As I suggested previously and without spelling things out in detail, I think various aspects of the videotaped actions, including yelling something across a street to the effect that "We're here to teach you a lesson!" are unnecessary and reflect poorly on a person who is in the right legally.my daddy used to say, if it is on the books it is LAW and the time to dispute if it belongs on the BOOKs is in the court; not screaming at the nice LEs who might, just might, misconstrue your screaming and rants and actions as you are being man-handled by the nice LEs, as a threat to the good olde boys in blue's safety!
To push media about your illegal activities where by their own admission the violation is still on the BOOKs, with said nice LEs seems a bit strange. Ya don't see many drug dealers stating they got arrested cuz they violated a law on the books?
Texans must do things a bit backward down there, showing video of them breaking the law, publicizing the law is still on the books, then whining about being arrested for it?
guess they got $$$ out the wazho to pay them attorneys.
But I think that sometimes one *has to* expose those willing to violate the law by challenging things in public, not only for PR value, but also because of a number of other reasons, including the length of litigation as well as the fact that mounting a legal challenge to a stated policy (which may or may not be acted on) is a tough row to hoe, and legal challenges are expensive.
You may recall my tangle with the Dayton RTA, which despite six months of communication to RTA, city, state and county authorities went nowhere. One publicized open carry bus ride, before and after which the RTA people lied about recent law changes, took care of things: https://www.facebook.com/events/100454047196274/
If I had an endless bank account, I might have done things differently, but because of Dayton, Columbus Ohio's system (COTA) later complied with the law.
So in general terms, I agree with some of what you've said in that I think there was a better way to have challenged the status quo in Olmos, and for at least one participant to have conducted himself and the challenge, but I disagree that one should always go to a court first rather than "to the street".
I think part of CJ Grisham's disgust with law enforcement officers who cavalierly break the law, and what drives his "corrective action" is the malicious prosecution heaped on him, and higher court's non-corrective action on a prior matter where he was essentially charged with "contempt of cop". **Total speculation, though.**