TexasCHLforum.com

This should be interesting:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... pit/nnRSg/

C.J. Grisham is one of them, of course.

It'll be interesting to see if there are repercussions for DPS arrests that were declined by the prosecutor...

It was just a matter of time. I wish those people would go away.

"In Grisham’s case, he said the U.S. Army forced him into retirement early"

Actually that was a late action. He had demonstrated his failure as a Soldier a long time ago, it simply took a series overt actions for them to justify his removal.
Mods, if Mr Grisham is a member here still (I did not think so), then I realize this may be considered a personal attack on a fellow member, and I withdraw my comment.

joe817 wrote:It was just a matter of time. I wish those people would go away.

I don't agree with OCT tactics but arresting for no purpose is equaly bad.

suthdj wrote: I don't agree with OCT tactics but arresting for no purpose is equaly bad.

The arrests definitely had purpose. They made the problem go away. IMHO, that was the purpose. In Grisham's case, he wasn't carrying a firearm (or antique), but was carrying plastic gun. He was arrested for not leaving the capital grounds when DPS asked him to.

I understand that no one likes Grisham and that most of his antics are counter-productive. I'm simply interested in what happens on the civil side of what appears to me to be enforcement overstepping and arrest for punitive reasons. Likely OC and activists like this will create an even bigger need for DPS and other LEO organizations to have their policies really nailed down prior to these interactions.

In other words, I don't like people creating firearm drama, but I think that it's part of the "job" for LEOs to have to deal with it in a manner consistent with our laws. The arrest and no-bill is a loop hole. I don't think it should exist without consequences. Just the arrest record itself can cause substantial problems for many people.

Maybe I'm too much of a results oriented personality to see a problem with it, but when someone spends as much time and energy as CJ does to make himself a nuisance, I don't blame the PD for resolving the issue.

His use of "loopholes" to his advantage (plastic guns, etc) is well documented but the instant someone uses one against him, he's calling a lawyer. It's Karma.

This suit is not about guns. It seems to me that citizens who are breaking no laws are allowed to peaceably assemble on public property. Police can not arrest you for that. If any of us broke the law while performing the duties of our job - we would be held accountable.

I was not present so I am engaging in a bit of speculation. Perhaps the troopers arrested him for violation of Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. para a.10. and he was exposing a proscribed part of his anatomy in a public place and was reckless about whether another might have been present who was offended or alarmed by his act. Well may be not this one.

-- how about--

Sec. 42.03. OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY and he was in or near an aisle, hallway, entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others.

You can see just how easy it would be to justify an arrest under Sec. 42.03. “Pardon me sir, but you are obstructing the . . . “

They arrested Grisham for trespassing (after being told by the DPS to leave) and resisting arrest, per the article. Both charges were dropped.

Criminal trespass--Hmmm. Perhaps the Capitol steps are a "Superfund site" or a "Protected freshwater area." The problem of course is that the police just arrest. Per the recent Supreme Court ruling, a “reasonable mistake of law” renders an otherwise unacceptable act of the police reasonable (read: excusable). Pardon the inconvenient arrest--perhaps the troopers were making a “reasonable mistake of law.”

Right.. It indemnifies individual officers perhaps, but I don't see that indemnifies the department. Again, it'll be interesting...

The timing of this lawsuit is suspect to me. I have a feeling that Grisham plans to milk this as free publicity for his senate campaign, meaning that he doesn't have to use campaign money to generate name recognition. If successful this will also generate revenue for the same campaign.

I will say right up front that I don't like his/their tactics, but I would like to know exactly how protesting on the steps of the capital is trespassing. I may not like the tactics but I do support constitutional rights, regardless of the individual.

cb1000rider wrote:In other words, I don't like people creating firearm drama, but I think that it's part of the "job" for LEOs to have to deal with it in a manner consistent with our laws. The arrest and no-bill is a loop hole. I don't think it should exist without consequences. Just the arrest record itself can cause substantial problems for many people.

If CJ was involved there must be video.