Mr Grisham was bearing arms as per his inherent right to do so, without doing so to cause any kind've bonafide alarm (you'll note his rifle is slung over his shoulder in a non-aggressive fashion). This assuming you consider someone's "feelings" to be more important than civil rights, ie: someone 'feels' alarmed because they are ignorant of the law and/or civil rights and ignorantly consider the lawful open bearing of arms as reason to 'feel alarmed'.
If you don't consider some fools 'feelings' as cause to violate someone's civil rights, then Mr Gresham was simply engaging in the freedom to choose to bear arms as is his civil right to do so.
Given the cops responses, it does appear he has the usual statist arrogance of not liking to be told the law who's sworn duty is his to uphold and abide by, specifically being told "no" as Mr Grisham told him repeatedly. As well as reminding the officer of the actual law pertaining to the situation, which basically forbids the officer to act as he did.
Evidently he was acquitted at the first trial and the prosecutor tried him again, in violation of the constitution which specifically states you cannot be held in double jeapordy, and in the second trial managed to get him convicted on a made-up charge. With the rational being that he has to 'support the officers in thier feeling safe' and so forth.
My question is, given the DA's job is uphold the law, how does supposedly 'supporting the officers' comport with violating the constitution in terms of double jeapordy, trumping up charges, and his sole purpose is to uphold the law, which would have demanded dropping charges against Mr Gresham and possibly prosecuting that cop for violating Mr Greshams civil rights?
You'll note the second amendment says "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" It does not say "until someone feels alarmed" This assuming it doesn't say so in the same section where the second amendment specifically mentions black powder muzzle loaders, as the claim so often goes.......
Depressing is right. This is yet another example of many of why I am so distrustful of LEO's; unless I know them personally to be "good cop". There's just too many examples of this sort of abuse of power.
This particular LEO appears to be an immature, insecure, impulsive and high on his own sense of self importance jerk. It's guys like him that create so much distrust of LEO's and as a result actually have the unintended effect of making the job even more dangerous for all LEO's, including the good ones.
Hey, maybe the ACLU will come to this citizens defense and appeal. Yeah, right...