Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

War Veteran Arrested for 'Rudely Displaying' Rifle

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by SJ 40, Apr 15, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stevekozak

    Stevekozak Returning video

    Nov 9, 2008
    The problem that I have with this is that just because people are scared, it should not constitute a violations. I know people that would be scared if they saw a black person ( you may insert whatever race, culture, creed here, ie: biker, punk rocker, neo-nazi skinhead) walking down their street. Do they call the police and do the police come and harrass the said black person? No (not in most places) because it is not illegal to either be black or to walk down the street. That does not negate or make less real the fear of the people that are scared to see a black man walking on their street. The carrying of a firearm, of whatever nature, is also not illegal, where it is not prohibited. Is it going to scare some people? Yes, probably so. Should it, in and of itself constitute disturbing the peace? No, no more than being black (or your pick of ethnicity, culture, etc) should. IDK, just my Sunday morning 2 cents. :wavey:
  2. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    Oddly enough, since the video is the property of the subject, there is no "complete" video to be found:whistling:

    His pawns that have posted it in every section of the forum don't even think that is odd:upeyes:

  3. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL

    Hmmm I wonder if maybe they just edited out the boring or unfocused parts to improve the overall quality of the video?
  4. OlliesRevenge


    Apr 26, 2012
    I might be splitting hairs here, but to me, "carefully edited" means I can expect to find critical bits edited here and there. This, however, appears to be 13:18 of continuous footage -- the main thing missing here is only the very beginning of the incident.

    I suspect the beginning may be missing because Grisham might be concerned that his initial actions came close to "resisting arrest" (that is likely what you would argue, no?). Given his level of agitation throughout the incident, that is what seems likely to me.

    My point is --From the standpoint of peaceful activism, Grisham did it wrong throughout the entire video (IMO), by displaying a level of aggression greater than that of the officers. Constitutional issues aside, he likely won't win the battle of public opinion -- so unless the missing footage contains something outrageous, I can't see the edit being pivotal to his cause.

    Contrast this to the Gwinnett park recording. Proesher was calm and collected throughout the ordeal, and I'm sure it helped his case.
  5. FourthPointOfContact


    Jul 23, 2007
    At first I was going to ask, "How does HE know how calm and collected I was?" and then I remembered the entire encounter was captured on digital media including the embarrassing first twenty minutes of my huffing and puffing my fat little butt around the pedestrian pathway.:running:

    I wouldn't say I was calm and collected, I'd just been disarmed by someone with an adversarial attitude and surrounded by six armed men and a boy. Or maybe it was five armed men and a boy...
    Officer Bell
    Officer Dantzler
    Corporal Kimsey
    Sergeant Chapel
    the guy who refused to give his name..
    ... and the young cadet who was observing from afar.

    Five armed men and a boy.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
  6. OhioGlock90


    Sep 1, 2011
    Columbus Ohio
    Idk I see fault in both sides here. I think the cops made some statements on the video that will get the case tossed out, however he could have made this a lot easier on himself and probably wouldn't have ended up in jail. I would think a war veteran would be a little more respectful of LEO's

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  7. OhioGlock90


    Sep 1, 2011
    Columbus Ohio
    I agree with almost all of this. My thinking is the "resisting" came from taking the camera off and handing to the boy and telling the cop to hold on when he went to cuff him...... It's a weak case. Bu as you said he was very aggressive

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  8. OlliesRevenge


    Apr 26, 2012
    But that part was seen in the beginning of the video... IF Grisham did indeed take the time to selectively edit the video, AND if he was concerned about that piece... he likely would have snipped it out.

    The more I watch this - the more I am believing that the beginning was not edited out.

    The part in question is the very beginning of the incident-- From when the officer got out of his car to the point where the officer supposedly drew his weapon and slammed Grisham on the hood of his car (from Grisham's statements below the YouTube vid) --
    The video seems to begin during the part where Grisham is "slammed on the hood of the cruiser". Given that Grisham still has the rifle on him, it seems reasonable to think that that this is very early in the incident. The only part missing is the cop pulling his gun, and executing the "hood slam".

    Grisham claims to have turned the camera on during this "hood slam".

    In my mind the real question is - "Did the Officer really pull his gun?". If that really happened, as Grisham claims, I can't imagine why he would want to edit it out of the video.

    I think there are basically two beliefs one can have here.
    1. Grisham is an "activist" who strapped on an AR, went on a ten mile hike in rural Texas with his son, and was looking for a confrontation. He either had the camera rolling for the entire hike, or was Johnny on the spot turning it on when the officer arrived. This version would believe that the officer did not pull his gun, and that Grisham is lying about that part, and thus chose to edit the very beginning of the video to conceal that fact.
    2. Grishams story about the beginning of the confrontation is true... the start of the video is unedited... and the remainder is there to be seen on YouTube.
  9. Well, when one takes part of the post out :whistling:

    Don't be overly sensitive, I am a native Texan also.

    What I said was I don't know if the officers are guilty of lawbreaking. I find them guilty of not communicating better given what was seen. I asked a ? about having to tell someone what they were arrested for. I think, as far as what is seen in the video, they did not conduct themselves to the higher standard they, rightly or wrongly, are required, IMO, to hold.

    If the man with the rifle was/is guilty of crimes, the officers as part of their job have to deal with that.

    I am amazed, if after truly reading the post, you can not understand that.

    P.S. Could you, by any chance, find for us a law regarding "rudely displaying"? I still have had no luck.
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  10. OlliesRevenge


    Apr 26, 2012
    Or maybe I was the young cadet observing from afar...:cool:
  11. Sharkey


    Nov 21, 2006
    DFW, TX
    Well I already explained how Grisham was charged go back and look.

    You can think I am overly sensitive and I don't know what you being from TX has to do with it.

    The officers dealt with Grisham, just not to your liking and you are basing that on a video that is only partial and created by Grisham.

    You'll find that communication could be better on any high risk call. Most calls don't always go 100% correct because humans are not static robots.

    I find your reply biased cuz you concentrate on the officers supposed lack of communicating but didn't mention anything on Grisham and his antics. I'll ask you I asked others on another forum: how would you approach a man with a gun call you got dispatched on and the guy cops an attitude?
  12. epd2658


    Jan 31, 2013

    Let's see....maybe Felony Stop!?!:faint:
  13. ComeAndGetThem


    Mar 31, 2007
    The only question I have is when the woman called the TPD and reported a man with a rifle was walking down the street, why did the TPD dispatcher not reply, "Ma'am, you're calling me to report legal activity."
  14. Bill Lumberg

    Bill Lumberg BTF Inventor

    Jun 14, 2002
    Becuase a dispatcher wouldn't be a dispatcher long if they assumed a call like that was not worth reporting.
  15. ComeAndGetThem


    Mar 31, 2007
    She called in to report LEGAL activity and the police responded. Texas should make open carry of a long gun illegal if the police are going to treat it as such.

    What if she had reported that he was eating a burrito while walking down the road?
  16. FourthPointOfContact


    Jul 23, 2007
    § 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
    (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
    language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

    (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

    (3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
    unreasonable odor in a public place;

    (4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

    (5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

    (6) fights with another in a public place;

    (7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

    (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

    (9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

    (10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

    (11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
    (A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
    (B) while on the premises of a hotel or
    comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or
    (C) while on the premises of a public place,
    looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

    DeafSmith, I must be missing it and your eyes are probably better than mine. Just how many people does the Texas Code define as "a lot" in the case of disorderly conduct?

    From what I've always heard about Texans, no True Texan would be disturbed by the sight of an openly and peacefully carried rifle. Maybe Texans ain't what they used to be?
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2013
  17. 300LW


    Jul 24, 2011
    "(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" has been deemed by Texas courts to essentially mean to "point a gun at someone". Simply carrying firearm does not qualify as "calculated to cause alarm". Open (or concealed) carry of long guns is legal in Texas with few exceptions and without a permit. It's my understanding that you can carry a rifle or shotgun in some places where you can't carry a handgun with a CHL, such as a bar. Not sure if I'd fell comfortable doing that, though.
  18. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    No it doesn't make more sense. If I am not mistaken, and if memory serves, you actually HEAR the cop tell him "for rudely displaying a rifle"
  19. actionshooter10

    actionshooter10 CLM

    Dec 29, 2006
    You can't shoot someone with a burrito?

    Police are REQUIRED to investigate "man with a gun calls". He would've been fine had he not acted like an asshat.
  20. ComeAndGetThem


    Mar 31, 2007
    Seriously, you need to read the landmark Supreme Court case Terry v Ohio. For the police to do what they did they must "have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous." All of those things must exist for them to even stop and frisk.

    There was NO reason to believe that a crime had been committed or was about to be.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.