• 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.

Man charged, found NOT guilty after refusing to give up rifle to police

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Disclaimers: The mission of OCDO revolves around handgun open carry. Now that Texas has some form of handgun open carry, albeit licensed for the time being, I think that being good stewards of our opportunity to open carry handguns, and expanding the recognition of our rights to include unlicensed handgun carry, should be our primary effort. Still, this particular case involving rifle carry has some special relevance here in Texas. Also of note that this is not an example of a recommended carry method (in-hand), although we may still defend the right to use the method while strongly recommending other practices.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article111924367.html

Of particular interest to me are the parallels between this case, and CJ Grisham's original case. CJ Grisham's case is still awaiting a decision from appeals court, I believe. In this particular case, there are a number of parallels, but I think the evidence against this man was even stronger than the evidence was against CJ, and this man was found not guilty.

I will be so bold as to say, I think this case serves as further indication that CJ's conviction was the result of significant corruption and railroading.

I also wonder if the education efforts of Open Carry Texas and other gun rights groups in Texas contributed to this jury decision.

As we comment on this case, please keep in mind the mission of OCDO and the standard of conduct that is expected on the forum.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Glad the jury came to this determination in the above case.

There are a couple differences, however, between the Grishom case and this.... If my memory is correct, CJ was walking on the side of the road with his son. Mr. Grishom had an OC'd rifle sling/strapped so it was across his chest with the muzzle up. The Opinion Enforcement Officer (OEO) attempted to seize the rifle without consent of Mr. Grishom. Grishom was originally charged with violation of a law that he was not violating BUT several months later those charges were dropped and he was charged with a new crime that of not walking on the side of the road while facing oncoming traffic in addition to resisting arrest and disorderly conduct! The audio/video taken by Mr. Grishom's son during this event clearly indicates the 'real' reason he was stopped, assulted, arrested, and handcuffed in the OEO's own words--- for the act of carrying the rifle!

Hoping that the appeal will be granted and the present convictions against Mr. Grishom are overturned.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I don't think he (Grisham) was ever charged with the traffic violation, but I could be mistaken. In reality, I believe the issue of walking on the wrong side of the road was brought up as part of the prosecution's attempt to change the story after the fact and manufacture probable cause for Ermis' stop, to cover his ass - but I believe Ermis admitted that he did not consider this traffic offense until the legal battle began and the point was raised by the prosecutors, or something like that. So, is probable cause needed at the time of the officer's action that requires probable cause, or can an officer engage in an action that requires probable cause, without it, and then have the prosecution manufacture probable cause for him ex post facto?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I don't think he (Grisham) was ever charged with the traffic violation, but I could be mistaken. In reality, I believe the issue of walking on the wrong side of the road was brought up as part of the prosecution's attempt to change the story after the fact and manufacture probable cause for Ermis' stop, to cover his ass - but I believe Ermis admitted that he did not consider this traffic offense until the legal battle began and the point was raised by the prosecutors, or something like that. So, is probable cause needed at the time of the officer's action that requires probable cause, or can an officer engage in an action that requires probable cause, without it, and then have the prosecution manufacture probable cause for him ex post facto?
You cannot bring up a new charge after the fact. Terry requires articulable suspicion of a crime at the time of the incident, not after the fact.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
alas, the spirit and tenor of the making of an urban myth right in front of our very eyes.

so august members of OCDO, pick a story, any story, from his self written wiki, to his discussion of PTSD, to his valor, to his judgement of 2K fine, to deciding not to sue Temple PD, to running for state senate seat, to ~ the naked city has a million of them.

thank you mr gore...

ipse
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...and Gebhardt said nothing in the law requires those carrying a rifle to use a strap to secure it.
...well there ya go...not gunna start a cop bashing thread, but, when are cops gunna get it that there view of what peaceable carry is may be different than some other folks...

Not gunna start a cop bashing thread, but ya gotta wonder why cops continue to espouse there way or the highway where the peaceable carry of firearms is concerned.Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article111924367.html#storylink=cpy
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
...well there ya go...not gunna start a cop bashing thread, but, when are cops gunna get it that there view of what peaceable carry is may be different than some other folks...

Not gunna start a cop bashing thread, but ya gotta wonder why cops continue to espouse there way or the highway where the peaceable carry of firearms is concerned.Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article111924367.html#storylink=cpy

why do cops get special treatment? pointing out errors in the actions of cops is not "bashing". if someone is not following the law whether wearing blue or not, pointing that out shouldn't be interpreted as bashing.

do your job or GT*O.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
why do cops get special treatment? pointing out errors in the actions of cops is not "bashing". if someone is not following the law whether wearing blue or not, pointing that out shouldn't be interpreted as bashing.

do your job or GT*O.
When the action is against a legal OCer who was commiting no crime, we can discuss the facts of that specific case. Such matters are always subject to review.

It is not about giving LEOs special treatment. It is about keeping OCDO focused and on target with the primary/principal purpose of this forum = normalizing the open carry of properly holstered handguns as we go about our daily routines.

Bottom line - we will not become another Copwatch. Repeated rants or a history of seeking out/pointing out errant officers will draw a response that the poster would most likely wish to avoid.
 
Last edited:
Top