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

[DaveM55]

http://www.kxxv.com/story/24004165/c...retrial-begins

BELL COUNTY -
BREAKING: Master Sergeant Christopher Grisham has been found guilty of interfering with police duties, a class B misdemeanor. Grisham could face a possible $2,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail for the offense.

The retrial of Fort Hood soldier C.J. Grisham began Monday after a jury was unable to come to a verdict in the case last month.

Monday, the jury heard two witnesses testify including the Temple police officer who arrested Grisham as well as the woman who made the call to police.

Temple police officer Steve Ermis took the stand to give his account of what he said happened last March when he stopped Grisham and his son after a concerned citizen called police about a man carrying a large black gun on the wrong side of the road.

Ermis testified that he believed Grisham did interfere with police duties when he tried to disarm him of an AR-15 rifle he was carrying while out on a hike with his son for a Boy Scout project. During testimony, the jury in the case also got to see firsthand what actually happened through police dash cam video taken of the incident.

In the video, Ermis is seen approaching Grisham and his son asking the two what they were doing and grabbing the gun off Grisham's chest. Ermis is then heard asking Grisham why he had the gun to which Grisham replied "because I can."

When Ermis tries to disarm Grisham, he reacts by reaching up at the gun while Ermis draws his own pistol and points it at Grisham's head out of what he said was fear for his own safety.

Grisham can then be heard yelling that Ermis can't take his weapon and that he has a concealed carry license and is legally able to have the gun. Ermis then proceeds to take the weapon and gives it to a fellow officer while Grisham is handcuffed and held face down on the hood of the police car.

The video ends with Grisham being detained and the second officer telling Grisham he is being taken into custody for resisting arrest.

That charge was ultimately changed to the current charge of interfering with police duties, and Grisham could face a possible $2,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail for the offense.

[Daycrawler]

Can you be charged with resisting Arrest if the Arresst was not legal? I guess so, SMH!!! I hope he fights this to the bitter end...

[KPShooting]

How can he be interfering with police duties? They approached him. "Stop inferring with my duty to illegally arrest you!"

[GunLawyer001]

Can you be charged with resisting Arrest if the Arresst was not legal? I guess so, SMH!!! I hope he fights this to the bitter end...

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.

[ViperGTS19801]

Wait a minute - you mean to tell me that it's now been made illegal to abide by the law, and simultaneously it's now legal for the police to perform illegal acts?

Shocking.

[ungawa]

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.

Isn't Texas a state where you can use force, including deadly force to protect yourself from LEO if you haven't done anything wrong? I don't know the details or the scope of the law but it makes it even more significant to me that they didn't charge him with anything he did before the encounter.

[REBELoffaLEASH]

I'm fairly certain there's steam coming out of my ears. This whole situation makes me angrier every time I read it.

I also hope he fights this till the bitter end.

[Lazylaser]

I'm fairly certain there's steam coming out of my ears. This whole situation makes me angrier every time I read it.

I also hope he fights this till the bitter end.

Same here.

[Qtrborecrazy]

Lets see what the people of Texas do now.

[libra8]

Since when do "police duties" include violating your rights? This is total BS.

Here is the event:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l197TIL9E8