Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle

There’s no way to know what exactly went down before this video starts (at least until the dashcam video is released), but at minimum, the Temple, Texas PD — including the responding sergeant on the scene — seem to be woefully misinformed about Texas and Constitutional law. And the sarge’s “we’re exempt from the law” comment is a classic of the genre. Charles Cooke at nationalreview.com talked to Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, the gun owner in question, and got his side of the story. Though he was apparently not charged, Grisham’s lost his rifle, sidearm and his CHL, at least for now. Grisham told Cooke that this has “happened in the past with other soldiers” and he believes it’s “a workaround loophole for gun confiscation.” At first blush, it would appear that the taxpayers of Temple, Texas could have some large legal bills in their future.

comments

  1. avatar Rizzy says:

    Add tar + feathers, repeat if necessary

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Jeez, you coddle them too much. Draw and quarter, repeat as necessary. Start with the officers and work your way down.

      1. avatar cg23sailor says:

        FOAD you anti-cop POS

        1. avatar dyer says:

          Same to you and every other bootlicking toadie.

        2. avatar Pat says:

          cg23sailor, you must be a worthless pig just like the ones messing with this guy for no reason. Bacon should be made out of these unAmerican swine.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          We’re not anti cop. We’re anti power tripping douchebag. Wearing a fancy uniform does not get you a pass on being a douche.

        4. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          I’ll go easier on them when the first stop killing unarmed black teens in handcuffs and stop violating good men and women’s civil liberties and stop defecating on the bill of rights, is that too much to ask?

        5. avatar Jake says:

          I like all cops I personally know to be good people. Just like I like all people I personally know to be good people. Outside of that they are just angry or oblivious looking strangers with minimal training on the guns they carry. Assuming anything better than that is illogical in the face of the level of corruption displayed by bad cops and the lack of any action by so called “good” cops against their corrupt brothers and sisters in blue, who are obviously more equal animals than others.

        6. avatar JeremyR says:

          FOAD you jack boot thug loving commie wanna be. Any officer who violates the Constitutio should face the music with out benefit of his badge. Wearing one comes with responsibility, not irresponsibility.

        7. avatar William Burke says:

          And why not!

    2. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      The arresting officer is a CHL instructor in this city as well.

      1. avatar RonOglesby says:

        Well maybe he shouldn’t be.

  2. avatar Gherkin says:

    Unreal, these COPs are way out of line. Pull this on me and I’m coming with every penny I have.

    Simply unreal.

  3. avatar Jim B says:

    Looks to me to be a fat idiot just looking to get arrested to prove a point or file a lawsuit.

    1. This wasn’t some guy walking through a city fishing for cops, he and his son were walking out in the country, in Texas, where they may run into hogs and who knows what else.

      I’m inclined to believe he just wanted to take the rifle with him, not to stir up trouble. And besides the point, the law says he can do that. The cops were clearly in the wrong this time. Blaming the “fat idiot” is victim blaming.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        The news article I read a few days ago said that he had the rifle to help his son with whatever merit badge he was working on (boy scouts, eagle scouts, I don’t remember what group). This is also not the first time the asshole cops have gone after soldiers from the local base for legally carrying.

      2. avatar MW says:

        “Looks to me to be a fat idiot just looking to get arrested to prove a point or file a lawsuit.”

        Yeah, did you see what he was wearing? He was totally asking for it.

        You’re a piece of trash. He was walking with his son in rural Texas and had every right to be armed.

    2. avatar Gherkin says:

      The law says that fat idiot was free to do what he was doing.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      That, and rudely possessing a firearm!

    4. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

      That “fat idiot” received the Bronze Star for rushing insurgents with nothing but a 9mm and a hand grenade, saving his detachment from an ambush in Afghanistan.

      1. avatar Human Being says:

        God bless America.

        Oh, and I’d note that sort of thing happens often enough with the now-all volunteer force we currently have that it only earns a bronze star these days.

      2. avatar mattp says:

        you may want to look up Michael Yon’s website he has a story about that person who was arrested I don’t believe he is what you think he is.
        Michael Yon is a war correspondent who says has spent several years with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. he is also a former soldier himself.

        1. avatar GH from Boise says:

          Michael Yon has a colorful history as well. It’s hard to say what set Mr Yon onto the topic of calling foul on this incident, but from what I can see in the video, it looks to me like the police were out of line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yon

        2. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          I’ve gone over both of these men’s stories and I don’t buy Yon’s version, it feels like a personality conflict with some good old fashioned jealousy mixed in, Grisham was awarded for his service and for some reason that really got Yon’s goat lol but whatever that doesn’t have anything to do with this, not even the lowest on the totem pole should be treated like this if they haven’t broken the law and Grisham certainly isn’t that.

        3. avatar Dr Duh says:

          My impression was that Grisham was one of several military bloggers that criticized Yon, presumably because Yon was critical of McCrystal. I have not traced out the entire war of words, but suffice to say that it has escalated to the point where words like traitor and mentally ill are exchanged, along with apparent DDOS attacks and threatened lawsuits.

          I honestly don’t know who is in the right. But FWIW, I think Yon is a good writer and his blog/facebook updates are regular but not required reading for me.

        4. avatar Off-Broadway Valerie says:

          Michael Yon also has a long and unhealthy vendetta against this soldier- though he even admitted he never even met him. Everything, and I mean everything he’s ever said about Grisham has been proven wrong. Furthermore, Yon does a terrible disservice to those with PTSD when he reinforces the stereotype that they’re “dangerous.”

        5. avatar Duke says:

          The picture Yon chose to post at the top of that article and the incredibly inflammatory headline pretty much damn any chance of credibility as to being impartial about this.

          It’s a clear case of someone with a vendetta, and having never before heard of either of these people, I’m less inclined to believe someone who is so clearly grinning ear to ear with schadenfreude.

    5. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      Fat idiot? How many years have you spent overseas hunting the enemies of the United States, huh Slim?

    6. avatar neiowa says:

      It just the vest that makes him look like a bloated out of shape donut monster. Or are you slamming the lawful gun owner?

    7. avatar Nick Geninatti says:

      Why are you automatically an idiot for getting arrested to prove a point??? Women’s suffrage movement members did it. Civil rights leaders did it. Go on dude. Explain that to me. Please. We all want to know.

    8. avatar DC in AZ says:

      I tend to agree. How is it that he just happened to have a camera? It’s people like this that make pro-2A tough. Imagine if u you were the cop and you had to roll up on a guy with an AR-15, but you have no idea who he is and what his intentions are! Do you hear the “law abiding citizen” try to comfort the cop and make his intentions clear? to ease the cop’s tension? Don’t do this sort of stuff. If a cop comes around and you have an AR-15 and camera, be as polite as possible and you will probably never need to hit the record button. Contrary to what people like to believe, not all cops are bad, just human like the rest of us.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        No idea who he is and what his intentions are? The guy was leading a Scout troop. Not exactly reason to go straight to condition red.

        Cameras? It’s 2013, they’re everywhere.

        I agree not all cops are bad, quite the opposite. I also agree be polite as possible but nowadays I’m all for hitting that record button right away. Best case scenario you record stand up cops being professional to show folks what good cops are like.

        1. avatar CAL1369 says:

          He wasn’t leading a Scout Troop. He and his son were out for a walk. Two people do not make a Troop.

      2. avatar scottlac says:

        He had a camera to record things along the way for his son’s merit badge they were working on. Notice he didn’t remember to “hit record” until the cop was already in his face and had already tried to seize the rifle.

      3. avatar Squeaker says:

        One would assume that the camera was along for use in documenting the activities he and his son were out doing for his son’s Eagle Scout troop.It was the type of strap on outdoor activites type of camera many sportsmen use. But really, cameras are everywhere. Many people at any given time will have more than 1 camera in or around their person. Phones, ipads, field cameras used in hunting, etc. It’s really not surprising at all that he had a camera, I’d even bet this was not the only one. I would also point out that we didn’t come in with the video from the start of the interaction, so we don’t see either side’s behavior that led up to the situation escalating to the point it was at once we get the video. Perhaps he was overreacting, or perhaps the cops had started off with an overly aggressive approach… it’s not something we’ll be able to truly determine until, if ever, the officer’s dash cam footage is released which would show the beginning of the incident. Hopefully that would shed more light on the situation, but I fear if it is indeed an overreaction on the police officer’s part they may be unwilling to release that footage that would portray them in a negative light.
        Just FYI, I have no ill will towards law enforcement, my own brother is a Sgt. with our county sheriff’s office and we have many friends in that group along with the city police. So, even though I feel the police were more to blame for the apparent over escalation of the situation, it’s certainly not due to any bias.

      4. avatar Guy in Ohio says:

        DC in AZ, you nailed it. I’m pro 2a all the way but there is nothing recorded that tells me that the guy with the AR ever made an effort to put the cop at ease or that he wasn’t a nut job with a gun. The vast majority of cops, especially rural cops I know, are pro gun. Try to put your self in their shoes when they roll up. In this day and age, open carry is going to get challenged. Don’t make it worse by being a d@#k head with the cop.

      5. avatar Carry.45 says:

        I absolutely agree.
        I don’t like videos like this because we have no proof to go off of. We have no way of knowing for sure who was in the wrong.

        1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          Everyone carries a camera in their pocket these days, you do not have a smartphone on you at all times? I do and I record every “Contact” that I have with anyone who could potentially F-me over.

      6. avatar rosignol says:

        I tend to agree. How is it that he just happened to have a camera?

        Seriously? I’ve got one built into my cellphone, another built into my ipod, and another built into my laptop. At least two of the three devices are within arm’s reach of me pretty much every moment I am awake.

      7. avatar Off-Broadway Valerie says:

        What a Boy Scout does to earn his Eagle Scout ranking needs to be proven and documented. That is why they brought the camera along on their hike.

      8. avatar Duke says:

        I can not believe people are defending cops saying essentially “We’re above the law” and then clearly manufacturing a resisting arrest charge on the spot.

        WTF video were you watching?

    9. avatar Pat says:

      Moron Jim, he wasnt ‘looking’ for anything. Why was he arrested?

    10. avatar Jake says:

      You have obviously walked down the road unarmed at some point and encountered a 300 lb. hog with 4 inch tusks, yeah? I bet you both politely sat down and had some tea or something like those geico commercials.

  4. avatar Bob says:

    Welcome to “gun friendly” Texas. You’ll find some of the worst cops here.

    1. avatar dave c says:

      If this state only lived up to its hype…

      1. avatar 16V says:

        …I would have moved there 20 years ago.

        But between months each in Dallas, Houston and Austin… don’t believe the hype.

        1. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

          You have to get out of the big cities, infested with radical liberals. I grew up in a small town where ranchers had a rifle in a rack in their pickups. There were mostly good LEOs, but one was a total a-hole. Bear in mind some get into law enforcement for the right reasons and some get into to bully people with a free pass.

        2. avatar Bob says:

          TX Gun Gal – Temple Texas IS a small town!

        3. avatar JC79 says:

          And this is why I am planning on moving out of the “Big” City to a smaller town or suburb.

        4. avatar JeremyR says:

          Bob, at 66 thousand, it aint a small town. It may be a small CITY, but its an entirely diffrent mind set. the small town mindset is where every one knows the local cops by name, knows their wife and kids, and even the town dirtbag addresses him by his first name. Simple enough for you?

  5. avatar FrankM says:

    It seems that he was charged with a misdemeanor. They lowered it from a Class A to a Class B, though.

    I don’t wish for any harm to come to law enforcement officers but I’m tired of the “officer safety” excuse whenever they blatantly break the law. There are a bunch of YouTube videos with folks challenging officers but only thing that will stop this is are law suits that cost the local governments enough money that they start training their officers to respect our rights.

    Here’s a link to give money to his legal defense fund if anyone’s interested.
    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2nd-amendment-legal-defense-fund

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Problem is, they simply budget for litigatory payouts. If some citizen costs them more than they anticipated, the locality will just budget more for next year.

      It’s gotta be a REALLY BIG payout – I’m talking about TENS of MILLIONS big.

      1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        I would forego a municipal settlement in favor of legal costs and the cop’s dismissal and pension.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          Sounds like a good start. Add a flogging to the list so the next cop thinks twice about smearing the character of his employer, the citizen.

      2. avatar Pat says:

        He may get money (I hope) but not tens of millions.
        Stupid power hungry pig should be made to squeal.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      “Officer safety” usually translates to “Officer coward”.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        or officer asshole

        1. avatar APBTFan says:

          Still need to make kimchi pierogie!

      2. avatar Matt in FL says:

        And the scared dog is the one that bites.

      3. avatar cg23sailor says:

        Actually it translates to Anti-Cop asshast not knowing WTF he is talking about.

        1. avatar Pat says:

          Stop covering up for your dirty commie piggy friends.

        2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          Maybe you need to read the article.

        3. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          troll much?

    3. avatar scottlac says:

      An misdemeanor what? What was the actual crime they finally decided on?

  6. avatar Paul says:

    As far as I can tell, the only statute related to the open carry of a long arm is the Disorderly Conduct statute, PC 42.01. All the other firearms carry statutes only relate to handguns. PC42.01 states: “(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: …(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.” So, this is why he was only charged with interfering with an officer, which is covered in § 38.15.
    “INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
    interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
    (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
    performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
    law;”

    I think it’s going to be pretty hard for them to prove his actions constituted criminal negligence. Also, 38.15 (d) states: “(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
    the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged
    consisted of speech only.”

  7. avatar Matt says:

    Looks like the dirt bag cops went back to think of some reason not to let him go. Our country is lost.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Lost, but recoverable. What it will take, I have no idea.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        We could start with revoking the 19th Amendment. It would be followed up with the next election kicking many police-nanny state progressives out of office. Never forget which sex it was whose overwhelming support at the voting booth brought the German Nazis and Italian Fascists to power.

        1. avatar Peter says:

          Or how about restricting voting to property owners, regardless of sex.

  8. avatar scottlac says:

    And some of you good folks think Texas is the promised land of gun rights. You keep skipping over Kentucky where we still understand these things.

    1. avatar Michael F. says:

      And Arizona.
      And my home state of Indiana isn’t too shabby itself.

      1. avatar scottlac says:

        And KY is close enough to the North East to drive back home and visit relatives (if you dare) and remind yourself why you moved.

        1. avatar OHgunner says:

          I second KY. Fantastic state, very gun friendly and lots of places to shoot

      2. avatar blehtastic says:

        Ohio, Tennessee…

      3. avatar APBTFan says:

        Arizona is gun owners’ bliss. Worst ranking from the Brady’s and best rating from Guns and Ammo.

        http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/

        1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          Well besides McCain, he kinda scary lately. We have Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn and Rick Perry, these are just Barney Fife’s in the video.

        2. avatar APBTFan says:

          McCain’s been sliding since he ran for Prez.

        3. avatar Leo338 says:

          Texas isn’t even in the top 10! I don’t care if Texas were number 1, there are plenty of more reasons NOT to move there.

    2. avatar Robb says:

      Yeah. Plus, we have high property taxes, sub par schools(on average), a high illegal immigrant population, weather that changes by the hour, and fire ants in every yard . Please, y’all quit moving here.

    3. avatar Mike B says:

      I dont think anybody can argue against Tennessee or Kentucky being “gun lover paradise” but its damn sure better than most of the the others.

  9. avatar Shenandoah says:

    I fully support our honest and hard working police officers out there who conduct themselves accordingly. I know your jobs involve long hours, little appreciation, and a shit ton of dirt bags.

    This is one instance, however, where the appropriate response is “F^CK THE PO-LEECE!”

    These mouth breathing excuses for cops look straight outta Porky’s.

  10. avatar Michael F. says:

    Made my blood boil.

  11. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    Lately, as I read more and more about these stories of law enforcement overstepping their grounds and ironically that I had a run in with some horrible ass Tx LEO’s this weekend, these people think they are better than you and that they are untouchable. You either become a cop because youre a bully and want to maximize your douchebaggery or you want to help citizens and uphold the status quo.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      It’s more than they “think” they are untouchable, they really are. Fellow officers, supervisors, the sergeant, all the way up to the police chief and mayor do every thing they can to make sure their officers don’t get punished for their crimes.

      Usually, they get rewarded with extra paid vacation. The message is: behave badly, get paid to play golf.

      It’s not a “thin blue line” it’s a thick hardened-steel blue wall.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        Sadly that is disturbingly true.

        Who knows how it is in Arizona now but the last time I got pulled over was many, many moons ago by a Highway Patrolman on I-17 between Phoenix and Flagstaff. I was doing 90+ and blew right by him. In my rear view I saw him cross the divider to go after me so I knew I was busted and just pulled over and waited for him to catch up to me. I had a loaded .44 Mag in a backpack on the passenger seat and told him about it right away. He asked if I was going to grab for it and I told him not in this lifetime and he was cool with it for the rest of the stop. Also told him I had no damn excuse for speeding and got off with a warning for my honesty.

  12. avatar Bruce B. says:

    Just rhetorically – Why should a law abiding citizen allow himself to be disarmed, deprived of his property, and taken into custody by a “law enforcement” officer who blatantly states “we’re exempt from the law”? Should we allow ourselves to be manhandled and degraded by some jerk in a really snappy uniform who is willing to state ON CAMERA that he is above the law. And I totally endorse the gentlemans comment that any officer that feels threatened merely to be in the presence of a lawfully armed citizen is a sorry excuse for a policeman. When I was a Game Warden nearly everyone I approached was armed. We normally worked in pairs, but I spent many a shift solo. Out in the middle of nowhere. Approaching people who were armed. All – Day – Long. And unless I had a strong and sufficient reason, I treated them with the courtesy and dignity due a citizen of our free country. My fellow officers would have laughed me out of the unit for a hysterical, over the top, pussified reaction such as is on display in the video. When did we cease to require common courtesy and common sense from our boys in blue? There are going to be some of the armed citizenry who might make a different computation from the above outcome. Incidents like the above will lead to an escalation in violent confrontations. If our official “law enforcement” representatives make it clear they are not going to enforce the law, why calmly comply?

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      I met three very cool LEO’s in Wyoming (two National Park Rangers and a Game Warden). Despite me being a guest from NJ, they didn’t bat an eye or make a single comment about the GP100 on my hip, openly carried while I was accompanying my brother on an elk hunt (archery season). In fact, they divulged some hunting tips, we all had nice conversations, and even shared a camp fire with the off-duty Game Warden. I deeply respect LEO’s who deeply respect everyone’s rights. Fatty’s like the above… not so much.

      1. avatar APBTFan says:

        Casper PD are good people. I ended up meeting them thanks to my leadfoot second cousin.

        Nice call on the GP-100 by the way.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      “Why should a law abiding citizen allow himself to be disarmed, deprived of his property, and taken into custody by a “law enforcement” officer who blatantly states “we’re exempt from the law”?”

      Because any other direction will do no good and end bad. Letting them do unconstitutional shit won’t hurt you at the moment and will only bolster your case in court. Getting too uppity at the scene will never win that battle. The real battle is in court after the fact. The fuzz getting ruled against and having to fork over cash has a great chance of the rank and file being told to knock it off when it comes to effin’ with people over some bullcrap like “rudely displaying”.

      1. avatar Centauri says:

        You missed the part about how “forking over cash” means YOU fork over the cash, plus the rest of the taxpayers. The asshole who violated your rights won’t pay a penny. The only reason this misbehavior on the part of cops continues is because there is a lack of personal consequences.

        If you approached a stranger on the street the way that cops approach people and interacted with them the same way, doing something illegal that represents aggression against their natural rights (Life, Liberty, Property), they’d have every right to defend themselves from your aggression and that includes using deadly force.

        If we want change, we have to inspire people not to encourage illegal acts of aggression or other misbehavior by submitting to it, then only pursuing remedies which only further penalize the innocent. That’s got to stop. Personal consequences will change the behavior.

        1. avatar John Bergmann says:

          Seems to me there was a SCOTUS case in the early 20th where a man killed an officer for an illegal arrest. He was cleared of charges. I can’t recall the specifics, sorry.

        2. avatar JFP says:

          That was the John Bad Elk case.

        3. avatar APBTFan says:

          I understand you’re point about where the cash comes from but is there any better way to drive home the point than cash? They don’t change policy out of the goodness of their hearts. I’d rather see an unfairly harassed individual get the chunk of change they were hoping to buy an MRAP with.

        4. avatar Michael B. says:

          They’ve learned from Bad Elk. Now if someone ever does that, the gang goes after ’em and will murder them even if they try to surrender.

        5. avatar rosignol says:

          You missed the part about how “forking over cash” means YOU fork over the cash, plus the rest of the taxpayers. The asshole who violated your rights won’t pay a penny.

          Perhaps it is time to consider requiring the police union to take out an insurance policy to cover legal settlements due to the conduct of the members of the union. Premiums paid by the union membership, not the municipality- if there is a significant amount of misconduct, the premiums will go up, and the cops will be the ones paying, not the taxpayers.

          If the good cops drum out the @-holes who somehow got badges, rates should stay low.

        6. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          This is perfect.

      2. avatar Michael B. says:

        You missed the part about how “forking over cash” means YOU fork over the cash, plus the rest of the taxpayers. The asshole who violated your rights won’t pay a penny. The only reason this misbehavior on the part of cops continues is because there is a lack of personal consequences.

        Ding ding ding. Winner. Sovereign immunity is a B.S. concept that needs to go.

      3. avatar JeremyR says:

        How about this? Let his fellow officers decide his fate. They can choose to A. Each fork over $100,000 cash or B. Execute him by firing squad and pay all the agrieved party’s legal bills. If they agree to fork over cash, tattoo his face with the words BAD COP NO DONUT.

  13. Rule number one: Texas Constitution states clearly that military are subordinate to Law Enforcement. Therefore, this guy was being rude. Talking trash to an officer is a quick way to get yourself in big trouble.

    However, Law Enforcement may not stop, search, or disarm civilians without probable cause. Talking shit does not help. Arguing with the officer does not help.
    Yelling at the officer and giving attitude only makes it worse.
    I don’t think this guy will win against this Police Department.

    1. avatar dave c says:

      Their is no excuses for either gentlemen’s behavior. This is why these cases get lost at times.

      Notice the disorderly conduct quote though:

      “(a) A person
      commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
      interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
      (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
      performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
      law
      ;””

      Clearly that charge won’t stick either. I think this will end up as a wash.

      There is no good answer though. Voluntarily disarm and be subjucted to illegal searches, seizures and god knows what else and have your day in court, OR fight the police and lose with a disorderly conduct charge and a weaker case in court.

      This will not be solved easily or within the confines of life as we know it. Will it be solved? I don’t know, but we are in for interesting times and I’m fairly certain my 29 year old eyes will see a whole lot by the time they close for the last time.

      1. I can show you a video of a “Veteran Police Officer” in Houston that did the same thing that this “Active Duty Sergeant” did in Temple. The result was the same: The officer was taken to jail, lost his firearm, was the ridicule of his department, lost his TCLEOSE, and was reprimanded by his superiors.

        I can show you a video of a Justice of the Peace in El Paso, TX that was almost the same thing (1976)…. He got his too. Bottom line: If you think a Cop is out of line (and some cops are jerks!), bring it to the attention of the people that can do something about it – and **Texas takes Officer Conduct very serious**!!!

        But if you wanna throw a fit and act like a three year old when you don’t get your way, you should not be out teaching your son how to be an Eagle Scout…. or carrying a loaded weapon!

      2. avatar Off-Broadway Valerie says:

        Key words, “…imposed or granted by law.”

        What law granted the officers the “duty” to take a firearm without asking the man to put them down first? What law granted the officers the “duty” to not explain whether or not the man was breaking any law when he asked if he was? What law granted the officers the “duty” to only ask for his concealed carry permit after he was already cuffed and unable to present it? What law granted the sergeant the “duty” to detain and question the man’s minor son without a parent or attorney present?

    2. avatar Bob says:

      The cop was the perpetrator, the instigator. Everything that happened after that is irrelevant. The cop should be fired, along with the other enabler cops on the scene.

      1. avatar dave c says:

        Fired is not enough, if I did this to this gentlemen, he could have damn near rightfully shot and killed me. Assuming I hadto use force, I’m pretty sure under TX law he could have. What makes an officer any different? Maybe that’s why he believes the laws don’t apply to him. The threat of consequences for one’s actions always plays a role in decision making.

        I just wish we had the first part of the encounter on tape, with audio. Who is the local FOIA guy? Maybe I should study up on FOIA requests and start filling that role.

        1. avatar dave c says:

          But in the eyes of the law, I’m not so sure having that weapon slung in the ready position like that, clipped into a backpack strap, might not be causing alarm, or construed as such by an officer. A Temple, TX city officer… There is never enough information in cases like these and that’s why both sides will probably end up getting thrown out. But I’m just arm chair quarterbacking like the rest of you.

        2. Yes: The Officer probably did something wrong…. BUT… what the Army Sergeant did after that totally obscures and confuses the whole issue. It might have been possible to teach this Officer a Lesson if the CHL had simply stayed in the “Adult” Ego Stage.

          Because he did not, all was lost.

  14. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

    Your knees are getting awfully dirty Thomas.

    1. If you have a CHL you must have discussed remaining in the “Adult” stage. I suppose that you also missed the question about “It is better to respond than it is to react”… but then again, you only needed a 70% to pass, Right?

  15. avatar Nobody says:

    There was a time when folks in their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and older defended the actions of “law enforcement” folks nearly without exception.
    Today, too many in the LE community have grasped onto the “steroid super cop” mentality, and they look for nothing less than complete submission. They treat older folks as “potential threats” at every encounter.

    Some wonder why TTAG seems to be anti-cop. That’s not really the case.
    It’s more that cops have, oftentimes, become anti-citizen. We would love to support LE, but too often they won’t let us.

    To the LE community that are steroid infested scum looking for submission, you’re the reason I keep a video camera.

    To the LE community that serves the community, thank you.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      TTAG is a blog, it’s an inanimate entity. It can’t be anti anything.

      There is nothing wrong with heaping well-deserved scorn on bad actors in society. Bad actors wearing badges do not get a pass.

    2. avatar blehtastic says:

      I believe that 80% to 90% of law enforcement should be plainclothes detectives. It should be extremely rare that officers walk a beat or drive around in a cruiser to “act as a deterrent”. They should be out there investigating crimes and solving them, not harrassing people and taking care of things that responsible citizen CCW holders should take care of themselves.

      Only under extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters or riots should we ever see large numbers of law enforcement in their uniforms.

      1. avatar dave c says:

        Second that one.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        The sheeple want/expect that the police exist to “protect” them. And they will, when they are around. And it’s convient. But have not duty to do so and not liable for not protecting. When seconds count the police are minutes way.

        Someone tell Grisham that adults don’t call ANYONE “Dude”.

        1. avatar Gyufygy says:

          Screw you, dude. :p

        2. avatar TEMPLETON says:

          Seriously, Dude?

        3. avatar Carry.45 says:

          Oh the times they are a-changing….

        4. avatar Pat says:

          Where is a White Russian when you need one.

      3. Have you ever read the PEELIAN PRINCIPLES? You would find them very interesting.

  16. avatar tangledthorns says:

    If the cops are being dicks be polite then sue their asses if they violate your rights.

    1. avatar dave c says:

      But when does the day come that enough is enough? When you lose in court and get hit with a Misdemeanor? Felony?

      Why is there no criminal recourse to the officers violating these individual’s liberties that I and others hold so dear?

      The Blue Curtain or whatever you have to call it is ridiculous. Officers should err on the side of liberty, as I’m sure they’d be pissed if I acted in violations of their liberties that they hadn’t already willfully given up.

      1. avatar Pat says:

        Get the name and badge number. After legal options and the sun goes down……..a pig roast. Get them at night when the badge comes off. Of course, the offense must be truly worthy of justifiable action.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      Bound to garner vitriol but if you’re white it’s harder to win a case like that. A white dude carrying an AR will likely be labeled a “psycho tea party anti government whack job”.

  17. avatar SightPicture says:

    “Rudely Diplaying “???

  18. avatar Skyler says:

    I would advise the master sergeant to not try to debate someone while he is being handcuffed. It’s game over, or at least on pause. Yelling at a cop that is arresting him is just stupid, and nothing but stupid. It does no good and it tends to give them a reason to charge you with resisting arrest.

    There’s a time to shut up, and that time came when the cop laid his hands on his weapon. What I’ve seen reported is that in the initial unfilmed part is that the MSgt shoved the cop. I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. Now he’s putting himself in jeopardy of some prosecutor trying to make an example of him. Had he resisted the impulse to shove the cop and kept his mouth shut he would have had a better day would be more likely to succeed in a civil suit. As it is, he looks bad. He might be right in principle, maybe, but he really handled this badly. He’s a bit stoked up on his own importance as a master sergeant.

    He resisted arrest. He went from a stupid move by a cop into resisting arrest. Stupid. You have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, but his shoving and then his loud debating and insisting on being arrested the way he wanted to be arrested doesn’t help him in explaining to a judge that his arrest was unlawful.

    And he needs to be put on a weight control program, if the army has such a thing.

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      Where did you see him shove the cop? Since I only saw the police breaking the law, I would tend to believe the sergeant not anything the police say. I hope he sues for millions of dollars, and gets all the officers fired. Perhaps that will send a message.

      I am surprised the police did not take the camera.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham

        ‘Where you going with that rifle?’ he asked me. I said, ‘does it matter? Am I breaking any laws?’” Then, he says, the officer “grabbed the rifle without telling me – but it was attached to me. My immediate reaction as a combat veteran was to grab it back and then take a step back. I asked him what he was doing. So he pulled his gun on me. Then I thought about my son, so I put my hands off my gun and he told me to move over to the car.

    2. avatar Peter says:

      A police officer attempting to illegally take his firearm is assault.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        And your point? Yes it was likely an assault, but the place to argue is in court where you’re less likely to get shot.

    3. avatar TEMPLETON says:

      He wasn’t under arrest until the very end. In fact, he continually asked why he was being detained with no answer.

  19. avatar ChuckN says:

    For me, however, this scene raises a very interesting question.
    Do you have to comply if you are being detained/arrested
    illegally? We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse if
    we break it. So what’s the playbook if a LEO detains/arrests
    you out of ignorance? I’ve always regarded it as good practice
    to ask for a LEO from an another agency, refuse any commands
    and sit tight until they arrive. For instance if you have a
    problem with local PD call for a Sheriff’s Deputy or State
    Trooper. I’ve responded to several fires and accidents over the
    years where a local PD has tried to take over command of
    fire department operations (regardless of law and incident
    jurisdiction). Once after a car accident, I was threatened with
    arrest because I sent my ambulances with critically wounded
    victims to the hospital without waiting for an okay from a
    responding LEO. In many of these case I’ve had to have the
    LEO removed from the scene. At no time did I comply with
    their directives because they had no authority and (in my
    cases) could have ended with someone being injured or killed.
    Anyway, thoughts?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      If a citizen peon doesn’t know the law, they get to live in a cage. If a cop doesn’t know the law, well, nothing, absolutely nothing.

      1. avatar dave c says:

        My point exactly… Send rats to the cages.

        I guess I’m not part of the Praetorian Guard though…

        Read this…

        https://mises.org/daily/2749/The-Song-That-Is-Irresistible-How-the-State-Leads-People-to-Their-Own-Destruction

        “States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war — not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects.”

    2. avatar Skyler says:

      You have a common law right to resist an unlawful arrest.

      That being said, you’d better be very careful about doing it. The scale of things that might be worth resisting arrest for are like if they are arresting you as a pretense of dragging you out to a field to execute you. Or if they are arresting a woman as a pretense of bringing her someplace to rape her.

      Sure you have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, but the better plan is to not risk getting your guts blown out by a shotgun blast by a cop who now feels like you are a threat to him because you just shoved him.

      This man is lucky to be alive right now and he has transformed what might have been a clear violation of his rights into a very murky situation that will be very, very expensive for him no matter what happens.

      And don’t talk to the cops. What a fool.

    3. avatar benny says:

      can we as citizens actually ask for a state trooper or another agency if we are being harassed by local LEO??

      1. avatar ChuckN says:

        Yes. Just remember that while some LEOs will
        comply with the request others will become
        aggravated. However, if the LEO refuses to call
        and does not allow you to, it’s time to get
        worried. A lone LEO, might be just a jerk on a
        power trip, or they might not be an officer at all
        but a crook in disguise (literally not figuratively)

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    Grisham said, “I’ve tried to tell my son that this isn’t normal; that police officers don’t walk around doing this. He’s developed an unrealistic fear of police officers.”

    Well, then, something good has come of this after all. What that cop did is totally normal, and fear of police officers is anything but unrealistic. I’m not saying that every cop is bad. But anyone who thinks that every cop is good is going to be completely screwed some day. Bet on it.

    The kid is now prepared for a world where there are evil cops who will think nothing of dropping a nickel bag on some kid or sticking a plunger handle up a guy’s @ss.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      As a “law-abiding citizen” I’m far more afraid of the police than street criminals. Street criminals don’t have a police force protecting them from the repercussions of committing crimes such as police brutality, false arrest, harassment, attacking, kidnapping and caging peaceful people who have harmed or threatened no-one, simply because they possessed a plant some assholes in suits don’t seem to like…

      If I’m violently attacked by a street criminal I can shoot him. If I’m violently attacked by a cop (happens all the time), I can’t do anything other than submit or I’ll be killed.

    2. avatar Duzt says:

      yup and getting your asked kicked while your maced will give you that same unnatural fear… i know personally. gotta love ny, tx dont actually seem much better in this regard. tho if u shoved one up here an no camera was around you would most likely be missing a few teeth at the least.

    3. avatar g says:

      Having a healthy fear of what a bad cop can do to you is a lesson pretty much every responsible parent should teach their child… sad facts.

  21. avatar Rydak says:

    I have no sympathy for this assclown. He does not represent us. The officer was simply answering a complaint and wanted to talk to the man and all he wanted to do was to argue and make an incident out of it. If he simply answered the officers questions, he would have been out of there in like two minutes.

    I don’t care about his previous service, its his current conduct that I am concerned about.

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Your knees are also getting dirty Rydak. The cops should have told the complainer that the citizen was not breaking any laws.

      1. avatar Rydak says:

        The problem with this case is like many similar ones, the citizen tries to hold court right there at the side of the road. Not a good place for it at all. The officer needs to secure the weapon and then speak with the subject so that he can answer the call and make his report and get back to whatever else he was doing.

        Now that could be for 10 seconds, like we saw in many other videos that the police were congratulated on their behavior, OOOORRRRR, it could be for a very long time and involve handcuffs, due to an obvious non-compliant and aggressive attitude like this jack-wagon.

      2. avatar Rydak says:

        “The cops should have told the complainer that the citizen was not breaking any laws.”
        How would the officers come to that conclusion exactly ?

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Over the phone. Things really aren’t that complicated.

        2. avatar Steve says:

          hmmmm. because he wasn’t?

          Look. I can walk through the Olyipia Washington (RED) State capitol with an AR-15 slung across my back, and not get taken to jail. And this happens in rural Texas?

          The cops ego’s, as so often happens, got in the way. There is NO obligation to say “sir”, to a cop.

        3. avatar Ash says:

          Fairly easily,

          “is the individual engaged in any nefarious activities besides walking with his son and carrying a ‘deathStick’? No…well you are aware Sir or Ma’am that it is perfectly legal in the great state of Texas to openly carry a weapon without fear of reprisal from fellow citizens or law enforcement?”

          Does that sound ok to you, or is it normal for officers to harass law abiding citizens for engaging in their Constitutionally protected Rights?

    2. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

      We don’t know what happened before the video was started, had the police officer did in fact attempted to take the mans rifle without explanation I would be pissed off as well. But you are right, we should just submit to anything the police tell us to do. Even if it is illegal and unjustified. we should Just submit and don’t make any waves.

      That sarcastic spouting out of the way I agree he could of handled himself better but I 100% understand why he was pissed and showed it.

      1. avatar Rydak says:

        I don’t think anyone said we should just do whatever the police tell us, but walking with an AR15 , in front of your chest, not over the back, in broad daylight…..you have to know the police *May* be stopping you for a few questions, and when they do, they are gonna want to check to see that your not prohibited from possessing a firearm….which is what these officers said over and over.

        1. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

          Again we don’t know what happened before the video but if the man is telling the truth then the cops are in the wrong. If the cops are doing something illegal then why should he have to just go along with it.

          “they are gonna want to check to see that your not prohibited from possessing a firearm” Again the man said they did not follow standard procedure. The officer tried to take the rifle without asking for it, he tried to use force. If the officer did in fact ask politely and follow standard procedure then they were in the right, but again we don’t know.

    3. avatar Skyler says:

      I’m pretty sure even a game warden can stop someone carrying a rifle and ask him questions.

      1. avatar Bruce B. says:

        Stopping and asking questions is a far cry from basically telling the guy, “We don’t CARE what the law is. You scared somebody. You scared ME. You haven’t broken any law, but let’s see if we can’t charge you for something anyway.” Cops like this are going to use up all the good will, all the benefit of the doubt that has historically been their due.I’m an OFWG, ex-law enforcement, always been very pro-cop. I’ve walked in those shoes. But “To Protect and Serve” meant something to me. Not “To Dominate and Subjugate”. I’ve got war stories. And included in them are the many times I gave an out of gas motorist a ride to and from the nearest fuel station. And the two occassions I drove my LTD cruiser 30 miles to the hospital in a blizzard with a woman in labor in the back seat cause the roads were closed. “Not yet lady! Not yet!” Those guys DID pay my salary! Scenes like this video have me questioning the habits and attitudes of a life time. At what point do you decide some scaredy little storm trooper does not have the right to make up infractions on the spot? At what point do you decide this is not the version of the Land of the Free that you were born in?This s*** is going to get bloody if these types of clashes become more common. Yes, I think so.

    4. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      He’s a currently enlisted Military intelligence Officer.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Which is it. Enlisted or an officer? In either case, needs to get on the loadmaster program. And so does the cop.

        1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          me not tipe so gud, so draw on sween wif cryon.

          Enlisted, my bad.

  22. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

    You guys are all wrong, the police were clearly justified… it’s for the children.

  23. avatar Silver says:

    I’m sure other police officers will be appalled by their brother in blue and stop at nothing to prosecute him. Just like Holder will seriously vow to arrest any who violate the registry-keeping of the M-T act.

    Fear of traitors in political office taking away our rights, fear of “peace officers” regularly acting as jackbooted thugs with no repercussion. Is this really America?

    1. avatar Bruce B. says:

      When I wore the blue (Oh, Christ. PROMISED I wouldn’t tell war stories!) we were self regulating. Hard to file a formal complaint, etc. But as an example, we had one of these little jack booted tough guys who loved to provoke bar fights. One Friday nite he stuck his little bantam chest out and started acting very heavy handed till someone took him up on it. He called for back up and EVERYONE was busy. Two weeks in the hospital for Mr. Sooper Troop. He didn’t last 6 months after that. You can’t do the job if you can’t trust your backup. And he couldn’t. Worn out his bond with his fellow officers. But what happens if this kind of conduct becomes the norm? What happens if officers wear out their bond with the citizens?

  24. avatar KB says:

    I donated $100 to his legal defense fund.

    The only thing we can do is fight each and every one of these gun rights vioations.

    1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      /Salute.

    2. avatar Rydak says:

      Without knowing what took place prior to the camera rolling….you may have wasted a Benjy bro..

      1. avatar Bruce says:

        His son is working on his Eagle Scout. I would tend to trust what he said over the cop from what I saw.

      2. avatar ian says:

        Statist boot licker.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Where you going with that rifle?’ he asked me. I said, ‘does it matter? Am I breaking any laws?’” Then, he says, the officer “grabbed the rifle without telling me – but it was attached to me. My immediate reaction as a combat veteran was to grab it back and then take a step back. I asked him what he was doing. So he pulled his gun on me. Then I thought about my son, so I put my hands off my gun and he told me to move over to the car.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham

        Read this before contributing.

        1. avatar DJ says:

          He’s lucky that guy didn’t have the same immediate reaction I would have as a combat veteran. I think I would have butt stroked the dude. And I believe I would have done it without thinking about it, because that is what I was trained to do if someone grabbed my weapon.

  25. avatar Ben Branam says:

    The police officer was just afraid and didn’t know what to do. They are just taught tone afraid of guns and cuff and disarm everyone until they figure what is going on. Seems both sides got pretty pissed. Old saying “you can beat the rap, but you ain’t going to beat the ride.” Sad that police officer aren’t getting better training.

  26. avatar Don says:

    Going to be kind of hard to explain what resisting he was doing when it took them about 15 minutes to choose to arrest him.

  27. avatar Juliesa says:

    FYI for Farago, since he’s moving to Austin, Temple is a speed trap if you’re going to be driving up to DFW. Most places between SA and DFW on I-35 you can just go with the flow, but do NOT speed through Belton and Temple.

    1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      I can vouch for this, it’s true.

      1. avatar benny says:

        Ennis is the same way if you, for any reason, take 45.
        a good rule of thumb for speeding: the smaller the town, the more likely its a speed trap.

  28. avatar Pwrserge says:

    Seriously Master Sgt. You should know better. Even if the cop is completely full of shit, it serves nobody to escalate the incident. Just put the rifle on the deck and step away. If they take it without cause, you have a big fat lawsuit. Giving porky the wonder pig cause to cuff you is just stupid.

    Also, invest in a 3 point sling. That way you can carry muzzle down across your back in condition 3 and transition to your front in condition 1 in less than five seconds. Carrying a loaded rifle slung across your chest, while legal in TX, may not be the wisest move.

    1. avatar Ash says:

      …and this is the problem, “while legal in the state of TX, may not be the wisest move”. Why not? Because he is protected from unjust search and seizures as stated in the 4th Amendment? This man was doing nothing wrong, as much as we would like to fault him for acting like a douche that doesn’t give one once of cause to the police to stop him for anything. He was clearly protected by Texas law in openly carrying his weapon. The officer could ask him to comply but at no point was there any reason for him to be detained and subjected to a search.

      It is extremely sad that, even on this board, people find it is acceptable for LEO’s to violate a persons Constitutional Rights just because he possesses a firearm.

      1. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

        From my point of view I don’t really think he was being a douche.

        1. avatar ian says:

          The people calling him a douche are Statist boot lickers who believe that:
          Rule 1: Cops are always right
          Rule 2: Refer to rule 1.

      2. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Don’t get me wrong. It’s not acceptable. But let’s be honest… This is clearly a case of “just because you can, does not mean you should.” The cops have no way to tell what the situation is and simply slinging the rifle may have avoided the entire incident. When we carry arms, it’s our responsibility to avoid stupid situations. Most importantly… The side of the road is not the place to argue about Constitutional rights. Once the officer gets going STFU, and get a lawyer.

  29. avatar Matt in FL says:

    “You did not ask me for my gun; you just started taking it from me. That is not how you disarm a citizen. If you’d have said, ‘Sir will you hand me the gun?’ or ‘Sir will you drop the magazine?’ I would have done just that…”

    “I will not be in the habit of doing that for anybody with a firearm, because that’s dangerous.”

    “What, just because a guy’s got a firearm he’s dangerous.”

    “Yes, sir.”

    “See, that’s the problem with the police force today, isn’t it?”

    “No sir, that’s the world today.”

    “Yes it is. I’m an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran.”

    “And what would you do if you came up to somebody that was armed like that in Iraq?”

    “This isn’t Iraq, dude.” {Cop: “Doesn’t matter.”} “We’re in Temple, Texas.” {Cop: “People shoot you just as quick here as they would anywhere in the world.”}

    The whole conversation just makes me shake my head.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Oh, and I’ll be very curious to see the dash-cam, if and when it’s ever released.

      1. avatar C. Walther says:

        “I’ll be very curious to see the dash-cam, if and when it’s ever released.”

        Just ask for it. The department might fight ya on it and/or drag their heels, but the Public Information Act we have is pretty heavily canted towards the average citizen versus .gov departments, and I can’t think of any compelling reason the dashcam vid would fall under protected status.

    2. avatar DJ says:

      F@ck that attitude. You wear a uniform – you assume risk. You don’t like that – do all of us a favor an become a grocery clerk or something more in line with your natural proclivities.

      I am sick and tired of “officer safety” being an excuse for civil rights violations. Or “politician safety” for that matter. You are a public servant.

      Deal with that or quit.

      But none of the little tin pot dictators ever quit. They like the rush they get from bullying.

      1. avatar James MacKenzie says:

        [i]You wear a uniform – you assume risk. You don’t like that – do all of us a favor an become a grocery clerk or something more in line with your natural proclivities.[/i]
        The old saying “Better judged by 12, than carried by 6” applies to cops as well as other folks. If I were a police officer dealing with someone accused of brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner, I would want the subject to put down the gun until I assess the situation. Since I’m no quick-draw champion, that’s the best way to ensure my safety if the subject turns hostile.
        Cops deal with people who are drunk, stoned, deranged, or just stupid and antisocial on a daily basis. They can’t tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys at a glance: To do their job, the police need armed subjects to stand down while they assess the situation, not dig in their heels about their rights while carrying a gun in a position where it can be readily used.
        I’ve dealt with police or been pulled over while armed on several occasions and I’ve never had a problem. I always make sure that the officer knows what he’s dealing with and I keep my hands well clear of any weapons. Once the officer sees that I don’t pose an immediate threat to his safety, he relaxes and we can resolve our business with mutual respect.

        1. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

          “If I were a police officer dealing with someone accused of brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner, I would want the subject to put down the gun until I assess the situation. ”

          I agree but according to Grisham the officer just attempted to take the rifle without asking him for possession. If Grisham had been waving the gun around or pointing it at someone then of course the officer should take the weapon by force, but again according to the story that is not what happened. He was simply carrying a gun, last time I checked that doesn’t make him a dangerous threatening criminal.

        2. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          At the end “So anyone with a gun is dangerous?” LEO “Yes”. That pretty much sums up the whole thing.

        3. avatar James MacKenzie says:

          There’s a reason that “a well-armed society is a polite society”: Playing things any other way is dangerous for everyone involved. Both the LEO and the sergeant would have been wise to keep that in mind in their interactions.

          Police officers are taught to quickly take control of potentially dangerous situations. Unfortunately, some offiers wrongly get the impression that courtesy and respect aren’t part of that equation and needlessly escalate the situation.

          I’m not judging the officer when I say that: He may have been unreasonable from the start (as Sgt. Grisham contends), but it is also possible that the Sergeant initially escalated matters by refusing to comply with reasonable requests intended to protect the officer’s safety.

          Of course, “anyone with a gun is dangerous”: That is the point of carrying a weapon. The PoliceOne website posted an interesting study of just how dangerous someone with a gun might actually be: http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3705348-New-reaction-time-study-addresses-what-s-reasonable-in-armed-suspect-encounters/
          In their experiment, untrained college students holding guns were able to aim and shoot SWAT team members who were already holding aimed weapons. The reaction-time delay made their shots virtually simultaneous.

  30. avatar DAS says:

    Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the cop flagged the sh*t out of the guy with his pistol as he handed it to the other cop.

    1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      That’s how all those “Self inflicted gunshot wounds while in cuffs by young black teens” happens all the damn time.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I caught it, and then forgot about it when I heard the conversation I quoted above.

    3. avatar APBTFan says:

      Try this North Korean soldier at the 48 second and 1:18 mark. It’ll make you cringe like hell.

      1. Rule #1: Keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction.
        Rule #2: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
        Rule #3: … ah screw it! it don’t matter at this point.

    4. avatar utdmatt says:

      Yeah, I caught that too. The cop had it pointed right at his back as he moved it over the backpack.

  31. avatar DJ says:

    I feel sorry for that kid. Eagle scout. He just had a “world expanding” experience.

  32. avatar TheUnfortunateRealist says:

    So wh0’s going to fire the first shot?

  33. avatar Centauri says:

    Guys, here is the way this problem will be solved, and the ONLY way it will be solved: if cops try to do illegal things, people must take the same action against them as they would against any other person. That means, using the same theory that cops adopt, that their life is more important than anyone else’s life, that if someone points a gun at you, you have the right to shoot them to terminate the threat to your life.

    What are we all taught in basic gun safety instruction? Don’t point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to destroy! Therefore, if someone is pointing a weapon at me, I am going to assume they have had basic gun safety instruction, and that therefore they intend to destroy me. Hence, its now a shootout. First one on target wins.

    If enough cops get killed because they are doing stupid crap like abusing their authority and acting outside the law, then it will get around, and that behavior will stop. But it won’t stop until then. Why? Because there needs to be a consequence that serves as a deterrent to make a behavior stop. If there is no consequence , or the consequence is only positive, and never negative, then it will simply continue unabated. It is not too much to expect and demand that cops behave legally. The government and cops expect that of the citizenry, so that expectation is a reasonable one that can and *should* be universally applied to everyone.

    I argue that it is a matter of simple logic, that if they cannot understand what those boundaries are, then they are definitely too dumb to be public servants, and likely are simply not equipped to even to survive in this world of ours, even without the inherent hazards of working in a law enforcement capacity.

    Here’s a little primer on “How to stay alive as a cop”:
    Check your ego at the door. Treat people with respect, and the way that you would expect others to treat you. Do not under any circumstances, take any action which you are not authorized to, and surely do not do something that would be a crime were it committed by any “regular person”. And for pete’s sake, don’t ever have the audacity to think, let alone *say*, that the law does not apply to you. That’s the kind of thing that will get you killed. And , you’ll probably deserve it.

    Rant off….shields up…I don’t give a crap what anyone says. This is the reality, and if you can’t handle it, well, you’re probably an ego-maniac cop.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Good lord. Rights were violated but nothing on a scale even remotely worth killing or dying for when civil remedies are so easily available. There is a time and place for everything under the sun. This is not the time and place for killing and dying.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        And what about the countless victims of police abuse who don’t have any civil recourse because they’re dead? A cop illegally and violently assaulting a citizen should be responded to as any other violent offender would be. At least, that’s the way it should be in a free society.

        1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          And those maybe not dead but just too poor to fight back, all those folks talking about suing like it’s so simple and inexpensive.

        2. avatar Skyler says:

          If you have a good case it is pretty simple because an attorney will work for a percent of the award.

        3. avatar Pat says:

          Just get the pigs name and number. When the sun goes down………a…….visit. They will soon find out that they are just public servants who (should) work for you.

    2. avatar Bruce B. says:

      “when civil remedies are so easily available” Are they? At this point, not so sure I’m buying?

    3. avatar Bruce B. says:

      This!

    4. avatar Bruce says:

      Would you really want a gun fight with the police when your son is with you?

    5. avatar Pwrserge says:

      Let’s not jump to outright civil war, the cop was being a dick, but I can understand not wanting to screw around with a guy obviously carrying a loaded rifle.

    6. Before we start shooing Cops let me make a suggestion. GET INVOLVED! Did you know that you can do “Ride-outs” with officer? Did you know that you can get involved in their jobs? I am not talking about running around with a gun and writing tickets… I am talking about being nosy. If more citizens would do ride-outs with community officers they would be more likely to curtail that behavior.
      Remember this: The Highest Ranking officer in a Texas County is the Sheriff and that individual is “ELECTED”. The Highest Ranking Officer in a City is the Chief and that individual is appointed by someone that is “ELECTED”.
      We are supposed be a government of the people… by default we are only a government of the people that “Participate”. If you wanna sit on the sidelines and talk trash then you get what you deserve. Otherwise… get in the game. Get involved! It would be far better to control them by getting involved peacefully than start shooting them.

      Then we can have law enforcement that we can depend on.

  34. avatar Nick Geninatti says:

    I want to hear the rest of this story! I mean all the way to the end.

  35. avatar benny says:

    I live in irving (right next to Dallas) and ive never had an issue with the local PD.
    Not to say there arent a few bad apples….

  36. avatar Centauri says:

    The theory of engagement we should all be operating on exclusively in our interactions with law enforcement is “citizen safety”. That’s right. My life is more important than some cop’s. My job as a citizen, as a person, is to come home alive every day to MY family. That’s my only concern. If anyone gets in the way of that objective, then screw em. Its me or them, and I don’t need any rules or guidebooks to clarify that any further. Anything is on the table to ensure “citizen safety”. If I have to empty a magazine into someone, then so be it. Just another day of making the world safer for ME, and ensuring MY safety.

  37. avatar Mark says:

    If he would have just shut his mouth, he would have been allowed to leave. Nice example he set for his son. My grandfather was a highway patrolman and I have my CHL. The guy was out of line!

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Hmm, a few things immediately popped into my head.

      “If he would have just shut his mouth, he would have been allowed to leave. “

      Did you miss the part where (by his story) the cop grabbed his gun without provocation, without a request, without a word? If that had been you, and the cop had reached out and grabbed your rifle, what would you have done? Just meekly get dragged around by the rifle that’s attached to your chest?

      “Nice example he set for his son.”

      You would prefer the lesson he taught his son be “keep your head down, submit, and do everything the officer says, even if it’s against a couple amendments, a few laws, and just plain old fashioned common courtesy?”

      “My grandfather was a highway patrolman…”

      And that means what, exactly? My grandfather was a brick mason by trade, he spent some 40 years of his life lining and relining the furnaces at a steel mill with firebrick. He was a friggin’ artist with a trowel. I know how to do a lot of things, but laying brick isn’t one of them. Professions aren’t genetic.

      “… and I have my CHL.”

      So? The card is no representation whatsoever of knowledge on any subject. My (first) CHL class was an epic joke. It answered none of the questions I had going in, and left me with several more. It satisfied the legal requirements, and that’s it. It was so bad that I felt a little uncomfortable afterwards, because I was in no uncertain terms unprepared for the responsibility of carrying a firearm. I have since sat in a couple more classes that were light years better, and a futher few that were about average. So where did your vaunted CHL come from? My first class, or one of the ones that came later? Phrased differently, what if I weighed in on a conversation about a traffic accident by saying, “I have a drivers’ license.” That cracking sound you’d hear would be people’s jaws as they yawned at me.

      1. avatar ChrisMcLain says:

        I agree with you Matt, I personally think he set a good example for his son (OK maybe he could have been a bit calmer but I understand why he wasn’t)

        And as a side note I have heard many horror stories about give me your money and shoot at the target classes and it just makes me sad. The class I took was awesome, they explained everything I wanted to know, answered all questions put forth by the class, and even took the time to compile every law about firearms they could find for my state.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          For what it’s worth, I spent a lot of time and money at that gun shop, some before but mostly after that class. At least two of my guns came from there. The guys were unfailingly helpful anytime I had a question or an issue, whether I was spending money that day or not. My class experience may have been an outlier.

      2. avatar Eagle1USAF says:

        Mark, you’ve just got your ass handed to you. Owned.

    2. avatar Bruce says:

      I think the Sgt. acted about right. Stood up for his rights, without getting himself or his son shot. Now hopefully the courts will do right.

    3. avatar ian says:

      Statist boot licker

  38. avatar Accur81 says:

    I want to say something original and witty, but this incident just depresses me. If the arrest was not legal – and I am not terribly familiar with Texas law – then the man definitely should seek compensation.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If every cop was like you, there wouldn’t be videos like this.

    2. avatar matt says:

      Hey Accur81, how many guns have you grabbed and people thrown in jail just because they were exercising their 2A rights? If you saw someone walking around CA with a non-compliant AR like this man had, would you do the same? Don’t bother replying, we all know the answer.

  39. avatar Bruce B. says:

    Temples city managers are David Blackburn, Kim Foutz, and Shannon Gowan . Their addresses are dblackburn@templetx.gov, kfoutz@templetx.gov, sgowan@templetx.gov . Might care to make your opinion known. City managers typically have hire/fire power over Chiefs of Police though sometimes it might be the mayor. Hmmm. Let me look… Mayor William A. Jones @ bjones@templetx.gov.

  40. avatar B says:

    Here’s the email addresses for the chief of police and mayor of Temple.

    police@ci.temple.tx.us

    bjones@ci.temple.tx.us

    Could you add it so people can email these scumbags and let them know how wrong they are?

  41. avatar Eagle1USAF says:

    All I can say is, the time for talk is over. As a retired Combat Vet, I am ready to stand and fight for the 2nd Amendement if you all are.

  42. avatar Fred says:

    The people that make the law don’t know the law. The people that enforce the law don’t know the law. The people calling the law enforcers don’t know the law. Who the hell actually knows the law?

    “Alarm” is not a valid reason to forcibly disarm and detain an individual.

  43. avatar Joe Grine says:

    I am not a big fan of these “open carry” guys walking around town with Ar-15s. Its asking for trouble. Nonetheless, it is legal (for now), so this type of unwarranted police detention is no different than the “driving while black” stop. These cops need to be fired for thinking the law does not apply to them. Also, I did not see anything that justifies a “disorderly conduct” charge. Telling a cop that he is violating the law is not DC; it is free speech.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      How else are you supposed to go hunting? Hide your rifle until the squirrel presents a danger to you?

      1. avatar DJ says:

        That is awesome!

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      There is a lot of open land inside the city limits of Temple and from the video it would appear that is where they were. There are a lot of feral hogs and there used to be (don’t know about now) a lot of feral dogs in the area. I can see a reason for being armed.

  44. avatar Getfreight says:

    From my experience in the military I would not be surprised if the LEO’s targeted him for being from the base. It happens more often than most realize.

    While we do not know what happened before the camera was on, the way he was acting did not do him any favors.

    I do not know what the local policy is on confiscated weapons but for all we know he saw something he liked and decided to make sure it was confiscated.

    1. avatar ian says:

      Spent many years in the Army. Fayetteville, NC PD, Columbus, GA PD, German Polizei, Italian Carabinieri….all the same….just love the slightest excuse to crack a G.I’s head for looking at them the wrong way. Write me a ticket for 1 or 2 mph over the limit. Bust my headlight with a baton and citing me for inoperative equipment…..happens everyday around military towns.

  45. avatar Jared says:

    The cop was wrong but unfortunately if sued, the taxpayers will pay the bill. The cop will continue to be employed and collect a pension. You see, ignorance of the law only works one way.

    Remember that many states are bound by collateral estoppel. Many states including but not limited to, Rhode Island, Ohio, Wisconsin, and many others have made the argument that it is legal to walk around with a rifle or shotgun in public and that is how people can bear arms. Generally legal under state law in EVERY state except for Hawaii. These arguments have always been made to support the notion that handgun carry can be restricted or prohibited.

    I believe at one time when pistol carry was illegal, the state Attorney General made this argument in state Supreme Court and WON… therefore, collateral estoppel would apply.

    For all those talking about Disorderly Conduct… let me translate… it means “contempt of cop”.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      “it is legal to walk around with a rifle or shotgun in public and that is how people can bear arms. Generally legal under state law in EVERY state except for Hawaii.”

      And California. No walking around in public with long guns – even unloaded – in incorporated cities. AB 1527, Sept 2012.

  46. avatar Jared says:

    I forgot to add, Governor Perry might want to stop touting that Texas is some 2nd Amendment Haven. Arizona, Kansas, Indiana, and New Hampshire are much friendlier to the 2nd Amendment and they seem to have a smaller ratio of abusive jack booted cops.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Depends where you’re at. At least here in Wichita if you choose to openly carry a weapon and are seen doing so, you’re much more likely to eat a nice fat concrete sandwich than to be politely & respectfully inquired of.

  47. avatar Squeaker says:

    I know this isn’t high on the list of things to debate here, but can anyone tell me why the hell the author of the article used the word “genre” as he did? What category of composition does said comment come from? Music? Literature? Art? And, within those categories what genre? Indie pop music? Neoclassical art? Such confusion. /light hearted scarcasm
    Seriously, it ticks me off when people stick random “it” buzzwords in places they don’t belong. A stupid comment is not a “genre” nor is the man who made it, his set of beliefs, behaviors, habits, or affiliations.

    1. gen·re (zhänr)
      n.
      1. A type or class: “Emaciated famine victims … on television focused a new genre of attention on the continent” (Helen Kitchen).
      2.
      a. A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content: “his six String Quartets … the most important works in the genre since Beethoven’s” (Time).
      b. A realistic style of painting that depicts scenes from everyday life.

      In this case the type or class I was referring to is that of stupid, ignorant, self-serving justifications for violating the law or an individual’s rights just because the person in question is wearing a badge.

      Specific examples in this situation included the claim that there is no right to carry a rifle any more “in this day and age”, the comment that owning a gun makes an individual dangerous, the claim that people will shoot a cop as quickly in Temple, Texas as they would anywhere else in the world, the assertion that a cop can carry a gun but that Grisham (despite his CHL and the fact that it’s legal to openly tote a rifle) can’t.

  48. avatar Temple Resident says:

    I have lived in Temple, TX for a few years. While I believe that this guy probably made the situation worse with his reaction, it does seem to me that this officer was completely out of line. I agree with the above, I would like to see the dashcam video. From what I can tell, whatever he was doing, the guy wasn’t breaking the law. I’m surprised and ashamed to see our local officers act this way, and that sergeant’s “exempt from the law” comment makes me physically ill.

    Unfortunately, there is an enormous bias against our servicemen in this area. Police are far more aggressive toward active duty members, assuming them all to be either PTSD basket cases or violent criminals. These men and women sacrifice so much for us, yet we treat them like garbage in their own front yards.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      Unfortunately, some of the folks who do wander away from the VA hospital don’t help the case for the military guys. I worked in Temple for several years in the late 70’s and have been avoiding it ever since.

  49. avatar g says:

    Catching this all on a video definitely will help this guy’s case, though it remains to be seen how it will all turn out. I read the National Review article and he hasn’t had his day in court yet… sucks that his life is on hold because of this arrest, but that’s what happens to most folks whenever you’re faced with any sort of criminal charge.

    For the sake of himself and his family, he better hire a good lawyer and fight for for his rights…

  50. avatar JAS says:

    He might not get his guns back. John Stossel had a show on Fox that covered “civil forfeiture” and he mentioned that Texas police like it a lot. Even though you are not charged with a crime they can take your property and then dispose of it for cash. Your property is guilty until proven innocent.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSz_p7Q1lg?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360

    1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

      It’s happened to us, family heirloom, original german luger was on the item lists of things recovered but when we picked up the property, the luger was not there, asked, bothered, called, letters no one knew anything and was eventually told to F-OFF. – Was a robbery and they were caught in the truck running, all item were supposedly still in the truck, it was documented as being recovered but between the the police and the pick up, it disappeared.

      1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

        Same city by the way.

        1. avatar JAS says:

          That’s even worse. Gun recovered in a “crime”. Never see it again….

  51. avatar Mike T says:

    I actually sent an email to TTAG about this two weeks ago. I have known CJ for some time and know his reputation in the IC, he is a good dude. He is not the first soldier to have this happen to. I had a good friend from SF who was being prosecuted for a gun violation that was bogus in Colorado, the damn guy was trying to save a mother and child from three criminals who were trying to break into the house. It never ends.

  52. avatar Cyrano says:

    This could have all been stopped at the beginning if the police told the complaining party that carrying a firearm openly in rural texas is not a crime. Follow up questions would be “Have you see this person hurt or threaten anyone?” “If not we appreciate your concern but the person is not breaking any laws.” If this little conversation would have occured then the rest would have never happened.

    I was disarmed by a Sheriff as part of a complaint about illegal hunting once. He was polite even though I was carrying a loaded semiauto weapon and asked me nicely to unloaded it and hand it to him while he sorted things out. I was nice too because he was nice. He cleared me of wrong doing in 40 seconds. The complaining party happened to be telling a heck of a whopper and it came out in the cross examination on site. The problem about the situation was the DNR ended up escalating the issue to yelling and accusations when he arrived on the scene. The sheriff had been cool but the game warden was a d*ck. It comes down to the executing officer. The DNR did everything he could do in the gray area of the law to show his authority, the sheriff lost interest once it was apparent to him there were no laws broken.

    Bullies exist, even in our “protectors”.

  53. avatar mediocrates says:

    Civil rights violations deserve multimillion dollar punishments. Get the popcorn boys. This is gonna be good.

  54. avatar Dustin says:

    Just emailed Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, we’ll see what he says.

  55. avatar Don says:

    Why do I get the feeling all of this could have been avoided if both the cop and the guy were less afflicted by confrontational macho bullshit, and just talked to each other like normal men. They each could have still been polite and professional while having a plan to kill each other. Remaining calm on both sides is the safest for everyone.

  56. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

    Holy crap, how many views has this post got? It’s becoming one of the largest posts I’ve ever seen on TTAG.

  57. avatar Chas says:

    COPS.SUCK.PERIOD.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      Wrong. I have had my share of interactions with the police and have generally founds them to be OK. The only two that I remember as being bad were a traffic stop in Coppell (north of DFW) where the officer was very rude and when I was stopped and questioned by Temple police for taking pictures downtown and around the AMTRAK station/Railroad museum. Seems I was suspicious be cause I had been “loitering” downtown and then happened to take some photos that had the police station in the background. It happens the police station is directly across the street from the museum.

      1. avatar Bill says:

        So Temple cops suck then?

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          Pretty much my experience. The general feeling around Temple used to be the the GI’s should come and spend their money and get out.

  58. avatar tdiinva says:

    When my dad arrived in Columbus Georgia in January of 1942 he was actually shocked by all the “No Coloreds, Dogs or Soldiers allowed” signs at most of the local establishments. There are many military communities where the locals love to take the troops money but treat them like $hit. This sounds like the military equivalent of “Town and Gown.” The post-commander needs to pay a visit to the local Chief of Police and County Sheriff and explain to them that bad things will happen to them if they continues to harass his soldiers. Sadly, there are few Commanders today with the fortitude of Jim Gavin and Matt Ridgeway to set the locals straight.

    1. avatar matt says:

      how exactly does one take money from the troops if they aren’t allowed in the establishment? you apparently forget that no other organization has deliberately killed more American civilians than the US military. And what exactly would happen to them if the soldiers were harrassed again? Would they kill even more American civilians?

      Having never tasted it myself, can you tell us what shoe polish tastes like?

  59. avatar Skyler says:

    The police are not required to explain themselves. They explain themselves to the judge.

    Let’s imagine this: Say ten blocks away someone used an AR-15 and killed 25 people and escaped on foot with another person, short in stature. Now they’re out looking for the killer and they come upon this man hiking with an AR-15 and his son. They do not need to have a conversation to explain why they are arresting him. They just arrest him. He has no idea that the murders have taken place, so to him he is being wrongfully arrested.

    The place to argue about whether the arrest is proper is in court, not at the point of arrest. If you think it is an unlawful arrest and your safety is in danger, then resist, but you’d better be right and the risk better be worth it.

    1. avatar NR33 says:

      So when you have to use your entire family savings to post bail, how does this money get recuperated? Just an honest question.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        If the arrest was improper then you can sue in civil court.

        This is what civilization is for. You settle conflicts and disagreements in court and avoid bloodshed.

        If we were in a nation where no civil remedy were available, then I’d be first in line for violent resistance. But we’re not at that point. We have a stupid cop doing stupid things and the laws should not support his actions.

        1. avatar matt says:

          And if you live savings was used to post bail, how do you pay an attorney? Whenever i’ve hired one, they want the cash up front. Civil remedies are only a viable option for the rich.

      2. avatar DonS says:

        It likely depends on how you “post bail”. In general…

        If you put up the full amount directly with the court, you get it back when the trial is over (presuming you comply with all terms of your release).

        If you hire a bail bondsman to post bail for you, then the amount you pay him (e.g. 10% of bail amount) is a non-refundable fee for his services. As Skyler said, if the arrest was improper, you could sue in civil court to recover that amount.

    2. avatar Bill says:

      That’s called a Terry Stop and it’s allowed if the police have reason to believe the person in question was or is in the act of committing a crime

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

      However, there was no crime in progress or a reported one in this case. So technically the Terry Stop does not apply here.

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Right. But the MSgt can’t know that. And they don’t have to explain themselves to him. They explain themselves to a judge.

        1. avatar James MacKenzie says:

          From the officer’s comments, I was under the impression that someone had complained about the sergeant’s carrying a firearm in a rude or threatening manner.

        2. avatar ian says:

          You must be a cop. You statist boot licker. All you A holes are accountable to the people to include the f’ing judge.

    3. avatar Fred says:

      The police must disclose the charges being brought upon you before they fully interrogate you, even if you are just a suspect. They can’t just arrest for no reason or cause conflict as a circular cause for an arrest on the basis of contempt or misconduct. That’s not the case here, though, they got a call of “alarm” from someone and the cop went right for confiscation instead of having the conversation he should have. He treated this man as a criminal from the start. Complying with every word police say isn’t a requirement.

      Cops shouldn’t be above the law, but this cop would get a max 6 months admin leave and be back to work. Judges don’t like to have poor relations with the LEOs in their district and cops protect their own over the law.

  60. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    As with many Military Base towns, and particularly in Temple, there is a love hat relationship with the soldiers stationed there. There is also a small insidious anti-gun culture (largely driven by a particular attorney). Here we see the little perfect storm when the two meet.

    I hope it gets corrected, and I hope it happens loudly and publicly. If any of you would care to contribute to MSGT Grisham’s legal defense fund the link is here.
    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2nd-amendment-legal-defense-fund

  61. avatar Joez says:

    The officers should have told the person that made the initial phone call that open carrying a long gun was legal. Instead, they hurassed the law abiding citizen (in front of his son). The police were clearly in the wrong and the officer should be suspended for lying and pushing his weight around.

  62. avatar CAL1369 says:

    Really! I am not sure about of all of you, but having some field experience as a LEA, I can guess the call was something like “check a suspicious person with a gun”. Are you, any of you, prepared to state that a LEA is wrong to investigate the call? The LEA would be exercising unsafe working practices to leave the subject he is talking with a firearm, or any weapon, on their person until the LEA could determine the details of the situation.

    For all of you Cop haters out there, please explain to all of us what a suspicious person or a criminal looks like. After you have provided a profile, perhaps law enforcement can just look for people who look like that.

    Without knowing how the contact started, it would be very difficult to pass judgement on how the entire situation turned out. Perhaps, it is wise to wait until all of the facts are made public before rushing off to spread hate and discontentment.

    1. avatar Jared says:

      Ok, so the cop checks on the call, the person has the right to remain silent. So the cop looks at the situation, sees that nothing is illegal, notes that in his log and drives away.

      He didn’t do that now, did he. He wanted to play lets violate the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment because his ego was hurt. After that is said and done he had nothing to charge him with except for contempt of cop.

      And what makes you think you are the only LEO (not LEA) on here?

      1. avatar Bruce B. says:

        Me too.

        So I get to call horseshit.

        In 2013 law abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms according to their states applicable laws. When a LEO approaches someone in a car is he justified in assuming it stolen? If he is accompanied by a woman should we just assume she is being kidnapped? Does the presence of a child make him a molester? Not without probable cause. You might have heard of the concept in your distinguished career as a “LEA”.

        When I approached someone with a gun, I was very aware of it. I might have said something like, “Sir, be sure and keep that pointed at the ground. Just for my peace of mind.” Or if they did not have it in hand, “Sir, please do not touch that firearm.” But barring threatening body language or verbiage, I did not run away screaming and peeing down my leg in the presence of a fellow citizen of these free United States, just because he was armed!!!

        Yes, I’ve had guns pointed at me in anger. Yes, I’ve been in armed confrontations. But they were with BAD guys. Offenders. Law breakers. Not my neighbor with a shotgun. Or an AR.

        How do you know the difference? Discrecretion. Common sense. Awareness. Evidently qualities lacking in far too great a percentage of our current crop of cops.

        When I see videos like the above, it seems as though these cops are terrified of the sight of an armed citizen. Remember this video where the FL deputy threatens to kill the CCW permit holder? The guys printing like crazy – Deputy Dawg misses it. The idiot being stopped reaches for his wallet (What – 2 inches from his pistols grip?) two or three times. Deputy Clueless misses that too. And when he finally spots the gun, which the guy could have shot him with about six times, he just goes postal. Terror. Realized he could have been cooling out in the ditch if the guy HAD been hostile. But he wasn’t!!!

        Uh, dummy. The guy is not a threat. That gun ain’t jumping off his hip, all by itself to cap your ass. Chill.

        1. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

          Thank you.

        2. avatar CAL1369 says:

          LEA (as in Agent). Old habit. I’ll try to go along with the group. I never presumed I was the only LEO on here. Mearly asking questions. I don’t believe if you, an LEO, making contact with an armed person would allow them to control their weapon while you figure out the situation. Hey, maybe it is just me, I could be wrong. Thank you for you service and I am glad you survived your many potential leathel encounters. Stay safe.

        3. avatar Bruce B. says:

          Ah, a little rethinking going on. While I was posting a reply, CAL1369 evidently edited his post to delete the following – “I don’t believe if you, an LEO, making contact with an armed person would allow them to control their weapon while you figure out the situation.

          But still might be in thinking of others, so let me respond to what he almost posted.

          A very small portion of my Law Enforcement service was as a Game Warden, so yeah, approached and dealt with lots of individuals with a loaded gun – in their hands – at the ready. And you CANNOT treat them all like vicious criminals. Stay aware. Be careful. Use good judgement. But also, don’t be a chickenshit.

      2. avatar CAL1369 says:

        LEA as in agent. Old habit. Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t realise the term was so unknow.

        1. avatar CAL1369 says:

          Game Warden is a little different in that your working hunters. Not unusual to see rifles there. I agree in some manner that the LEO may have been over his head in that he was unsure of the law or he may have become more agressive with the subject to better control the situation. Once you go hands on it is too late to turn back. This guy did a poor job of dealing with what he had. Doesn’t mean some common sense and cooperation by the Sgt might have prevented the deal going down hill.

  63. avatar chooch says:

    dude’s lucky those cops weren’t L.A. cops.

  64. avatar Ken Hagler says:

    When I moved to Texas a few months ago I checked the law on carrying a rifle and found that you could legally do so as long as it was not “in a manner calculated to cause alarm.” Now, the obvious problem with that is that it’s a totally subjective standard. I personally won’t be alarmed by a person walking down the street with a rifle unless he or she is doing something unsafe with it, like keeping a finger on the trigger or pointing it at people. However, I’m well aware that cops are going to be “alarmed” by the fact that I even own a rifle, let alone carry it.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      That’s not a subjective standard. A “manner calculated to cause alarm” means there is objective evidence that the carrier is doing such calculating and intends to cause alarm in others. It has nothing to do with the subjective impressions of bystanders or LEOs.

      1. avatar Ken Hagler says:

        It is a subjective standard because humans are not telepathic.

  65. avatar Chance says:

    Did the kid get his merit badge?

  66. avatar Proverbs says:

    What we have here is a lazy cop (the fat one who started the trouble). Obviously too lazy to learn what the law says, and to lazy to check once he is challenged. Instead, he turns into a bully, which is quite evident by his claim that he is GOING to disarm the gunowner. Then we have a supervisor who doesn’t know what to do, and apparently is nervous because the camera is rolling. After a quick confab with sarge and the other officer, the fat lazy one decides that he felt “threatened,” and that’s why the gun owner must be arrested.

    I think Temple police better invest in some training, post-haste. Because, as the number of these posts prove, people care about the Second Amendment and their personal rights. Those who would try to take them away should reconsider what is at stake.

  67. avatar Joseph says:

    If I get a call on someone with a gun, I’m not going to talk to him until the gun is secured for my safety. Then we will see what the situation is. Anyone who says they would do it differently has never had to do it…or has a death wish.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      And would you secure the gun by asking them to drop the mag or lay the weapon down, or would you simply walk up and grab hold of it?

    2. avatar Ken Hagler says:

      I’ve occasionally talked to a cop without securing his gun for my safety. I didn’t do so _because_ I didn’t have a death wish.

      1. avatar Rambo says:

        I agree. The cops did not know the guy. Maybe if he complied, and let them know who he was and they find all is well, then next time the cops could say “Oh, that’s just Mike, he carries his AR while hiking with his son, he’s OK.”. Instead, this idiot make a big deal of it. It’ all backfired, he mouthed off, resisted arrest. He got arrested for resisting arrest. Now he’s going to lose his CHL and even more. Lawyers are not free….

        1. avatar cg23sailor says:

          I guarantee you this guy went looking to cause an “incident” with the police.
          The very fact he had a video camera along to “fortuitously” film the incident, yet he “intentionally” did not show the beginning of the incident where in all likelihood the responding officer was calm at first until this asshat started yelling at the cops about his rights.

          I would bet good money that the officer was not acting the way he was as the video starts but that attitude was brought on in RESPONSE to the attitude of the dipshit looking for trouble. Dipshit only shows us what takes place AFTER he escalated the incident in order to manipulate us into thinking it was just some out-of-control cop.

          This guy was looking for trouble.
          He found it.

  68. avatar Eth says:

    As someone living in Temple, I usually think of any stop by local PD as ending with some amount of jail time. I’m glad he has a lawyer to get a hold of the tape as soon as possible, the last time I tried to take any action against police for similar nonsense I was told it was probably erased for the sake of space and no cooperation beyond that. If he had gotten charged I would think it would be some sort of class C misdemeanor, as that was the excuse I got for being getting cuffed, push into a cruiser, not having my rights read to me, and my car searched. “It’s a class C, none of that applies, next time you wont be so lucky.”

  69. avatar ian says:

    Spent many years in the Army. Fayetteville, NC PD, Columbus, GA PD, German Polizei, Italian Carabinieri….all the same….just love the slightest excuse to crack a G.I’s head for looking at them the wrong way. Write me a ticket for 1 or 2 mph over the limit. Bust my headlight with a baton and citing me for inoperative equipment…..happens everyday around military towns.

  70. avatar Rambo says:

    He did not get arrested for “rudely displaying” a rifle. He got arrested for “resisting arrest”. The guy is an idiot. Screaming “shut up!” at the cops. Owning and carrying a gun requires responsibility and brains. This guy has neither. I have nothing against him carrying the AR around. But common sense tells you it’s going to be an issue and cause problems. So unless you’re looking for problems, leave it at home. I own 4 AR’s and if I saw this guy walking down the street, I would think “I wonder what that’s about??”. Not everyone walking around with an AR is a bad guy. But not all of them are good either. You just never know these days. Unless looking for trouble, leave the AR at home.

  71. avatar Lonestar3 says:

    As a CHL holder he should have been trained to know cops can take your weapon while the complaint or situation at hand, whatever it may be, is being investigated. The guy was right that he had done nothing wrong and if so his guns would have, by law, been returned to him. Maybe on the spot. Instead the guy became agitated and despite the CHL training he had, or should have had, he decided to become a roadside lawyer with a cop…NEVER A GOOD IDEA regardless of the situation! He became so agitated that the cops probably decided that returning the gun to someone in his state was a bad idea. If he sues it will go nowhere. His own video will lose the case for him..assuming a judge even lets it go to trial.

  72. avatar JRP says:

    Stupid fat ignorant asshole cop!

  73. avatar RetiredPOPO says:

    This guy is a loud mouth asshole. Too bad an Iraqi bad guy did not grape this piece of shit so we did not have to deal with him.

    1. avatar cg23sailor says:

      Yes, He’s a loud mouthed POS. HE got what he deserved when he went looking for trouble. He wanted the confrontation he got.

      But your: “Too bad an Iraqi bad guy did not grape this piece of shit so we did not have to deal with him.” shows you to be no better. And in fact, probably worse.
      Jus’ sayin’

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email