BREAKING: Master Sergeant Christopher Grisham found guilty in right to carry trial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inspector_17

Friggin power hungry dumbass LEO's, Think they know the law. I am a retired MP and yes I did slap down many a dumbass pvt who thought he/she knew the law. Had "Discussions" with civ Leo's too. It is unfortunate that LEO Sgt's and/or Officers are afraid to properly train or take to task their fellow/junior officers. And even more damning are the prosecutors who look for "easy, high profile" arrests to further a political career/agenda.

---

That is the smartest statement I've ever heard an MP make...you sure you were an MP? :) Welcome to the forum!

Wrong county in Texas just like it would be a conviction in certain counties in PA while in others not a bat of the eye.

CL

Quote:

---

a concerned citizen called police about a man carrying a large black gun on the wrong side of the road.

---

This illustrates why you should always walk on the correct side of the road.

I just watched the video and have mixed feeling about the whole thing.

WTF would he want to carry a rifle on a hike. Is he trying to impress his son with his soldierly qualities? I don't care if it is his right. It's my right to walk around without a shirt but I don't. I generally believe that people who do things like that are looking for a confrontation.

Arguing with a cop is like arguing with a referee. You can't win. Even if you're right, you're not going to win.

It doesn't really look like the soldier was doing anything wrong except being foolish enough to argue with a cop.

Lastly, it shows the police mindset about the public. You have a gun therefore you are dangerous.

At least the cops took the kid home. Poor kid was crying.

This is shameful, is there a fund started to help pay the $2k? If there is please post a link to donate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bang

In a Bucks County, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court proceedings the judge, Judge Isaac "Zeke" Garb, ruled in a resisting arrest case that a citizen has the right to resist if he is being arrested for something he did not commit.

I don't recall much else. or the degree or manner of resistance. But it happened, back in the 70s or 80s.

---

It is now settled law in Pennsylvania that there is no right to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one.

Quote:

---

Com. v. Biagini, 655 A. 2d 492 - Pa: Supreme Court 1995

We cannot state it any more clearly: there does not exist in Pennsylvania a right to resist arrest, under any circumstances. The lawfulness of the arrest must be decided after the fact and appropriate sanctions imposed in a later judicial setting. Contrary to the position of the defendants herein, the opinion in French never touched upon the issue of resisting arrest when the arrestee thinks the police officer is acting without probable cause. What was at issue in French was the distinction between resisting arrest and the right of self-defense which would allow an individual to protect him/herself in the extreme situation where the arresting officer uses force which is so excessive that it will result in death or serious bodily harm. When the Court in French made reference to unlawful conduct on part of the police, the reference was to the unlawful use of excessive/deadly force in making the arrest, and not to the unlawfulness or lack of probable cause for the arrest.

[Citation and footnote omitted.]

---

There had been some confusion after Commonwealth v. French in 1992. Biagini, quoted above, clarified that French only permitted the resisting of excessive force used to effect an arrest, not the resisting of an arrest in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey Bearded One

WTF would he want to carry a rifle on a hike. Is he trying to impress his son with his soldierly qualities? I don't care if it is his right. It's my right to walk around without a shirt but I don't. I generally believe that people who do things like that are looking for a confrontation.

---

Probably because when you are hiking, you always have the chance of encountering predators - and not just the four legged kind. Especially in Texas. Would suck to run into some cartel enforcers in Texas and all you got is a revolver because "I don't want to attract police attention." At that point, you're pretty much dead.

Or even here in Pennsylvania. While thankfully we don't have the cartels up here or those California weed growers hiding on national land that will kill you in a second to keep their secret, or even banjo playing Deliverence rejects...we still have predators to be concerned about.

In my personal opinion, hiking WITHOUT a firearm of some sort (preferably a rifle and pistol) is just asking to end up as something's lunch or in a shallow ditch (possibly with a forcibly violated anal oriface).

And whether or not you care if it is his right (which it is), you need to remember one thing. We're all gun owners, and if we don't stand together we will hang separately.

And I'm pretty sure you DON'T have a right to walk around without a shirt on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey Bearded One

At least the cops took the kid home. Poor kid was crying.

---

I also believe they illegally questioned the child without an attorney present as well. They refused to let him out of the car at his home until he answered their questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solaran_X

Probably because when you are hiking, you always have the chance of encountering predators - and not just the four legged kind. Especially in Texas. Would suck to run into some cartel enforcers in Texas and all you got is a revolver because "I don't want to attract police attention." At that point, you're pretty much dead.

Or even here in Pennsylvania. While thankfully we don't have the cartels up here or those California weed growers hiding on national land that will kill you in a second to keep their secret, or even banjo playing Deliverence rejects...we still have predators to be concerned about.

In my personal opinion, hiking WITHOUT a firearm of some sort (preferably a rifle and pistol) is just asking to end up as something's lunch or in a shallow ditch (possibly with a forcibly violated anal oriface).

---

I agree, it's not unreasonable to bring firearms when hiking in the woods, subject to the game laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solaran_X

And whether or not you care if it is his right (which it is), you need to remember one thing. We're all gun owners, and if we don't stand together we will hang separately.

. . . .

---

Here's where things go sideways. It's a logical absurdity to demand that all gun owners back whatever play the craziest person with a gun makes. Clearly, after an armed robbery we don't pass the hat for "the gun owner", just because he somehow obtained a firearm. It's not a fraternity, it's a descriptor that encompasses everyone from Scout Masters to serial murderers.

To the extent that every gun owner should stand together, it should be for the broad principles, like "don't point guns at people carelessly" and "aim below the top of the berm". Not for bogus principles where all law-abiding gun owners must flock to support idiots who spray-paint the muzzle of their AK pistol orange and strut around town waiting for The Man to pay attention to them. And not for half-assed "rallies" that jeopardize the majority of us.

Yes, we should all hang together, and that means that every person needs to consider the consequences of his own acts BEFORE he pokes the bear, for the benefit of every other law-abiding gun owner.

You can't have the freedom to do whatever you wish, and demand that everyone else is obliged to back your play. That phantom "obligation" is an infringement on THEIR freedom. "Activists" and "freedom-fighters" who kick the wasp's nest to see what will happen do NOT have superior rights to everyone else. If you have the freedom to be a dumbass, then we have the freedom to cut you loose and distance ourselves from you.

It can't be any other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Here's where things go sideways. It's a logical absurdity to demand that all gun owners back whatever play the craziest person with a gun makes. Clearly, after an armed robbery we don't pass the hat for "the gun owner", just because he somehow obtained a firearm. It's not a fraternity, it's a descriptor that encompasses everyone from Scout Masters to serial murderers.

To the extent that every gun owner should stand together, it should be for the broad principles, like "don't point guns at people carelessly" and "aim below the top of the berm". Not for bogus principles where all law-abiding gun owners must flock to support idiots who spray-paint the muzzle of their AK pistol orange and strut around town waiting for The Man to pay attention to them. And not for half-assed "rallies" that jeopardize the majority of us.

Yes, we should all hang together, and that means that every person needs to consider the consequences of his own acts BEFORE he pokes the bear, for the benefit of every other law-abiding gun owner.

You can't have the freedom to do whatever you wish, and demand that everyone else is obliged to back your play. That phantom "obligation" is an infringement on THEIR freedom. "Activists" and "freedom-fighters" who kick the wasp's nest to see what will happen do NOT have superior rights to everyone else. If you have the freedom to be a dumbass, then we have the freedom to cut you loose and distance ourselves from you.

It can't be any other way.

---

I'm not saying we need to back every single crazy out there, but we NEED to show some measure of solidarity in the community. Otherwise, we'll get taken apart piece-by-piece by the antis. Just like how the Fudds screw us every chance they get by supporting gun control legislation that doesn't impact "their guns." Without realizing that eventually, it will impact "their guns."

There is absolutely nothing wrong or "radical" or "extremist" about hiking with a long arm and/or sidearm. So we should definitely unite as a community behind the Master Sergeant and show solidarity with him. And none of this "I don't care if it's his right" bullshit. That is the attitude that has resulted in us losing so many of our rights and the continued erosion of our rights.

Sure, walking around town OCing a rifle or shotgun might be a bit far. It's still perfectly legal in most states, but it's pushing the envelope a bit. But carrying a rifle or shotgun while hiking for protection from various two- and four-legged predators isn't pushing the envelope - it's taking your safety seriously.

No one thinks twice about carrying a firearm in the woods while hunting - so why should hiking be any different?

EDIT: Also, I hate arguing with lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

We're not there yet here in PA, the "total police state" where you can be convicted of "resisting arrest" where the arrest itself wasn't yet justified...unless you use "force" to do so (Pennsylvania law criminalizes your use of force in self-defense against a cop who's trying to arrest you, EVEN IF everyone knows the arrest would be unlawful.)

I imagine that's why they retroactively changed the charge to interfering with a police officer. Apparently, it's criminal to get in the way of anything a cop wants to do, even if what he's doing is summarily taking your property in the absence of evidence of a crime. Even a Terry Stop requires an articulable basis for suspecting a crime, and the fact that they didn't charge him for anything that happened BEFORE the encounter is significant to me.

---

I've always wondered how this squares with the SCOTUS case stating otherwise.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


This goes without addressing the numerous rulings affirming the same in State courts (although I did not find one in PA), or in Common Law (going back to Robin hood - which was cited by the PA courts in a ruling on the authority of Sheriffs).


Is it a case where the law as been pasted, and no one (with a good lawyer), has fought it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAMedic=F|A=

I've always wondered how this squares with the SCOTUS case stating otherwise.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”


This goes without addressing the numerous rulings affirming the same in State courts (although I did not find one in PA), or in Common Law (going back to Robin hood - which was cited by the PA courts in a ruling on the authority of Sheriffs).


Is it a case where the law as been pasted, and no one (with a good lawyer), has fought it?

---

Those 2 cases go back to 1893 and 1900. I would not rely on those today.