it isn't considered an unlawful search to check the serial number. Conclusion? The CHL laws need major reform.


Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

This is one reason that many people in Texas refuse to get their CHL, they do not want to (and should not have to) forfeit one set of rights to be able to exercise another.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
stealthyeliminator said:
DASHCAM VIDEO RELEASE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM

How in the **** anyone could vote guilty is beyond me. Texas is full of ******* idiots. Texans idolize law enforcement.
Click to expand...

My anger is boundless!

One officer even states, "I don't care what the law says." It is obvious why they didn't want the dash cam footage released. Highway Kangaroo justice w/o any consideration for intent.

Don't know if the governor or legislature could fix this soon enough to be meaningful. This was so unnecessary and so morally wrong.

It would be inappropriate for me to say much more at this time, except to wonder who will step up to help the Sargent.
 
BrianB

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
stealthyeliminator said:
DASHCAM VIDEO RELEASE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM

How in the **** anyone could vote guilty is beyond me. Texas is full of ******* idiots. Texans idolize law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I think the cop was wrong to just grab the gun without any discussion. I've never seen an officer disarm someone during a Terry stop in that manner. Speaking of Terry, up to that point the encounter was a consensual one (where no disarm would be in order) so making an unannounced move to seize the weapon was a really bad plan. Suddenly grabbing for someone's gun, especially if that person has done a lot of weapon retention work, might kick in any number of reflexes that could be misinterpreted. Also, both of the officer's hands, and his eyes are tied up with the rifle, and both of the "suspect's" hands are free to draw a sidearm.

I'd have loved to be on the jury. Shame they had 6 lemmings for jurors that day.
 
Last edited:
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
BrianB said:
I think the cop was wrong to just grab the gun without any discussion. I've never seen an officer disarm someone during a Terry stop in that manner. Speaking of Terry, up to that point the encounter was a consensual one (where no disarm would be in order) so making an unannounced move to seize the weapon was a really bad plan. Suddenly grabbing for someone's gun, especially if that person has done a lot of weapon retention work, might kick in any number of reflexes that could be misinterpreted. Also, both of the officer's hands, and his eyes are tied up with the rifle, and both of the "suspect's" hands are free to draw a sidearm.

I'd have loved to be on the jury. Shame they had 6 lemmings for jurors that day.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. There are times to grab and times not to. This was definitely not a time to just grab.

Just for clarification was he legal to disarm him or not? I've hear both things. I know he was screaming the whole time that he couldn't be disarmed, but I think someone posted on here he can be disarmed?
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Primus said:
Agreed 100%. There are times to grab and times not to. This was definitely not a time to just grab.

Just for clarification was he legal to disarm him or not? I've hear both things. I know he was screaming the whole time that he couldn't be disarmed, but I think someone posted on here he can be disarmed?
Click to expand...
See post #18 of this thread.

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.

The gentleman's offense? Walking on the wrong side of the road.

Conclude that constitutes being a threat to himself and his son.....especially with a gun :banghead:
 
BrianB

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
Primus said:
Just for clarification was he legal to disarm him or not? I've hear both things. I know he was screaming the whole time that he couldn't be disarmed, but I think someone posted on here he can be disarmed?
Click to expand...

SE posted this statute:
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.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd say that doesn't cover a consensual encounter because if the encounter is consensual then you have the right to walk away at any time. Any time an officer takes possession of your property the encounter automatically becomes a detention (which requires RAS). During a consensual encounter I think the officer would have to say "I'd like to take custody of your weapon while we talk" and then you could say "then we're done talking, have a nice day officer". If the officer has RAS to stop them, and they are not free to go, then the above statute (and plenty of court cases) say the officer can disarm you for his safety for the duration of the stop.

I don't know what the officer's RAS was. After the fact I think the attorney for the government must have come up with the idea that they were being stopped for a traffic infraction (walking on the roadway) but the officer said nothing about that during the encounter. He just kept mindlessly repeating that they got a call of someone walking with a gun and that they had to investigate. That doesn't however provide RAS, so if they want to investigate that it's going to have to be a consensual encounter, or without the cooperation of the "suspect" (while he is free to disregard them and go on his way).
 
BrianB

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
Grapeshot said:
The gentleman's offense? Walking on the wrong side of the road.
Click to expand...

The dashcam video I saw has them walking on the right hand side of the road. Are they supposed to walk on the left in Texas? I've never heard of such a law, but all sorts of zany things are illegal. Or maybe it was that they were walking in the roadway instead of on the shoulder? Either way, that crap was come up with after the fact when they realized they needed to invent some RAS - the JBT performing the stop certainly expressed no such RAS at the time (not that it matters when all is said and done).
 
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Grapeshot said:
See post #18 of this thread.

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.

The gentleman's offense? Walking on the wrong side of the road.

Conclude that constitutes being a threat to himself and his son.....especially with a gun :banghead:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Personally I think the statute is vague and he got screwed by it. Bolded parts are vague and is part of why they were able to stick him with charges. I know guys keep talking about RAS about crimes and detentions.

The way this is worded, Community Care Taking Could fall under this. Say your at a Med. call? You have a diabetic with a gun. You could disarm him even though there is no crime. It falls under assistance. I think we saw something similar on a traffic stop case. Some guys think that only job of a LEO is to arrest for crimes or are called only for crimes. So fall asleep in a rest area and a LEO pulls up to check your welfare? Could be disarmed.
 
stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
FYI Sec. 411.207. Was brought up for conversational purposes only and so far as I know has nothing to do with this case!!! It has to do with disarming a CHL holder, NOT disarming someone in general! It was an example of how obtaining your chl may subject yourself to additional restrictions that you would not otherwise be subject to. While grisham did have his chl, that statue does not apply to the ceisuze of the rifle as far as I'm concerned because the officer was not aware of chl status when he attempted the disarm.

I am not aware of thsi statute being used in the case at all, I brought it up for conversation. I apologize for the confusion!!!

Reading it again it clearly only applies to the handgun being carried under the authority of chapter 411. I don't know how well tested it is but IMO it does NOT authorize seizure of any weapon other then the weapon being carried under authority of the chl. So he could have seized the handgun, not the rifle, or any knifes, or other weapons.

Also someone mentioned retention training, @nd that has definitely been brought up, not sure if in court or not, but grisham is active duty army so I imagine he has had retention training drilled pretty heavily into his skull
 
Last edited:
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
BrianB said:
The dashcam video I saw has them walking on the right hand side of the road. Are they supposed to walk on the left in Texas? I've never heard of such a law, but all sorts of zany things are illegal. Or maybe it was that they were walking in the roadway instead of on the shoulder? Either way, that crap was come up with after the fact when they realized they needed to invent some RAS - the JBT performing the stop certainly expressed no such RAS at the time (not that it matters when all is said and done).
Click to expand...

I have always been taught for safety to walk towards ONCOMING traffic when no sidewalk is present I have never seen it codified in law as to a lawful requirement.
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
JoeSparky said:
I have always been taught for safety to walk towards ONCOMING traffic when no sidewalk is present I have never seen it codified in law as to a lawful requirement.
Click to expand...

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.

(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:

(1) the left side of the roadway; or

(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.552.htm
 
Last edited:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Grapeshot said:
See post #18 of this thread.

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.

The gentleman's offense? Walking on the wrong side of the road.

Conclude that constitutes being a threat to himself and his son.....especially with a gun :banghead:
Click to expand...

There is little case law that I can find, in fact none.

So looking at the statue itself it appears as if a cop can take your gun if he has a reasonable belief for protection of himself or others. The courts and juries fawn over such BS and give cops a wide birth. Even the video ... the cop will say he could have pointed at me.

But I think the law has constitutional issues as being too broad & also, its all BS .. like a cop can just take your gun away for whatever reason he wants.

The guy should have backed up and not allowed the cop to get so close IMO ... but what's done is done.

So they claimed that his movements prevented the cop form doing his job .... I can see why the sheep voted a guilty vote ... but I would never have.

The cop started the encounter ... he did not have clean hands IMO.
 
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
stealthyeliminator said:
FYI Sec. 411.207. Was brought up for conversational purposes only and so far as I know has nothing to do with this case!!! It has to do with disarming a CHL holder, NOT disarming someone in general! It was an example of how obtaining your chl may subject yourself to additional restrictions that you would not otherwise be subject to. While grisham did have his chl, that statue does not apply to the ceisuze of the rifle as far as I'm concerned because the officer was not aware of chl status when he attempted the disarm.

I am not aware of thsi statute being used in the case at all, I brought it up for conversation. I apologize for the confusion!!!

Reading it again it clearly only applies to the handgun being carried under the authority of chapter 411. I don't know how well tested it is but IMO it does NOT authorize seizure of any weapon other then the weapon being carried under authority of the chl. So he could have seized the handgun, not the rifle, or any knifes, or other weapons.

Also someone mentioned retention training, @nd that has definitely been brought up, not sure if in court or not, but grisham is active duty army so I imagine he has had retention training drilled pretty heavily into his skull
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? It just says "disarm" said holder. Doesn't disarming of what.... pocket knife, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. I thought it did have bearing on the case, since wasn't he charged with interfering? The "duty" he was interfering with was disarming him. The reason the "duty" was good, was because of this? No?
 
stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Primus said:
Where does it say that? It just says "disarm" said holder. Doesn't disarming of what.... pocket knife, pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. I thought it did have bearing on the case, since wasn't he charged with interfering? The "duty" he was interfering with was disarming him. The reason the "duty" was good, was because of this? No?
Click to expand...

No, like I said, as far as I know this statute has nothing to do with this case whatsoever. As far as I know it was not brought up in trail at all. I brought it up here because I was giving examples of how rights are forfeited with the acquisition of a CHL. I'm pretty sure that the prosecution would have you believe that the officer's "duty" is anything he decides to do while his uniform on... Cut him off in traffic when he is on his way to get doughnuts and you have interfered with his duty. How dare you.

But to answer your question, the statute states the following "... The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene ..." which indicates that it is for the purpose of seizing the handgun being carried under the authority of Chapter 411, Subchapter H of the Government Code (CHL law, which this statute is a part of). The rifle is not a handgun and is not carried under the authority of Government Code Chapter 411 Subchapter H. I know that you may disagree and I understand and recognize that but there is already enough confusion (my fault) introduced into this thread so lets not debate it here if that's ok with you.

So, who's anxious for the appeal? I am!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top