TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: I am also neither a LEO or lawyer and have not been either in a past life.

All of this is why I don't understand what duty he interfered with. I still don't know or understand what RS they had to start with.

Also, BTW, Charles knows at least as much as I do about this case and even he is unaware of any laws the guy broke.

That isn't how it works. He doesn't have to break any laws for there to be RS and unless you know what the officer says RS was then you can't even start to discuss fact. It's just theory. In theory the RS could be shots reported earlier, the way he was carrying the gun, that the guy fit a description of someone else, who knows. Here is something else just to mess with your head. There is no real standard for RS but that the officer articulate the suspicion and a judge believe it was reasonable for the officer to have that suspicion. Not you me or Joe Blow but that officer. If the cop is eloquent and well spoken then he is much more likely to be able to convince a judge as to the "reasonableness" of his suspicion. That is one issue. The other is interference. The guy was physically resisting, wouldn't answer or keep silent, and yes just making noise can be interference, and generally being as uncooperative as possible. What do you think interference is? You can refuse to talk, withhold permission, things like that, but you can't make the cops drag you rather than move. Physically block access even without resistance.

Mind you it's barely more than a nuisance charge and designed as much to allow the cops to just jail someone who is causing problems and get them out of the way as much as anything else.

If that's the case, then it sounds as if an officer can tell a believable story, true or false, they can say whatever they want and get away with just about anything.

C-dub wrote:If that's the case, then it sounds as if an officer can tell a believable story, true or false, they can say whatever they want and get away with just about anything.

that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong

JP171 wrote:

C-dub wrote:If that's the case, then it sounds as if an officer can tell a believable story, true or false, they can say whatever they want and get away with just about anything.

that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong

Possibly. I've laid out the fallacy of that officer's and the DA's case that many others here also see. Maybe I'm the ignorant one. However, I think it was just a case where they didn't want to be shown up by that man.

Looks like there may be more to the Grisham arrest story.

Here's the police dashcam video. Lots of obstruction going on there.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... iting-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84 wrote:Looks like there may be more to the Grisham arrest story.

Here's the police dashcam video. Lots of obstruction going on there.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... iting-for/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... iting-for/

EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

Wow! Really?

baldeagle wrote:SMH. I can't believe you guys are celebrating his conviction. You do realize that what the cops did was wrong and what the prosecutor did was worse? That the prosecutor is anti-gun and took this case personally and pursued it until he got what he wanted? That when you go to Temple the police will now think they were right and the citizen was wrong? Hate the man if you want, but celebrate a loss for the CHL community?

Agreed, on this forum of all places.
While I think the MSgt was an idiot for carrying a AR15 on a hike, even if legal, the bottom line is its LEGAL!!!
Yet some cheer on bad police behavior. Of course until something happens to them when THEY are doing something that is legal.

sad

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

Wow! Really?

After watching that I would say 2 ego's went to war. The LEO was a bit over bearing an Grisham was defiant, Grisham lost. It seems nothing here was about the law and all about ego and who holds power.

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

Wow! Really?

Yes, that is how trials work.

C-dub wrote: Possibly. I've laid out the fallacy of that officer's and the DA's case that many others here also see. Maybe I'm the ignorant one. However, I think it was just a case where they didn't want to be shown up by that man.

Where? Did I miss it?

EEllis wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

Wow! Really?

Yes, that is how trials work.

and juries are never wrong.

Sometimes, trials come down to who has the best stroryteller or spinmeister and has very little to do with who was actually in the right or wrong.

JP171 wrote: that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong

The problem is that isn't what is being discussed, at least not by me. I have clearly stated that if the initial approach was bad then Grisham shouldn't be found guilty. The issue some seem to have is I demand people make a case based on facts and logic. Then of course when they can't name calling ensues. What are we children? Then why act like it?

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: This has nothing at all to do with CHL. The man wasn't even arrested for any firearm related crime. I haven't heard the case but at least 6 people were given the evidence and thought he was guilty so right now I'm thinking he got what he asked for.

Wow! Really?

Yes, that is how trials work.

and juries are never wrong.

Sometimes, trials come down to who has the best stroryteller or spinmeister and has very little to do with who was actually in the right or wrong.

While that's true I don't seem to get your point if there is one. If Grisham appeals he may very likely win in a higher court. I believe if you check earlier threads I even pose that possibility. I also thought he would be found guilty in the local court because IF the cop had good RS then Grisham is guilty. I figured that local officers would have a decent idea about what the local judges would except as RS. Now a higher court may very well see it different. Now you can say I'm taking the side of the officer but to me it's just plain handicapping the case so the complaining is a bit strange.

EEllis wrote:

JP171 wrote: that's always been the case unless there is video evidence to the contrary(that's not even iron clad), but if I were you I wouldn't argue or even discuss anything about police doing something that is wrong with the apologist above you, you won't change his mind nor do even convictions of police having been guilty of criminal acts make him see more than the side of the cop is ALWAYS right even if he was wrong

The problem is that isn't what is being discussed, at least not by me. I have clearly stated that if the initial approach was bad then Grisham shouldn't be found guilty. The issue some seem to have is I demand people make a case based on facts and logic. Then of course when they can't name calling ensues. What are we children? Then why act like it?

Watch the dashcam. The initial approach was bad. Therefore, he should be found not guilty according to your words. The video is factual.