Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2013, 10:23   #61
Stevekozak
Returning video
 
Stevekozak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith View Post
Gang,

You have the right to walk around in public along the road with your loaded AR-15...

BUT, it is also 'disturbing the peace' if alot of scared people call.


Deaf
The problem that I have with this is that just because people are scared, it should not constitute a violations. I know people that would be scared if they saw a black person ( you may insert whatever race, culture, creed here, ie: biker, punk rocker, neo-nazi skinhead) walking down their street. Do they call the police and do the police come and harrass the said black person? No (not in most places) because it is not illegal to either be black or to walk down the street. That does not negate or make less real the fear of the people that are scared to see a black man walking on their street. The carrying of a firearm, of whatever nature, is also not illegal, where it is not prohibited. Is it going to scare some people? Yes, probably so. Should it, in and of itself constitute disturbing the peace? No, no more than being black (or your pick of ethnicity, culture, etc) should. IDK, just my Sunday morning 2 cents.
__________________
"You fight until you die. That's the whole deal in life. PERIOD." Regular Joe
Stevekozak is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:23   #62
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Oddly enough, since the video is the property of the subject, there is no "complete" video to be found

His pawns that have posted it in every section of the forum don't even think that is odd
countrygun is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 10:45   #63
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 23,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
The activists, who chose only to post this carefully edited video.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

Hmmm I wonder if maybe they just edited out the boring or unfocused parts to improve the overall quality of the video?
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 11:13   #64
OlliesRevenge
Senior Member
 
OlliesRevenge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
The activists, who chose only to post this carefully edited video.
I might be splitting hairs here, but to me, "carefully edited" means I can expect to find critical bits edited here and there. This, however, appears to be 13:18 of continuous footage -- the main thing missing here is only the very beginning of the incident.

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

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

Contrast this to the Gwinnett park recording. Proesher was calm and collected throughout the ordeal, and I'm sure it helped his case.
__________________
Good men must not obey the laws too well.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
~Henry David Thoreau

Remember always: The government is not the country!
OlliesRevenge is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 17:24   #65
FourthPointOfContact
Senior Member
 
FourthPointOfContact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 431
At first I was going to ask, "How does HE know how calm and collected I was?" and then I remembered the entire encounter was captured on digital media including the embarrassing first twenty minutes of my huffing and puffing my fat little butt around the pedestrian pathway.

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

Five armed men and a boy.

Last edited by FourthPointOfContact; 04-21-2013 at 17:28..
FourthPointOfContact is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 21:17   #66
OhioGlock90
Senior Member
 
OhioGlock90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 358
Idk I see fault in both sides here. I think the cops made some statements on the video that will get the case tossed out, however he could have made this a lot easier on himself and probably wouldn't have ended up in jail. I would think a war veteran would be a little more respectful of LEO's


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Glock 26 gen 3
Smith and Wesson M&P 9
Marlin 60
Winchester Model 1897
OhioGlock90 is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 21:30   #67
OhioGlock90
Senior Member
 
OhioGlock90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge View Post
I might be splitting hairs here, but to me, "carefully edited" means I can expect to find critical bits edited here and there. This, however, appears to be 13:18 of continuous footage -- the main thing missing here is only the very beginning of the incident.

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

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

Contrast this to the Gwinnett park recording. Proesher was calm and collected throughout the ordeal, and I'm sure it helped his case.
I agree with almost all of this. My thinking is the "resisting" came from taking the camera off and handing to the boy and telling the cop to hold on when he went to cuff him...... It's a weak case. Bu as you said he was very aggressive


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Glock 26 gen 3
Smith and Wesson M&P 9
Marlin 60
Winchester Model 1897
OhioGlock90 is offline  
Old 04-21-2013, 23:56   #68
OlliesRevenge
Senior Member
 
OlliesRevenge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGlock90 View Post
My thinking is the "resisting" came from taking the camera off and handing to the boy and telling the cop to hold on when he went to cuff him
But that part was seen in the beginning of the video... IF Grisham did indeed take the time to selectively edit the video, AND if he was concerned about that piece... he likely would have snipped it out.

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

The part in question is the very beginning of the incident-- From when the officer got out of his car to the point where the officer supposedly drew his weapon and slammed Grisham on the hood of his car (from Grisham's statements below the YouTube vid) --
Quote:
At that point, the officer grabbed my rifle without warning or indication. He didn't ask for my rifle and he didn't suggest he would take it from me. He simply grabbed it. This startled me and I instantly pulled back - the rifle was attached to me - and I asked what he thought he was doing because he's not taking my rifle. He then pulled his service pistol on me and told me to take my hands off the weapon and move to his car, which I complied with.
The video seems to begin during the part where Grisham is "slammed on the hood of the cruiser". Given that Grisham still has the rifle on him, it seems reasonable to think that that this is very early in the incident. The only part missing is the cop pulling his gun, and executing the "hood slam".

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

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


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

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
~Henry David Thoreau

Remember always: The government is not the country!
OlliesRevenge is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 00:03   #69
glocktecher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lawrenceville GA
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkey View Post
I'm amazed that you will write the first paragraph and then write the second.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate,
Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we have here last week. Which is the way he wants it! Well he gets it! I don't like anymore than others here."
Well, when one takes part of the post out

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

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

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

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

P.S. Could you, by any chance, find for us a law regarding "rudely displaying"? I still have had no luck.

Last edited by glocktecher; 04-22-2013 at 00:06..
glocktecher is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 00:08   #70
OlliesRevenge
Senior Member
 
OlliesRevenge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: WA
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallschirjäger View Post
At first I was going to ask, "How does HE know how calm and collected I was?" and then I remembered the entire encounter was captured on digital media ...
Or maybe I was the young cadet observing from afar...
__________________
Good men must not obey the laws too well.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
~Henry David Thoreau

Remember always: The government is not the country!
OlliesRevenge is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:09   #71
Sharkey
Senior Member
 
Sharkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocktecher View Post
Well, when one takes part of the post out

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

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

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

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

P.S. Could you, by any chance, find for us a law regarding "rudely displaying"? I still have had no luck.
Well I already explained how Grisham was charged go back and look.

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

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

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

I find your reply biased cuz you concentrate on the officers supposed lack of communicating but didn't mention anything on Grisham and his antics. I'll ask you I asked others on another forum: how would you approach a man with a gun call you got dispatched on and the guy cops an attitude?
__________________
There are no saints in the animal kingdom, only breakfast and dinner.
Sharkey is offline  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:52   #72
epd2658
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkey View Post
I'll ask you I asked others on another forum: how would you approach a man with a gun call you got dispatched on and the guy cops an attitude?

Let's see....maybe Felony Stop!?!
epd2658 is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 06:08   #73
ComeAndGetThem
Senior Member
 
ComeAndGetThem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 572
The only question I have is when the woman called the TPD and reported a man with a rifle was walking down the street, why did the TPD dispatcher not reply, "Ma'am, you're calling me to report legal activity."
ComeAndGetThem is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 06:46   #74
Bill Lumberg
BTF Inventor
 
Bill Lumberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,306
Becuase a dispatcher wouldn't be a dispatcher long if they assumed a call like that was not worth reporting.
__________________
Did someone talk to you about your TPS reports?
Bill Lumberg is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 07:09   #75
ComeAndGetThem
Senior Member
 
ComeAndGetThem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 572
She called in to report LEGAL activity and the police responded. Texas should make open carry of a long gun illegal if the police are going to treat it as such.

What if she had reported that he was eating a burrito while walking down the road?
ComeAndGetThem is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:06   #76
FourthPointOfContact
Senior Member
 
FourthPointOfContact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith View Post
Gang,

You have the right to walk around in public along the road with your loaded AR-15...

BUT, it is also 'disturbing the peace' if alot of scared people call.

And yes both the LEO and guy were rude to each other.

I have no doubt if I walk around my community (and I live in Texas) with my AR the cops will be called and they will at the least tell me to put the dang gun up. Why? Cause of the very few nutjobs that do go around shooting up places.

Is it fair? No. Is it realistic to expect them to come? Yes.

Now if I want to worry about hogs I'd just pack a good pistol in appropriate caliber, concealed. Do note the guy did have a CHL so why the AR? Cause he wanted controversy. And that is why the kid had the video camera.

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

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

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

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

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

(6) fights with another in a public place;

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

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

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

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

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


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

From what I've always heard about Texans, no True Texan would be disturbed by the sight of an openly and peacefully carried rifle. Maybe Texans ain't what they used to be?

Last edited by FourthPointOfContact; 04-23-2013 at 10:25..
FourthPointOfContact is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 13:59   #77
300LW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
"(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" has been deemed by Texas courts to essentially mean to "point a gun at someone". Simply carrying firearm does not qualify as "calculated to cause alarm". Open (or concealed) carry of long guns is legal in Texas with few exceptions and without a permit. It's my understanding that you can carry a rifle or shotgun in some places where you can't carry a handgun with a CHL, such as a bar. Not sure if I'd fell comfortable doing that, though.
300LW is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 14:02   #78
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbusdriver View Post
That makes more sense.
No it doesn't make more sense. If I am not mistaken, and if memory serves, you actually HEAR the cop tell him "for rudely displaying a rifle"
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 16:25   #79
actionshooter10
CLM Number 19
Charter Lifetime Member
 
actionshooter10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeAndGetThem View Post
She called in to report LEGAL activity and the police responded. Texas should make open carry of a long gun illegal if the police are going to treat it as such.

What if she had reported that he was eating a burrito while walking down the road?
You can't shoot someone with a burrito?

Police are REQUIRED to investigate "man with a gun calls". He would've been fine had he not acted like an asshat.
__________________
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
actionshooter10 is offline  
Old 04-23-2013, 17:32   #80
ComeAndGetThem
Senior Member
 
ComeAndGetThem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Texico
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionshooter10 View Post
You can't shoot someone with a burrito?

Police are REQUIRED to investigate "man with a gun calls". He would've been fine had he not acted like an asshat.
Seriously, you need to read the landmark Supreme Court case Terry v Ohio. For the police to do what they did they must "have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous." All of those things must exist for them to even stop and frisk.

There was NO reason to believe that a crime had been committed or was about to be.
ComeAndGetThem is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 533
117 Members
416 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31