TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:I wonder if the jury even got to see that video. In all that we've seen I can't see any RS to do what that officer did. It would be to that department's advantage to inform the public what that RS was. If this is what they are hanging their hat on then it's pretty thin to transparent.

EEllis wrote: Well I read a reporters account of the officers testimony, paraphrased of course, and there the main reason for the stop was the call and that the rifle was on a chest sling. You can argue about what difference that makes for RS but I've never heard any court cases about how it would affect RS and my searches came up with nothing. The whole point of carrying a rifle in such a manner is to be able to use it quicker like if you carried a gun at low ready. It definitely would be much more disconcerting walking up on someone carrying like that versus slung over the shoulder. Also mentioned in the second trial was that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road and could receive a ticket for doing so. So without anything else that would enable a custodial stop all on it's own and thus allowing the officer to disarm Grisham. Since it's the first time mentioned I don't know how the court views such things but since I know you can retroactively apply PC I wouldn't be surprised that you can do so with RS also.

tomtexan wrote: I had no idea that walking on the wrong side of the road was illegal in this state. Never have heard that. Now driving on the wrong side I could understand. But walking? And which one is the wrong side? Going with the traffic or against?

C-dub wrote:I'd say that based on how calmly that officer approached Grisham he wasn't too concerned about safety and the position with which that rifle was being carried. And being a soldier, that is probably how he is used to and comfortable carrying a rifle.

Which side of the road is the correct side? I thought I saw one place where it said he was walking against traffic, meaning the left side, but wasn't he on the right side in the dashcam? If that's what the RS boils down to that's pretty lame.

EEllis wrote:I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

E.Marquez wrote:

suthdj wrote: Exactly what I said "Railroad" not saying it ain't legal it is just wrong. JMHO. After serving as many years as he did, they force him out with no retirment that is flat out wrong.

I assume your just guessing at all this? (that's not a flame or snide comment.. just an observation, no disrespect intended)

If you can cite your source I'd love to go though what your reading.

Assuming your guessing....
1st; Admin separation has nothing to do with his retirement.
2nd; His past actions mean squat if his current actions are counter to his service obligations. As it should be.... you can be the greatest American in the history of the world last year, but be a disgrace or otherwise violate service regulations today and you deserve action.
3rd; Even if the command wanted to both separate him and deny his retirement benefits, it would take a complete separate board, convening authority, and level of approval. It's basically as big a deal as general court marshal.

Lastly, that's not railroading in any way I can see other then putting on some tinfoil. Those are black and white regulations he has access to, gets classes on, is charged with knowing and enforcing on his subordinates.. So he can not claim ignorance that he did not know his disgraceful and likely violating UCMJ actions were going to cause him issues.

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?

gringo pistolero wrote:

texanjoker wrote:I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

I sincerely hope I hear about it when the wheel turns and what goes around comes around.

C-dub wrote:

EEllis wrote:I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?