• 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.

Olmos, TX police injure and arrest open carrier - President of Open Carry Texas

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,048
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
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.

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.**
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
I

WOW. The lawlessness runs deep in Olmos Park.

I just read the description of the event linked to above:

Olmos Park PD Chief Rene Valenciano has decided that he doesn't care about the law. He is actively telling his officers to detain and identify anyone carrying a firearm in violation of our rights and Texas law. They are drawing down on people with holstered handguns and forcing them to the ground (video here: https://youtu.be/Xf2ERvD4Am4).

On February 7th, 2018, Mike Thompson, a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from this police department. With absolutely NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of criminal activity, their officers, AT GUNPOINT, detained, handcuffed and searched Mr. Thompson in violation of his First and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

On February 10th, 2018, Jack Miller , a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from their police department. Mr. Miller was detained, handcuffed, disarmed and searched in violation of his First, Second and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. This encounter was initiated by their officers under supposed violation of your city ordinance Sec. 24-85. - Unauthorized carrying of loaded rifle or shotgun. This city ordinance is in direct violation of TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Sec. 229.001, and is therefore rendered null, void, invalid and unenforceable. This was explained to the corporal in charge of the scene, during the encounter. All of this factual information was simply disregarded by their officers, and Mr. Miller was issued a citation for a violation that CANNOT OCCUR, because the ordinance it is based on is null, void, invalid and unenforceable. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

On February 20th, 2018 , Jack Miller , a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from their police department. With absolutely NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of criminal activity, their officers ONCE AGAIN detained, handcuffed, disarmed and searched Mr. Miller in violation of his First, Second and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. At some point during this encounter, after Mr. Miller was placed into a police vehicle, their officers realized their mistake, drove Mr. Miller several blocks away from the original scene and released him. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

Again on February 20th, 2018 , approximately 1 hour after the first encounter, Jack Miller , a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from the police department. With absolutely NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of criminal activity, the officers ONCE AGAIN and AT GUNPOINT detained, handcuffed, disarmed and searched Mr. Miller in violation of his First, Second and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. The officers, knowing full well Mr. Millers identity both by name and by sight, and knowing full well his intentions as a constitutional rights activist, surrounded Mr. Miller, aimed their rifles at him, threatened to shoot him and took him into custody with absolutely NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of criminal activity. Mr. Miller was standing on a public sidewalk and exercising his RIGHT to openly carry his firearm. Mr. Miller was openly carrying his firearm in EXACTLY the same manner as thousands of activists at thousands of open carry protests, events and rallies have carried theirs, including individual activists exercising their right all by themselves. Yet, he was arrested under Texas Penal Code Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT (displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm) and Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Again, Mr. Miller was carrying his firearm in a manner calculated to educate the public, acclimate the public and to simply exercise his right to do so. Any "alarm" was an un-calculated-for byproduct of the personal political opinions of others. A side effect and nothing more. Also, Mr. Miller was standing on PUBLIC property. The officers were FULLY AWARE of all these facts and violated his rights anyway. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

On February 20th, 2018 , Joanna Ferguson, a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from the police department. Mrs. Ferguson was video recording the constitutional rights activism activities of Jack Miller during the second violation of his rights by the officers that evening. Although Mrs. Ferguson was 30 feet away from Mr. Miller and IN NO WAY interfering with the officers, she was instructed to "put that camera away" and assaulted by one of the officers in an attempt to intimidate her into ceasing her recording of the actions and behavior of the officers. Both of these actions violate Mrs. Ferguson's First Amendment rights and are in DIRECT VIOLATION of Turner v. Driver, a recent 5th circuit ruling REAFFIRMING a citizens right to record police activity. As recent case law, Turner v. Driver is something any competent officer should know in order to perform their duties properly and LEGALLY. As the officers violated Mrs. Ferguson's rights in direct violation of the First Amendment and Turner v. Driver, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that either the officers are ignorant of the laws they enforce, or the violation was intentional. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

Finally, on March 17th, 2018, Jack Miller , a constitutional rights activist engaging in completely legal and constitutionally protected activity encountered officers from the police department. With absolutely NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER of criminal activity, the officers ONCE AGAIN and AT GUNPOINT detained, handcuffed, disarmed and searched Mr. Miller in violation of his First, Second and Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. Mr. Miller was standing on a public sidewalk holding a sign and carrying a rubber training gun. While this rubber training gun appears to be a real firearm from a distance, Mr. Miller holds a valid handgun license and EVERY officer in the department is well aware of that fact. Additionally, holding a sign on public property is a symbolic protest, which is a right protected and guaranteed by the First Amendment. The officers were FULLY AWARE of all these facts and violated his rights anyway. These facts were recorded on audio and video and are indisputable.

Joanna Ferguson has just had a retaliatory warrant issued for her arrest for interfering with the police during the incident in which she was assaulted by police because she was filming the incident.

This is one month after the incident and all due to the negative publicity the PD are getting.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
uh, stealthy, this was the same CJ who got laid out with LE's guns pointing at him saying he talked to the chief, ah well now that makes everything ok then doesn't it!

last time i heard the mantra on this site when anybody pops out saying "Well i called the sheriff, police, state police., and asked them what the law is..."

Mantra regularly spewed by this membership: "NEVER ask them what the law is because they do not know, call an attorney after you look it up yourself!"

Sorry, as stated if you do stupid things to incite the nice LEs where they point their guns at you just to prove a point seems a bit reckless and if a bystander gets wounded or shot...CJ's antics now make him civilly liable!

Nobody called the chief to ask what the law is. I never said anything of the sort. That doesn't even make sense. In all likelihood, CJ knows the relevant statutes better than anyone at that police station, and I'm sure he knows that.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Right, but if they continually get harassed in that city, why go back unprepared as the great CJ Grisham representing OCT?

Can't say for sure, wasn't part of the planning committee, but my speculation is that this level of trouble was not expected after the phone call with the chief. Hindsight is 20/20. If it had gone down better we'd be saying that he did go prepared.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Nobody called the chief to ask what the law is. I never said anything of the sort. That doesn't even make sense. In all likelihood, CJ knows the relevant statutes better than anyone at that police station, and I'm sure he knows that.

Grisham spoke to Olmos Park Police Chief Rene Valenciano via phone on Monday.
Cite in OP’s initial post.


 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
If it had gone down better we'd be saying that he did go prepared.

not really. we'd just be saying that the police follow the law. he was unprepared because he had prior knowledge that that police department has on several occasions previously violated the rights of law abiding citizens.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,048
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
... guess they got $$$ out the wazho to pay them attorneys.
I knew that Grisham is the membership director of SelfDefenseFund.com, but I didn't know the following until tonight:

4) "... In open carry states the SDF will defend and assist its qualified and licensed members against unlawful arrest by law enforcement. ..."

https://www.selfdefensefund.com/terms-conditions/
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I knew that Grisham is the membership director of SelfDefenseFund.com, but I didn't know the following until tonight:

4) "... In open carry states the SDF will defend and assist its qualified and licensed members against unlawful arrest by law enforcement. ..."

https://www.selfdefensefund.com/terms-conditions/

That is all well and good, but the actor(s) were not charged for OC’g per se!

The entire policy espouses, legal representation arising from a member’s use of deadly force in a self-defense situation and the info in paragraph 4, Weapons, just covers open carry situations arising after a member’s self-defense incident not where someone goes and incited & provokes the LE encounter(s) to react, legally or otherwise.

Paragraph 3, Areas of Coverage, of your cite, to paraphrase states ‘self defense, from persons and animals.’

Otherwise ‘activists’ would be hitting the streets with cam glorifying their causes and SDF would be broke!
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
How about section 20 of the Terms? I tend to admire many points of the SDF stated coverage, in fact I'm interested, but the Indemnity makes me (as a non-lawyer) wonder: now is the member potentially covering the organization legally, instead of the other way around? How does that work?

INDEMNITY: By execution of the application you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the NAFLGD (SDF) board members, officers, employees, affiliates, successors and assigns, to include but not limited to, their immediate family members from and against any claims, lawsuits, damages, liabilities, expenses or cost that may occur, including all cost for claims and/or damages against NAFLGD (SDF) arising out of or resulting from the acts or omissions of the member, members family, successors or assigns.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
How about section 20 of the Terms? I tend to admire many points of the SDF stated coverage, in fact I'm interested, but the Indemnity makes me (as a non-lawyer) wonder: now is the member potentially covering the organization legally, instead of the other way around? How does that work?

HP find the comparisons link on the bottom of one of the site’s website. Quite informative, yes, the organizations self promoting but quite illuminating.

An august member and VA attorney did a thread or significantly contributed on the subject matter recently, eh relative time, couple years ago? I couldn’t locate the thread myself.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The Olmos Park city council repealed the offending ordinance (sorry, don't have the text or link to it) this morning.

The open carry event in Olmos Park is still on for April 7 however: https://www.facebook.com/events/1701444096542864/


Ya know, i like gutshot or II’s as the case might be, methodologies to getting offensive ordinances removed or changed, etc., instead of being spread on the ground by armed LEs or taz’etc.

Gutshot’s seem a bit more civilized.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,832
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Ya know, i like gutshot or II’s as the case might be, methodologies to getting offensive ordinances removed or changed, etc., instead of being spread on the ground by armed LEs or taz’etc.

Gutshot’s seem a bit more civilized.

You just don’t know how much work it took BB62 an myself to get gutshotII to this point in life.😁
 
Top