Temple Cops: Unbelievable video

I have mixed feelings here. It was sort of a "catch 22," to use a military pun. They made the guy mad by violating his rights, but once you have a guy that torqued up (even "righteously") it does seem like everyone needs to calm down before you just hand him back the weapons. The truth is that he was incredibly controlled in all his physical actions, but he was over the line in disrespect for the cops--even though, yes, they were in the wrong. There was a way for him to play his cards--his right to carry, and his understanding of the source of his rights--in a manner that things would have gone in his favor.

The man was well-versed in his rights, but I don't necessarily think he was looking for an incident to create this video. What may have happened is that he was just previously teaching his son what the Constitution and related gun laws permit. He was in "teaching authority" mode; then, the cops came along and gave him and his knowledge no credit, so he became too upset to handle it right.
 
I've watched the video and read this thread (hey, I'm retired). Just for the hell of it here are some thoughts:

1) I know I'm fighting an uphill battle but the guy didn't have an "assault rifle." It's a term that has gone political but, just for the record...

as·sault ri·fle - Noun - A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

In other words, a "machine gun." They've been outlawed since 1936. And please, I don't care what Liberal Lodge #666 sends you in its newsletter. I have intimate knowledge of real assault rifles 'cause people who had them spent a year tyring to kill me with them.

2) I think the guy set off to have a confrontation and he got what he wanted (a confrontation w/police) and what he didn't want (arrested).

3) I think the cops were clearly wrong and, if they are lucky, the whole thing gets tossed. If they are not lucky they will be subject to some serious fines, sanctions. I have not the first problem if that happens to them.

4) I think if I'm a cop and see that guy walking down the street (or road) I'm going to get seriously agitated and treat him like I would a rattlesnake. OK, I wouldn't shoot the guy but I'd think about having to (I'd shoot the rattlesnake). They could both kill me and that's my first thought. The Constitution is well down my list of thoughts.

5) If "Gun Guy" thought he was teaching his son a good lesson he was right. If he thought that was the way to do it someone should punch him in the throat.
 
So is there a distinction between disarm temporarily and confiscate in this situation?

I think cops should be allowed to temporarily disarm someone they are questioning. It seems reasonable to me that someone that has been entrusted with the public safety be allowed to ensure their own safety when in a situation like this. If they had attempted to confiscate his weapon for longer than the duration of the conversation then I would have a real problem with that.

looks like we had a cop who was used to the 'cause I said so' rules...most people would have complied. And he got in over his head when the citizen knew more than he did. His next move was overreaction.
 
msdw:
Even though you quoted one of my statements to disagree with, I actually agree with everything you say. My point about the guy's disrespect for the cops was just that I think that if he had used his superior knowledge of the law, plus the fact of being innocent of any law breaking, he could have--even with these particular policemen--untangled out of the scenario unarrested and with his weapons. I'm not saying that someone should have to be Ghandi and Clarence Darrow there on the spot just to get his Constitutional rights. If, though, this video does lead to some research and training in the LE community, his arrest may have done some good. So, I agree with you.
 
tumblr_liawkkoSQf1qi1bj8o1_500.jpg


" ... this is my gun ... "
 
I agree with what you just said, except that from what I saw, he did not refuse in any way to turn over his weapon exactly for the purpose you just outlined. I thought his position was, you have a right to ask me for my gun to question me, but now that you are finished questioning, and no arrest is called for, it's time to give me my property back. Saying "I am not breaking any law, so no arrest is called for," is not resisting arrest.

This is more clear when you try to identify when the attempted "arrest" was--was it at the beginning? If so, on what charge? If at the end, when already handcuffed, what possible resistance was there?

Anyway, I agree with your general point that the cop can say, hand over that rifle while we talk.
 
Since it doesn't appear that the beginning of the conversation was recorded, we won't know whether the officer "asked" for his weapon or "demanded" his weapon. I'm fine with either. Obviously, it would be better community relations to ask and give the guy a chance to comply.

so a simple, "sir, put down your weapon" becomes "he demanded my weapon" in the seargents eyes. The cop didn't need to state "what crime" he was accused of in order to get the guy to temporarily disarm. As long as the guy did not have reason to believe the officer was a fake, he should have complied.
 
BOSDE,

The problem is that the cop didn't ask for the weapon. He tried to forcibly remove it from his hands. Not only is that improper, it's dangerous as well. It's true that we don't have the full incident on video, but when the MSgt mentioned that in the video, the cop didn't deny it, even though they were chit-chatting with him about other details of the incident.

Like I said, the MSgt didn't use the best judgment with the cops to avoid creating an incident, but law enforcement has a duty to follow the law and take reasonable measures to avoid confrontations like that. They failed.
 
Law enforcement has many tools at their disposal. The first and foremost is their training to evaluate situations. When someone is walking with a weapon the worst possible decision is to get out of the police vehicle, approach the subject and immediately attempt to forcibly remove the weapon from the person in question. Nothing good can come from that.

The officer could have easily stopped the car, opened the door, stood behind the door and asked the subject what is going on. Maybe that happend because it wasn't filmed, but I doubt it seeing how the rest of the video played out. Considering the weapon was latched to the guys chest it would have been very easy for the officer to protect himself if the worst happened.

In this case the officer caused the situation to escalate and I believe his pride caused him to not back down and actually listen to the individual's argument. The result was the officer trying to save face and ego by arresting the guy on any charge they could think of since the subject didn't really break any laws.

While it makes sense to do what the police tells you to do, it's absolutely your right to disagree if you didn't break any laws even if to the average person it seems like a stupid response. There was no reason for him to be arrested.
 
Way to go Black Rain!! That is allsome. I'm not a big fan of Glenn Beck, but that is pretty cool having an AR just given to you.

Let's hope that after May 15, (the hearing date) that the Temple PD will be put in it's place.

It's WAY past time that PD's all across the country start respecting it's citizens rights and the consitution again.
 
MSgt Grisham was convicted of interfering with police duties and fined $2,000.00. Link.

By the way, the dash cam with more of the incident is now available. Link.
 
1. That area looks very rural. He was not going out of his way to intimidate anybody with the gun. He seemed to be minding his own business.

2. That cop is a complete moron for grabbing his gun. Thats a good way to get shot or at the very least escalate the situation.

3. He could have easily walked over to the guy and had a conversation about what was going on. Horrible management of a potentially dangerous situation.
 
Larry,

On this, I'm about 90 percent with the gun owner. The cop was very much out of line and mishandled this situation from start to finish and unexpectedly trying to seize the gun by force was way over the line. However, I do think that the gun owner could have given a less mouthy answer to why he's walking around with the gun other than "because I can." I also think that if this was a 21 year old black dude walking around displaying a gun at night, people would be far more critical of the gun owner and far less critical of the cop.

Either way, I'm shocked that a Bell County jury convicted this guy. If you're a veteran defendant on a case involving gun rights, you might be in the most favorable venue in the United States. If you can't win there, you can't win anywhere. However, I could see this conviction getting overturned on appeal. It would go to the Austin Court of Appeals which is 5-1 Republican (and militantly pro-gun), and even the Democrat on the court is pretty moderate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top