Arrest in Temple Texas

[tvc184]

I hate these posts. There is no right answer to these things. The guy should not have been rude, but he also has the right to carry a semi-automatic rifle. Which is what that rifle is. The AR does not stand for assault rifle. It is just a rifle. Are we going to allow someone else to decide what firearm is too "excessive"? Just saying people have completely lost sight of our rights and are settling for less. As long as the government lets us hunt, who cares if some whack-job veteran gets arrested for running his mouth to a LEO?? Last time I checked it wasn't illegal to talk smack to a LEO. Sorry, just tired of hearing of all these dad-gum texans being arrested because Feinstein calls semi-auto rifles "assault rifles".

He was not arrested for carrying any firearms. Grisham was arrested and charged with stopping the police from disarming him during what should have been a brief stop.

Last week there was a video on TBH of an officer and pedestrian detention and everyone claimed how professional the officer was. The stop was very brief and the guy went about his business after the officer finished with him. The big difference is that when the officer tried to disarm the guy for his safety, the guy complied. It makes me wonder how well that brief stop would have gone had the guy resisted the officer.

Officers have the authority to briefly disarm people for safety during a public contact. Had Grisham had a knife taken off of his hip then it would not have been an issue yet a knife is just as legal, if not more so, than most firearms. Even under a CHL and Chapter 411 of the Government Code, it clearly states that even with a CHL, an officer can disarm a person while conducting business for safety. The law also says that weapons have to be immediately returned at the point of contact unless the weapon is held as evidence in a crime or an arrest is made. We saw that in the video last week where a guy was detained, disarmed and then allowed to leave with his firearm within a couple of minutes.

Grisham's right to bear arms were not tampered with as evidenced as he was not charged with any gun crime. He was charged with interfering and convicted by a jury a few days ago.

[Mike D]

While Grisham should not have said that BS reason for carrying the rifle the reason he was carrying it really doesn't matter. It's legal. His mouth got him in trouble and I have mixed emotions about that as well. We also have a 1st amendment.

He was DEFINITELY wrong saying the officer did not have the right to disarm him, they do.

And Texastaxi the 45 on his hip was legally carried concealed or he would have been arrested for UCW. That's not why he was arrested.

[bullhead44]

Brother, im as pro gun as they come.... and i would tell that dude to shut the heck up and listen to that officer.... your right, it is his right, and the officer never told him otherwise. people are turning this into something it is not.... they were not going to take his weapon forever.... they needed to remove it to see what he was doing and check everything out. i would have done the same thing. he didnt complay and got ****ty with the cops, so he got what he deserved....and what feinstein calls an AR has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything except her being a moron.

right there with you on this. if he is doing nothing wrong, he shouldn't be against giving up the gun for a few minutes. he seems like a little bit of a hot head to me. I like how at the beginning of the video it says the gun was for protection from coyotes and even cougars. I grew up not far from there, and never saw a coyote come after anyone in broad daylight, and never saw any cougars period. These kind of people are the ones who may some day limit the rights of all of us to own and carry guns.

[Wildman]

By accepting a CHL in texas you are bound by administrative, procedural, and penal codes.

If you are a CHL holder, walking down the street with a long gun (and a freaking concealed handgun) and a cop asks you to hand it over while he conducts an investigation, you are bound by rule to do so.

This guy is a complete idiot and should be glad he didn't slip on the asphalt. That County Rd. is pretty slick.

[txbowhunter08]

I agree with arresting him for his mouth but all that aside I watched a video a while ago maybe have been from a different state but the guy carrying was also a lawyer or something and started naming all these laws that the cop was breaking And one was stopping him because of suspension that he had a gun. So my question is it illegal for a cop to stop you because you are carrying?

[txbowhunter08]

guess Wildman just answered my question

[txfireguy2003]

Finally I got to see the whole dash can video! Beyond that statement, i will refrain, other than to say....he DID disobey a lawful order from a police officer by touching the rifle after being told not to.....nothing further.

[tvc184]

I agree with arresting him for his mouth but all that aside I watched a video a while ago maybe have been from a different state but the guy carrying was also a lawyer or something and started naming all these laws that the cop was breaking And one was stopping him because of suspension that he had a gun. So my question is it illegal for a cop to stop you because you are carrying?

Under Terry v. Ohio the SCOTUS ruled that the police can detain (a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) a person if they reasonably believe that a crime might be in progress or about to be in progress.

The officer must have "specific and articulable" facts to back up his detention. If an arrest is made, a review of the officer's opinion will be made by the DA almost immediately to see if charges will be accepted and likely by a judge later. If the DA or judge does not agree with the officer's opinion, the evidence gathered will be thrown out on what is commonly called a "technicality".

In Terry v. Ohio an officer watched a couple of guys walk back and forth on a street and they kept looking into a store window. One would do it and then the other. They would then go back to a street corner and stand together briefly. One would then walk away from the other like he was leaving but then return. They would repeat the actions in taking turns looking in the store window and then separating. The officer believed that he saw a couple of guys casing the store for a robbery. When they finally walked together toward the store the officer thought that a robbery might be about to happen. He stopped them at the front of the store and frisked them, finding a pistol.

All the officer really had was seeing a couple of guys walk back and forth and that alone might not justify a detention. The officer explained in his report that due to his experience, seeing the guys walk back and forth to a single store, separate and then come back together led him to believe that a robbery was about to happen. The SCOTUS ruled that there was enough evidence for a brief detention based on the officer's reasonable belief that a crime might be about to happen. It appears as though the officer was correct. That is currently the prevailing case law on a reasonable suspicion detention.

There is also Whren v. US from 1996 which was a rare unanimous SCOTUS decision. In Whren two undercover narcotic officers saw a suspicious vehicle that stopped at a stop sign but then turned without using the required turn signal. The officers stopped the vehicle and made arrests for drugs. Whren complained that these were not patrol officers that normally make traffic stops and were undercover cops only using the traffic violation as a means to detain them or a "pretext" stop. The SCOTUS ruled that if a police officer views what he reasonably believes is a crime, he can act on it regardless of his current assignment. If an officer witnesses even a minor crime, he can justify a detention.

With Whren in mind and as an example, if the police in Texas see you walking down the side of the roadway but there is a sidewalk available, that is a crime and you can be detained. It doesn't matter if you happen to have a weapon and they want to check it out as long as the officer reasonably believes that he may be witnessing a crime. It would be the same if there was not a sidewalk but the pedestrian was walking along the right side of the roadway. Texas law requires a pedestrian to walk facing traffic (left side) not with it.

Those are what I believe are the prevailing case law from the SCOTUS on detentions like you are asking about. If an officer can detail why he believes you may be committing a crime then he can detain you and if he witnesses what he believes to be a crime (like in roadway with a sidewalk available or not on the left side of the roadway) then he can detain you.

For those reasons, seeing a firearm in itself may or may not be justification for a detention (unless there is a violation like waving it around or an openly carried handgun). That alone does not mean that a detention is not legal for other reasons however.

[tvc184]

Finally I got to see the whole dash can video! Beyond that statement, i will refrain, other than to say....he DID disobey a lawful order from a police officer by touching the rifle after being told not to.....nothing further.

And that was the legal point all along.

[MikeS.]

I don't are who you are! You carry a rifle (even though it's legal) down the street in today's day in age, with all the panic and people shooting each other now days, your just asking for trouble! your gonna get stop and asked a ton of questions! And if you react negative. you gonna get a negative. response! Why all the guns is my only real question? One hand gun in my book would be fine!