Page 6 of 10
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:52 pm
by EEllis
Beiruty wrote:
Good, As I am not a legal expert in detention/arrest business of LEOs. So we agree, that we need to see what is the RS was.
I can legally walk with a chain-saw out of Home Depot. Is there RS to be stopped and detained, if someone called me in and said; "There is a man with a chain-saw leaving Home Depot. Go check him out"
Maybe it depends. For one thing you are assuming that the chainsaw is the only thing the cop might base RS on and you are putting yourself in a situation where having a chainsaw isn't a big deal. Do you thing Grisham would of been stopped if he had carried a rifle out of a gun store? Now is there RS if you have a chainsaw and are walking down a highway.........
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:05 pm
by EEllis
C-dub wrote:
No "gotcha" intended. Only confusion at your continued appeasement of this verdict as if jury's have not been misled or flat out lied to before by prosecutors. The release of the RS would be nice because there is nothing in that video that is reasonable on behalf of the officer to validate his actions. I would think that because of the reaction of the community surrounding this arrest the department would be eager to explain themselves rather than hide their motifs like the president, his administration, and the DNC is with all their shenanigans. Maybe releasing the dashcam video was supposed to do that, but if that's all they have they are in deep trouble when it comes to the appeal.
How is it appeasement to say you can't judge the RS without knowing the RS? You don't see anything on the video but you are not a cop with years of experience and you also don't know if there are any other circumstances or evidence that also played a part in the officers RS. There is also a line between what you might think it should be, and I'm talking about all laws here, and what the courts say the law is. Several times it has been said that mere possession of a gun if legal to do so doesn't give RS but that doesn't always hold true. There was just a decision in Fed court about a civil case in Georgia that say oc of a handgun does give automatic RS. That just came out this year. Seeing that an officer could make a stop in good faith with just a gun for RS. Now whatever I personally believe and how I would want police to act you should judge it based on the actual law not what random individuals believe should hold true.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:18 pm
by EEllis
G.A. Heath wrote:I'm not a LEO or attorney, but just looking at things and thinking about the video leads me on the following train of thought:
Did the officer have RS for the stop? According to the video officers said there were complaints about someone walking around with a long gun, since we have little legal precident in Texas to determine if that is RS here who knows. We do know that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road (from a legal POV), which would have given the officer a legit reason to stop and ticket him. I believe the supreme court has ruled that an officer can disarm folks if they feel it is required for safety so the disarming of Grisham is more than likely legit from that angle. Finally the way that the officer attempted to diarm, and finally disarmed, him is questionable. Since the officer just grabbed the weapon it makes me wonder if it was a legitimate use of force under the law. If the officer was using illegal force to disarm Grisham does it change things?
If he had good RS then the officer can use force to disarm. He didn't use much force, just grabbed at the gun, and additional force was only in response to Grisham so it again goes back to RS. If the RS was good then the disarming is legal. Now a jury could find that while legal it was reasonable for Grisham to react as he did and find him not guilty, but that didn't happen. My belief is that even if they would excuse the initial reactions of Grisham the subsequent resistance would convince the jury.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:23 pm
by EEllis
C-dub wrote:I'm not questioning the right of the police to question someone like this. What I have a problem with is the officer grabbing and attempting to take the rifle away from him without any reasonable or legal basis. GAHeath has reminded us that the SCOTUS has affirmed LE has the right to disarm us in the name of safety. The only thing unsafe going on there was that officer, without warning, grabbed and tried to disarm this man that had done nothing illegal.
It's all in how you phrase a statement isn't it? You say "without any reasonable or legal basis" but we know for a fact that one court disagrees with that. You make an issue of the fact that Grisham had done nothing illegal, and that's true, but it in no way affects the legality of stopping and disarming him.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:38 pm
by Beiruty
What I would like to see in Texas and specifically due to detaining of OC is to amend the disorderly conduct by displaying a firearm or repeal it all together. Pointing a firearm unjustifiably at someone is already considered an assault. Moreover, the legislator can introduce a language to clarify when an OC could be detained/disarmed.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:43 pm
by sunny beach
If it's reasonable then a "reasonable man" would understand it. Just saying.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:13 pm
by DEB
Beiruty wrote:What I would like to see in Texas and specifically due to detaining of OC is to amend the disorderly conduct by displaying a firearm or repeal it all together. Pointing a firearm unjustifiably at someone is already considered an assault. Moreover, the legislator can introduce a language to clarify when an OC could be detained/disarmed.
This I believe is the best course we need to take, we could call it the Steven Ernis Prevention Law.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:35 pm
by suthdj
sunny beach wrote:If it's reasonable then a "reasonable man" would understand it. Just saying.
Assuming we all agree on what a "reasonable man" is.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:05 pm
by C-dub
suthdj wrote:sunny beach wrote:If it's reasonable then a "reasonable man" would understand it. Just saying.
Assuming we all agree on what a "reasonable man" is.
That does seem to be the crux of the situation, doesn't it?
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:16 am
by mojo84
It's good to see cops recognize and uphold the Constitution while not twisting the laws to show their authority. Check out some if the positive comments by some of the officers.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislatio ... aying-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:26 am
by baldeagle
EEllis wrote: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?
Yes, of course.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:29 am
by jmra
baldeagle wrote:EEllis wrote: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?
Yes, of course.
making some more popcorn
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:33 am
by 03Lightningrocks
We need the popcorn smiley.
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:38 am
by jmra
Re: MISTRIAL in Ft. Hood soldier's case for carrying AR15
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:45 am
by EEllis
baldeagle wrote:EEllis wrote: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?
Yes, of course.
I actually meant that. Were did you lay out the case because I don't remember anything that resembles your statement your sarcasm aside..
