Where Liberty is Reborn

Time left until Obama leaves office

Officers Consider Themselves “Exempt From The Law”

, / 770

By ‘Above Average’ Joe

Yesterday morning I woke up to a text from my best friend with this video attached and while it is not my video I felt that you should be made aware of it.

Texas police arrested an active-duty Army sergeant for “rudely displaying” a hunting rifle. The sergeant, C.J. Grisham, established an online legal defense fund after he was, in his words, “illegally arrested and disarmed” for carrying the firearm.

In the video the Sergeant asks why he is being disarmed and detained; this was after being told that the officers were called out by a citizen reporting a person  carrying a rifle, Sergeant Grisham asks the officers if they explained to the person reporting that Texas is a “Right to Carry” State, the officer had this to say:

“They don’t care what the law is,” the officer replies. Graham then shoots back, “Do you care what the law is?”

“In this day and age, they’re alarmed when they see somebody with what you have,” the officer replies.

“Just because a guy has got a firearm, he’s dangerous?” Grisham asks, drawing the reply, “Yes, sir.”

Afterwards Grisham says that he feels threatened that the officer has a weapon, to which the officer replies that he is “exempt from the law”

Below is the excerpt from the video Sergeant Grisham released on Youtube explaining the situation along with the actual video of the altercation:

On March 16, 2013, my son and I were hiking along country roads among pastures and fields with my 15-year old son to help him earn his hiking merit badge. I always enjoy these father/son hikes because it gives me time alone with my son. As I always do when we go on these hikes and walks, I took my trusty rifle with me as there are coyotes, wild hogs, and cougars in our area.

In Texas, it is legal to openly carry a rifle or shotgun as long as you do so in a manner that isn’t calculated to cause alarm. In other words, you can’t walk around waving your rifle at people. I always carry my rifle slung across my chest dangling, not holding it in my hands.

At about the 5 mile mark of our hike, a voice behind us asked us to stop and the officer motioned for us to approach him. He got out of his car and met us a few feet later. He asked us what we were doing and I explained that we were hiking for my son’s merit badge. He then asked me what I’m doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, “Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?”

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.

He then slammed me into the hood of his car and I remembered I had a camera on me (one of the requirements of the hiking merit badge is to document your hikes). This video is the rest of that encounter. Up to this point, I am not told why I am being stopped, why he tried to disarm me, or even that I’m under arrest.

We did not set out that Saturday morning to “make a point” or cause problems. Our goal was to complete a 10-mile hike and return home without incident. My son chose a route that away from populated areas but near our home.

The arresting officer is Officer Steve Ermis and the supervisor is Sergeant Minnicks of the Temple Police Department.

If you agree this was a gross act of exceeded authority, please help me fight these charges: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2nd…

Please, can someone explain to me what it means to “rudely display” a weapon?  What is your take on this?

Article originally published on SurvivalLife.com.

LikesOfficers Consider Themselves “Exempt From The Law”(0)DislikesOfficers Consider Themselves “Exempt From The Law”(0)




  • Tim says:

    With all due respect to his service record. Is Grisham on medication? If not he should be. A hike with his son carrying an AR, pistol, and camera? Grisham was carring a loaded weapon in an assault position. Yes, the officer has a right to secure him and the weapons. He was originally handcuffed,not arrested, for the officers safety as well as the publics. Nice example for Grishams son on respecting the officers and being a mature adult.Sorry the officers did their duty rather than give in to your immature reasoning.

    • Rob says:

      An example of police over reaction

    • Ed says:

      Tim, I hear what you are thinking. Having a rifle in a chest sing position rather than a sholder or accross back sling position, in your eyesis an assault position. If you are a combat vet, you woud know never to sling your rifle in any position when in combat or assault mode. When your weapon is slung, you cannot bring it to bear when needed, you have to unsling first. So much for that. The gusit of this is that the police acted incorectly. First off they did not ask for the weapon. just grabbed for it. In which case the sgt was under assualt by the police officer who did not ask or demand the weapon; which under the Castle Doctrine is stand your ground. The police officer gave up his special status when he grabbed for the weapon without asking or demanding it. so think before you speak.

    • NoMoreMarxistsInDC says:

      Tim said: "He was originally handcuffed, not arrested..." If he was stopped, detained and handcuffed, he was arrested. See the US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio on this. The officers did not have the right to stop him because he was not bothering anyone. Some busy body (or with an ax to grind) complained about him. Grisham will win his case, and the officer will be reprimanded, if not fired for over-reaction. A formal internal investigation complaint needs to be filed immediately to have this cop suspended pending termination.

  • Rob says:

    Just another example of the Police State that is gaining momentum in these United States as our Rights and Liberties are being TRASHED. Close our borders, now that it's to late There 10'S of thousands of illegals in this country that may want to do us harm. Elect people with proven convections of up holding what the Founding Fathers laid out with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. PRAY WITH ALL YOUR HEART THAT THIS TURNS FROM THE PATH THAT WE ARE UPON!!!!!

  • Dr. Clifford N. Alford says:

    Tim is obviously a domestic enemy of the Constitution too. The battle lines are being drawn. I wonder how he carries a rifle, up his backside?

    • Rob says:

      In each case an unloaded gun is useless and one locked in a safe is useless as the crook breaks down your door. you will never get to it in time.

  • Steve says:

    Tim: post your address here, so I can send you your box of panty liners.

  • Tris2013 says:

    Coyotes and wild hogs, rarely cause problems for Humans. Cougars are ambush predators, which rarely interact or bother with Humans. When they do, however, It's too late to use a rifle, because they always attack from behind. A shotgun would be a better protective weapon, in any case, as accuracy is not as important. So, there really was no need to carry an assault weapon, especially a civilian model, single shot semi-automatic one. This makes his reasoning flawed.

    How does one get to see the video? There is no link here, and clicking on the picture is useless.

  • B.J. says:

    What is this world coming to??? A man walking with his son and happens to carry a rifle just in case. How stupid are we getting? I think this was handled very poorly by the officer. the man tried to find out what it was all about in a courteous manner. Too many times have crooks and murders posed as cops. The man did even show him positive I.D. that he was a law officer Couldn't see the video cause it wouldn't play. Just cause you have the title of police office doesn't give you total rights and the man had rights too! Lets not judge too harshly til we can see the whole video!

  • Tris2013 says:

    Don't be so quick to blame the police officer. Remember, he was sent to the scene, by someone who called in a possible threat. the officer had no idea as to what to expect. However, he should not have been so arrogant. Many cops tend to think that a badge and gun, makes them god-like and above the law.

    Just remember; as people, both cops and service members can think and act like morons.

    In Sec. 411.207, state law says, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

    "If a peace officer arrests and takes into custody a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter, the officer shall seize the license holder's handgun and license as evidence," in Sec. 411.206.

  • ChewyBees says:

    The biggest point of confusion about police is that they are acting within the confines of any law. Police are not lawyers. Therefore they aren't only incapable, they are forbidden to profess knowledge of the law or interpret it in any manner. What they are there for is to make a presumption that a law has been broken, make (or not) an arrest on that assumption, and then file documents that the lawyers can use to prosecute and convict with.

    If the police said rudely carrying or walking with you head up your ass it would have no more legal an effect than if they started speaking latin canonical. Essentially the police could make anything up as an excuse to confine and arrest anyone. They will almost always be immune, unless it can be proven that they egregiously broke the law themselves, which almost never happens.

    So yes, the officer was right. The law doesn't apply to him, and even if it did how would he know. In fact, how would you know? The police are protected by the lawyers who write, interpret and apply laws against the populace. Even privately contracted lawyers are still under oath with the same BAR as the judge and DA. They are all on the same team, which is a team not in the favor of the populace. It is all equity based, and the police are the soldiers of their gang.

    • Tris2013 says:

      Yep. you seem to be getting the picture. Now apply that to politicians, as historically, most have been lawyers, and the majority still are. Lawyers dominate all three branches of government; the legislative, the executive, and (of course) the judicial. there is something inherently wrong with that. Why should a lawyer be the Secretary of the Interior? that should be headed by a scientist. Why should a lawyer be the Health and Human Services Secretary? That should be a doctor or other Medical professional. Lawyers are nothing more than "defenders" (and I use that term loosely)for hire. Many are simply legal charlatans. Their goal is to win, at all costs. It is all of their courtroom antics, which they have brought into government. Win at all costs. Nothing else ultimately matters; not even the truth. Whatever is learned about truth, honesty and ethics in Law School, goes out the window in the real world. That is why we are in the shape we are today.

      I have very little respect for lawyers in politics. We need to purge not only the huge number who are in politics, but also the mindset/mentality that they have created, which all other (non-lawyer) politicians follow.

      • ChewyBees says:

        Thanks for the reply. As a follow up, if strangers (lawyers, legislators) can write double-speak on paper, and then apply it to a populace without their ability to comprehend it or interpret it, then the social contract is a slavery contract.

        There is a reason plantation owners did not want their slaves to know how to read and write. Well not only do these current plantation owners limit the ability for the slaves to read and write in the common tongues, they have created a whole new language that the slaves are forbidden to know how to read or write, unless of course, they go through a rigorous and expensive indoctrination system that culminates in their blood oath to the BAR. And if you ask a lawyer about that they will lie. Lawyers are trained liars.

        Lawyers operate under the presumption that all other people are property of the state. You are property, aren't you? If not, then how can "law" be applied to you without you even having a clue about the meaning of its psychobabble? Add to that the lunacy of tens of millions of statutes, many thousands of pages in volume, and there is no doubt in a sane man's mind that under this system of control, everything is against the law. If everything is against the law, then men are slaves. Even if almost everything is against the law, men are slaves.

        Men are born to provide their labor value to special men, ones that have deemed themselves to be above the bourgeois. And most certainly they are above the dirt-baggers (in their mind) they pay off in entitlements for a vote. Lawyers are the ones that write the rules to ensure all of this is kept in play.

        The real purpose of lawyers is determining contract, and contractual obligation. Where this fits in with the legal system is there is a consistent presumption that men are contracted to the state. It is presumption because there are no terms of contract that are met to uphold that to begin with. Which is when lawyers become liars. Have you or anyone else signed contract, signed affidavit or sworn fealty to government and its laws? Even saying the pledge or singing that war song is not that. But yet most people do not even imagine an argument that they are not under contract, and more importantly that they are not the property of strangers in suits, namely lawyers and bankers. The idea here is people are government property for the simple reason that they prefer that relationship to having to fend for themselves.

        All paper is hearsay. The sooner a man realizes this, the better, and this includes the religious books of "God". You may gleam wisdom from any paper, but to apply it as bondage is pure blasphemy against any Child of God the Creator. If God the Omnipotent were so intent on sending you a message, that Being would readily let you know without having a bunch of middle-men in play. When there is a middle man in play (religion, government, racketeering) then there is fraud.

        Here's an idea: write up a bunch of rules about property and behavior and then go hand them to your neighbor, telling him that you have a greater intellect and those rules are unchallengeable. Tell him you have been ordained by whatever the hell you can dream up to convince him that you are the authority on this street. That neighbor will balk, and at the same instant will suckle up to the lawyer run government teat, never questioning any of it, instead calling it out on you for trying to overstand it.

        When the (fat ass) policeman comes calling, it's generally to make sure you are in tune with the ownership dictatorial demands of the money changers. The money changers also own the lawyers, they just happen to pay them a hell of a lot more than you, and they have groomed certain mindset individuals to rule their roost, so to speak.

        None of this ends until people stop fearing the system and at the same time claim and demand that they are the property of no living being, not the least of which is some spiritual retard acting as a god. All government is a conclave of spiritual retards acting as god. (that was a period)

        • ChewyBees says:

          Read my blog, http://chewybees.blogspot.com, and I hope you'll read that I am not just beginning to see the picture. It's so hard not to write 30 paragraphs per comment post. I also would appreciate readership, and comments based on critical thought and intellectual purpose. I'm hardly right and I hardly know the truth of things. But I still put it out there for the primary reason that there is a teach and learn cycle that is essential to the evolution of the intellect. It goes: to teach, you must learn. To learn, you must teach. Argument is controversy unless men are willing to acquiesce that all are in this together.

      • C.coyote says:

        Tris, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one!
        For far too long they have twisted the system our forefathers worked their butts off to establish.
        Even before Obama, I doubted the honesty of our elections, Obama proved me right!
        I fear that even a MASSIVE outcry from the voting public would be enough to repair the damage that's been done already. May God help us all.

  • Bradford says:

    I watched the WHOLE video...
    I saw a WHOLE bunch of stoopid idiots, including "Sgt Grisham"...
    (...i din't know active duty troops had bellies that big...)
    The COPS were the biggest idiots...
    And then, at the end, the boy began to cry...
    The KID was the only smart one here...
    PATHETIC, all the way around...more "Stupid Cop Tricks"...


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.