The full video on Mr Grishams arrest

[Shotgun Jeremy]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM

Its all finally out. This is what the jury saw when finding him guilty and worthy of paying $2,000.

 

[matefrio]

Shouldn't there be a poison pill that if the stop was unlawful they whole thing thrown out?

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

This stop is just all sorts of jacked up. The fact that a jury found him guilty is just depressing.

 

[robertc1024]

Jury of your peers. How do you get one of those? Agree with the depressing part.

 

[Southpaw]

Jury of your peers. How do you get one of those? Agree with the depressing part.

Craiglist or Backpage..... WAIT!! That's some else entirely.

 

[jordanmills]

Shouldn't there be a poison pill that if the stop was unlawful they whole thing thrown out?

Yeah... that trial is not how it was supposed to work.

 

[TXARGUY]

TRAVEL ALERT!!!!!

I'm joining Robert Pratt's call for a boycott of Bell County.

That cop should have been fired and prosecuted for assault. The prosecutor should lose his job as well.

Of course if the jurors are truly indicative of the county's population then the whole place is f'kd beyond all hope.

 

[jcb7469]

sorry i cant view vids at work what happened?

 

[atticus finch]

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.......

 

[Polarbear6]

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...

 

[Shorts]

Thanks for the link.

Since threads have been hashed out, heated, gone all to heck and locked down, I'm keeping it light.

From the vid, I see why/where the jury found him guilty. And if I had to make a guess on the specific instant, it was when he reacted and grabbed the rifle when the LEO attempted to unhook the sling at the very beginning.

I don't think I am being unreasonable in thinking that the LEO communicated poorly. He gave no verbal commands other than when he got out of the car, "Wonderful! Don't be touchin' it. Don't touch it. What are we doing? We're hiking". Next thing he does is walk up and grab the rifle by the grip. That made me uncomfortable. His next move was to remove the sling from the rifle. There was no verbal communication telling Grisham what he was going to do, He just reached and grabbed. Then there was the grab reaction from Grisham. I feel the LEO needed to communicate better. And if he did the stop might have gone differently. I think Grisham is a loudmouth. But he would have been facing the officer up front who told him "I"m going to disarm you for my safety".


The problem I have seeing this video from the beginning, the LEO did not verbally communicate his intention. Removing the rifle from the equation, is it appropriate for an LEO to walk up and start touching a citizen?

 

[Tcruse]

I think that this is the first of many such cases. The cult Mothers Demand Action ... lead by media consultant Shannon Watts has targeted open carry in Texas. They are advocating that anytime they see a gun or "think the person may be carrying" to call 911 and claim to be "in fear for their life". So, expect the attacks to become more frequent and also expect them to "target" CC where the person leaks that they are carrying. Apparently, they are also attempting to "pressure" places like Staples to jump on the "No Gun Zone" option. They claim a membership of 100,000 but I have yet to see them turn out more than 6-10 people. This group is very dangerous in that are professional at getting the media to "spin" every story in the direction that want.

 

[TX69]

Disgusting

 

[Texasjack]

I love how the cops have to discuss the guys actions until they have the story straight so they can make a lame case against him for "resisting".

It's good for everyone to remember that this is no longer a free country or even a country governed by fair laws.

Welcome to Obamastan!

 

[TX69]

When was this video released?

 

[tXfactor]

a couple days ago

 

[TXARGUY]

When was this video released?

Just after the jury decision was read.

 

[Shorts]

I guess this was the rest of the video that was being held up to trial. I remember many folks asking to see the very beginning because that was the most vital part, initial contact, least it seemed like it.

 

[stdreb27]

Wow I change all my opinions of that stop. Those officers were out of line, and need to be fired.

Just goes to show even if you're 100% in the right shut up and be nice to the police... Because they can really mess up your day...

 

[JColumbus]

This may be of interest to those who follow this matter. It is a supposed juror, speaking on how it all happened with the jury. If you ask me, this guy is full of crap.

Juror Speaks Out From Master Sgt C.J. Grisham Trial (DC Exclusive) - YouTube