I like seeing the whole picture when I try to make up my mind about something.
When evaluating conduct between citizens and LE, it’s helpful to see video of the entire event. In the case of the Temple PD and that Army E-8, we don’t have the whole event on video. Just what appears to be a clash of egos. I instinctively dislike fat and/or disheveled cops (you may call me prejudiced, but any uniform should be worn with pride, not slovenliness). Furthermore, I don’t like an attitude among some in law enforcement that armed civilians are suspect. Fortunately, most cops don’t fall into either category.
That said, I also tend to dislike people who act irrationally when presented with something they don’t like. It dilutes any moral/legal high ground they may have had in the face of unjust action by a police officer. I also dislike people who think they won’t get any response when they sling an AR and walk around in anything but the most remote areas. Even if it’s perfectly legal in your area, most people don’t know that, and even many cops may be unaware of your behavior being legal and not probable cause for a stop. Unless you’re out there specifically to make a point about open carry – well, if you are out there for that purpose, then you definitely shouldn’t make the sort of statements the Army SNCO appears to have made. See my above comment about rational behavior.
When this person also has a history of making things up – then makes claims/charges that cannot be corroborated by their video – I become skeptical and do not wish to take a side.
I was once told by a state trooper during a traffic stop that if I reached for the handgun on my passenger seat, “it’s over.” The next words out of his mouth were “Now hand it to me.”
I could have thrown a hissy fit about “being disarmed” – or pointed out the cognitive dissonance involved in his statements. Shortly thereafter, I might have ended up with a free bullet or two from that trooper’s .40 caliber Sig, which he had his hand on in its holster, retention lever down. Or been arrested for some random charge, or gotten a much bigger traffic citation than he ended up writing.
But I chose to tell him verbally that I would pick it up with my left hand and pass it over. Then I did exactly that. He calmed down, we had a nice talk, and I ended up with no points on my license.
Sometimes, when dealing with police, it’s better to momentarily comply with their instructions than it is to make a mountain out of a molehill. If you so desire, you may contest the actions of the officer later without a high risk of damage to your person, your finances, or your career.
As a lifelong resident of the Great State of Texas, I can tell you that bowing up on any LEO is a real bad idea. I ain’t sayin’ it’s right, it’s just the way it is. I have been accosted by LEO’s that had a God Complex several times, in all cases a visit to their station and a prayer meeting with their superior set things right.
Andrew, another excellent post. I tend to agree with you on all of your points above. What my father tought me is when you are stopped by a police officer you display courtesy, respect and make it clear that you aren’t a threat such as putting your hands on the top of the steering wheel where they can see them as they approach your vehicle. In my experience, taking that approach reduces the opportunity for egos or issues and I have also received a lot of warnings when I should have received tickets. I don’t see this as giving up my rights or freedoms but just smart behavior.
A surprising number of people let their obsession with their rights interfere with their properly handling reality.
It doesn’t matter what rights you think you should have when it’s you versus an officer with a gun. Calm down and play nice.
“Calm down and play nice.”
Well yeah. There’s not really another choice, because some cops at twitchy as hell and will take any excuse they can get to shoot someone, and there’s no way to know if you’ve got a twitchy one until it’s way too late. In practice, all a civilian’s rights disappear upon contact with law enforcement.
So you would suspend your freedoms to someone directly abusing your rights so it goes smoothly for you? This is how our country falls into decay.
I cannot even begin to believe your statement. What rights I think I have? What rights we KNOW we have. You are giving any officer a free pass to do whatever he wants, regardless of legal precedence. That is the definition of being weak and ineffectual. You have no idea how bent or dirty any given cop can be. You are submitting yourself to a stranger with unknown values.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You know what gives an officer a free pass to do whatever he wants? The fact that he has guns and friends with guns. What happens when you try to defy that?
This.
So yeah, you get indignant and misquote Ben Franklin. Reality doesn’t care, and neither do peeved cops.
It’s a pissing match gone viral… and it’s a shame the initial confrontation was not on video. That sets the stage for how things were handled. The lawyers will have a field day with this; he’ll probably sue and possibly get rich off of the whole incident. Both parties threw gasoline on the fire and only escalated the situation with their temperaments. No respect shown either way, and this shouldn’t have gone any further than “hello, what are you doing?”… “going on a hike with my son for his merit badge… large wild animals around ” and “ok thanks, just making sure everything here is fine” and he’d been on his merry way. I honestly feel worst for the boy.
I agree that both sides should have handled it better. And politeness goes a looong way. I would love to see the initial part of the confrontation, because that is what will truly define how the rest of what we CAN see should be taken.
Good post.
However, I would personally change the “Sometimes, when dealing with police, it’s better…” to “When dealing with police its ALWAYS better…”
The only thing not complying with police in the moment is going to get you is more trouble and more difficulty in contesting the actions at a later date.
While I somewhat agree with the points made… I just don’t get the overdue burden on people to have respect for another with a badge that dose not show any respect back and we are viewed as a US and them.. The man was well within his rights and the cops had no reason to even interact with this man whatsoever but for the call of a person that did not know the law and something this simple and the SGT of the PD isn’t up on the case law either that would be dereliction of duty at best but the facts in the video that are present is a attitude that we don’t care what the law is people that call don’t care “in this Day and Age” WTF is that some how our rights are now subject to if I don’t give off the warm fuzzy feeling to someone…
I understand that there are Good Cops out there but it is people like this that ruin it for the other 1% of cops that are decent and doing a good job.
My thinking is what happens when the general public starts to have no respect for that badge and starts to fight back you saw in LA what one Cop did to the LAPD… I really think that if cops don’t clean their own ships up thats where we are headed… This thin blue line of silence is CRAP. ok thats the end of my rant
WOW,
That is one heck of a run on sentence. Guess, that is our public education system at it’s finest.
Well said. A little self control and reasonableness on the part of Mr. Grisham would likely have gone a long way to resolve the situation rather than escalate it. Instead, he appears to become increasingly agitated, belligerent and angry throughout the course of the video. Instead of presenting himself as a calm, reasonable and responsible citizen he does the opposite. Quite frankly, I don’t really blame the LE officer for wanting to disarm him. Angry, belligerent people do angry stupid things, like shoot cops for example. Acting the way Mr. Grisham did is an ineffective approach to problem solving in any situation but particularly one like this. Mr. Grisham may in fact have the legal high ground in this instance and the individual who disarmed him certainly seems to have a limited understanding of the law as it relates to private ownership and carrying of firearms. However, I completely agree he would have done himself a huge favor had he handled himself in a calm, rational manner.
On another note, I’m curious about the traffic stop scenario you described. It has been suggested to me that should a situation such as you described develop, an good response would be to tell the officer that you are not comfortable handing the weapon to them and would prefer that they retrieve it themselves. This does two things;
1) keeps your hands off the weapon thereby limiting the chance for a misinterpretation of your movements, and
2) prevents you from “surrendering” your weapon from a legal standpoint.
I’m not sure if this applies in all states but it is my understanding that simply the act of handing your weapon to an LE officer can be considered “voluntary surrender of the item” and can then be used as grounds for permanent confiscation of it based on your “voluntary” surrender. I believe Washington is one such state that has used this tactic to permanently confiscate legally owned and carried weapons during traffic stops on no other grounds than that they were “voluntarily surrendered”. However, if the officer retrieves the weapon themselves they have “confiscated” it instead of you “surrendering” it from a legal perspective and are required to return it to you as your legally owned property should it be determined you do in fact have the legal right to own and carry said weapon. I can also imagine a scenario where an officer might respond that they can’t watch you and retrieve the weapon simultaneously. At that point it could be appropriate to communicate you are more than happy to wait for backup because your primary goal is to make sure everyone is comfortable and feels safe. Obviously there is no cut and dry, right or wrong answer to this and individual state law and circumstances should inform ones response. However, one thing that is always the right approach is to stay calm, rational and non-confrontational… and turn your video camera on!
Im glad you commented on this. I watched the video last night and Ive read some of the commentary and I cant help but feel that some people are missing the point with the “He should have shut up and complied” line. Functionally would it have ended up better for him? Yes. But you have to ask yourself “Is that right?” Is it right to submit to bullies? Even if they are cops with guns and badges? Is it right to allow an officer to be ignorant of the law? Is it right to submit to that ignorance and be stripped of your legally carried possessions? The answer in all cases is no. Kants law of universality: How would the world be if everyone submitted to authority, no matter how wrong or unjust? There is an ethical duty to reject such authority and this man did so. That may not have been his intent but its still what he accomplished. Moreover he did so with classic American civil disobedience; loud assertion of his rights while being as non-compliant as possible without getting shot.
And to be clear reacting with poorly controlled outrage doesnt reduce your moral/legal highground. It may reduce sympathy, it may even reduce credibility (as a result of obvious emotional bias), but your emotional reaction to the actions of other bears no impact on the morality/legality of those actions. For example: Im angry that John stole from me! But I cant handle it very well because Im so angry and I start babbling nonsensically. Does that make it retroactively okay for John to steal, or even reduce the severity of theft? No.
And finally the beginning of the video, at this point, is almost certainly irrelevant. Why you ask? There are very specific circumstances where it is legal and right for an officer to handcuff and/or disarm an individual. All of which are very reasonable – attempting to flee, threatening an officer with violence, forcefully resisting arrest, etc. Likewise all of these things have corresponding charges. He has been charged with none of them, and there is no evidence or statement, whether on the video or in press releases by wither party that indicates such conduct occurred. The official police statement to the press was that “Grisham refused to hand over his weapon when asked, forcing them to make the arrest.” Not “Grisham was acting erratically and waving the weapon about.” Not “Grisham pointed his weapon at the officer.” Not even “Grisham, was at a high-ready in the presence of the officer.” The man refused to hand over a legally carried firearm in a situation where he could not reasonably be called threatening – possession of a firearm does not automatically constitute a “threat” to those around you. But the officer is either ignorant of the law or didnt care and now Grisham is paying for it.
A rare miss Vuurwapen. A rare miss.
Additional sources:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/police-anti-gun-prosecutor-clash-with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/
http://www.kcentv.com/story/21860185/local-soldier-says-police-violated-his-guns-rights
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham
wither = either
and “video” (third paragrpagh) = interaction
and “the beginning of the [interaction], at this point, is almost certainly irrelevant” = entirely incorrect
I don’t see the logic in your reasoning. From your point of view, its better to fight with these “bullies” and end up in jail and lose your career, freedom, guns and money than to act like a gentleman and respectfully stand up for your rights using the government that we currently have in place. We currently do not have an anarchic system in our country but do have a constitutional republic which allows citizens who are treated poorly by an arm of government to “petition for redress of grievances”. If he had simply respectfully disagreed with the officer on the scene and followed up his grievances with the administration of that department, or a court of law, he would not have been arrested, his career wouldn’t be in jeopardy and his son wouldn’t have been abandoned on the side of the road.
This isn’t the revolution, you can’t and shouldn’t go around fighting with cops because you think they are wrong. If you are wrong and the cop is right you go to jail and probably for a long time. If you are right and the cop is wrong, you still go to jail and you spend probably every penny you have to defend yourself in court. If he simply acted like a gentleman in the first place he probably wouldn’t go to jail in this circumstance and would be much better positioned to fight for our eroding 2nd amendment rights than he is currently.
Great article, as per usual. Its still best to play nice and not push the buttons of any LEO in situations like this. On another note (and I don’t mean to detract from your piece), the guys at TAH and BlackFive have always had a tiff with Michael Yon. Once again, I’m still a fan of your work here.
Andrew, your point seems logical up until where it asks me to trust and put my life in the hands of a random stranger with a gun. At this point I don’t see how anyone can trust a police officer, especially when, despite our laws, I am guilty until proven innocent, and the officer gets a free pass to do anything up to the point of shoot me without getting a reprimand. I would like to believe in the honor of police officers, but at some point it is a person you don’t know taking your weapon when you have done nothing illegal.
I said you could take action after the fact and have a more solid position from which to do so. Obviously this does not apply to every situation. If you are looking to be the next Rosa Parks, don’t give up your seat on the bus. If you want a better chance of getting out of a ticket, follow the officer’s instructions.
Hello all! As a police officer that firmly believes in the rights of citizens to be armed (well armed for that matter) I’d like to provide my take on open carry as well as some “legal general talking points” about the subject. I’d also like to say to those people who do open carry to please be smart and not generate bad case law for the rest of America.
Most states that allow for the open carry of firearms also have laws that prohibit the “brandishing of firearms” or “going armed to the terror.” What that means is that society has said that citizens can carry guns but they can’t wave them around over their head at the mall. Think of this like the classic prohibition to arbitrarily screaming fire in a crowded theater. So how do you decipher lawful open carrying and “brandishing?” Well those two acts are situated on a floating scale where subtle differences mean all the world. When someone walks through a parking lot with a pistol holstered on their hip the scale slides towards that of lawful open carry. But when you elect to carry a weapon that is molded after a battle rifle, carry it in the front of your body on a one point sling, and stroll down a public street at low ready, well, you may not be waving it around, but the scale has certainly slid in the direction brandishing.
Now a lot of chatter will be brought up about draw time on a holstered weapon vs a slung weapon, or safety and accuracy, and I’m not here to challenge anything taught by Rick Taylor. But, the reality is that a jury of 12 average Americans is not likely to see an AR-15 on a one point sling in the same light as a pistol in a holster. Society in America is probably not ready for shopping or walking the dog in full kit. It’s pretty rare to see a person doing open carry with a pistol and it’s even more rare to see someone with an AR-15 walking down the street. With that said the public is going to call the cops to report the anomaly. Whereupon we find ourselves with Mr. Grishman’s situation….
So guys, lets not make bad case law by going for a PT run tonight in the neighborhood with your AR-15 in the muzzle up position!
I agree with eveything you say in your comment DBA. I too am a police officer and want to elaborate on some of your points as well as pose a few possible defenses for the officer involved in this situation.
It appears to me that this incident was a result of gross miss communication on both the officer’s part and the part of the dude with the rifle. While our rifleman had a right to carry his rifle openly, then officer also has a right to his own safety. The supreme court has ruled that a so called “terry frisk” is legal and constitutional if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be both armed (which he definitely was) and dangerous (left up to the officer’s interpretation of the situation). Now, Mr. rifle may have been walking down the road peacefully initially, but based on his conduct while the video was rolling, I suspect that upon the officer’s arrival, he may have been less than cooperative with the officer who was investigating a complaint call regarding a suspicious armed man. The officer may have perceived the mans actions as signs of aggression based on his body posture, if he was holding the rifle in some way such as the “low ready” and may have been able to articulate that he felt threatened by the man(as he did later in the video). In that case, the officer was more than justified in detaining the man and searching him for weapons. In point of fact, this situation could very easily have ended with the rifleman dead on the pavement, the officer, as far as I could tell did not deploy his firearm, which he certainly could have if he felt threatened by the armed man.
Now, before we get excited about rights, lets talk about responsibilities. I firmly believe in the bill of rights. In fact I have taken an oath to uphold the constitution of this nation (several times in fact). I attempt in my day to day job to treat everyone with dignity and respect and try to always err on the side of someones civil rights rather than trying to sneak around them or find a way to screw them. I feel very strongly that all police officers should attempt to uphold the civil rights of the public that they serve. Our oath does not say we pledge to arrest as many people as possible. However, when it comes to my personal safety, I have promised myself and my family that I will come home at the end of my shift. If I were to see a man with a rifle on the street, I may stop and try to talk to him (because I like guns and its unusual). If the man made threatening gestures with the rifle, I would probably take some type of action to keep myself (and him) safe. You give up your right to be legally armed once you threaten someone with your weapon unjustly. I feel that as legally armed citizens, we have more responsibility than your average person on the street. You carry with you the ability to permanently end the life and liberty of another, you have the responsibility to carry your arms responsibly in such a way as to not impinge on the liberty of another and to use as much restraint as possible. This man with the rifle was definitely not acting responsibly while the video was recording and was very disrespectful and arrogant to the officers. Right or wrong, he was not being a good citizen and is a disgrace to lawfully armed individuals everywhere.
“I feel that as legally armed citizens, we have more responsibility than your average person on the street. You carry with you the ability to permanently end the life and liberty of another, you have the responsibility to carry your arms responsibly in such a way as to not impinge on the liberty of another and to use as much restraint as possible.”
Well said.
It has been well documented that CJ has a blog of his own. This blog post (article?) was posted there. It directly responsds to Yon’s allegations: http://asp.militarygear.com/2013/03/28/fact-vs-fiction/
Other than that, I agree that we do not know what happend before the recording started. However, I once witnessed a Specialist (E-4) loudly call a Staff Seargent (E-6) a “bitch!” to his face in a crowded TV room. It was in an infantry unit, both were infantryman, both had CIB’s and no one did a single push-up and nothing ever came of it. Why? because the Seargent had only moments before called the Specialist a bitch. It was quickly determined by all other NCO’s in the room that the Specialist was only giving the Seargent as much respect and military bearing that the Seargent had shown the Specialist.
Just because a cop has a badge and a gun does not mean that he doesn’t have to bear the consequences of not being polite.
Needed to be said Andrew and thanks for saying it.
The appropriate time to escalate a situation by throwing a hissy fit with a police officer is never. The event should have ended with the officers checking him/the status of the call out. But he goes into a screaming hissy fit and the cops are forced to escalate up to the next level in order to control him.
I’ve been disarmed at a traffic stop a few years back, a calm and collected conversation with the officer turned into talking about guns/shooting (he was impressed a 21yr old kid was packing a S&W model 10 and not a Glock). At no point did I purposefully escalate the situation and start screaming and yelling like a 5 year old child. If you ever have a problem with an officer, politely say so, donât escalate the situation and give them reason to escalate further. Donât just bend over if you donât want to, but request a supervisor or state your objection clearly and articulately before complying or resisting. At no time in the proper use of force continuum is “throw a hissy fit and act like a 5yr old spoiled brat” listed. And FYI, if you are ever disarmed by a cop, afterwards and after everything is settled ask them how you can conduct yourself better the next time. Ask them how they personally would like an objection to be raised. You would be surprised at their reaction to that question, and how helpful they can be. You’re not trying to kiss ass, you’re trying to give yourself better awareness in how to handle the situation if it comes up again. Bottom line, LEOs are not your enemy. They usually donât even mind that you’re walking around with a gun, but they usually have policy in place that prevents them from ignoring a call for what usually comes in as a suspicious person with a gun.
Well said DGR and excellent idea to engage in an open and friendly conversation regarding their suggestions for conducting oneself in a similar situation. That type of approach will go a long way to building your credibility and dispelling any notion that you are a threat.
Cops have to respect citizens too. They have to provide answers to reasonable questions, and ask questions respectfully of citizens. To just “submit” and hope it all works out later before a judge, is giving a license to bully to cops. These cops appear to be afraid of whomever “they don’t know” which makes them dangerous and suspicious and possibly trigger happy. They instigated contact with Grisham because of a “call”. From some one they “know”? They didn’t appear respectful toward Grisham to me.
But you folks want us to respect them. Well, the Jews probably had respect for the Brownshirts too. How far is too far? How much is too much? Where is the line the cops can’t step across? How much do citizens have to retreat from them before we are able to say eough? You haven’t answered those questions, just said “submit”.
No, I don’t think so. Unless I’ve definitively broken a law I still have dignity even when it’s an all-powerful, suspicious cop talking to me. He has NO right to treat anyone like this man was treated without A WHOLE LOT more cause than is in this video.
But you keep backing up if you want to. How far will you retreat? How far will you expect your daughters to retreat?
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/03/22/two-texas-state-troopers-indicted-on-criminal-charges-after-roadside-cavity-search-of-two-women/
Make this stop now. While we still can.
You are absolutely right, cops need to respect citizens, however, that is a two way street. We do have a means in place in our current government to obtain satisfaction from a police officer who has acted in violation of someone’s rights. You seem to be advocating acting outside of that framework. The time has not come for armed resistance until the ability for us to petition our government has ended.
If you will recall, our revolution was fought over being taxed without representation. What this means is the citizens had no recourse, they could NOT petition their government over grievances. That is why they fought. We have no such problem yet. Your example of the texas troopers cavity searching females is a great one, but not for your argument. The troopers are being charged criminally, obviously this system of government works sometimes now doesn’t it?
No one here is saying to take an infringement on your rights laying down or to just simply “submit”. Absolutely not! Fight for your rights, nobody else will! But fight using the legal system, not by depriving a police officer of his rights by attacking him/her as you seem to be advocating. When you do that you become exactly like the cops that you seem to despise by depriving those cops of their liberty by injuring or killing them. Live and let live. If you cannot allow another his liberty you do not deserve it yourself.
Rights are not meekly granted – they must be demanded by the belligerant claimant in person. May I suggest, with all due deference and respect, that you watch the complete video before making off- point comments about it. There comes a time, and that time is now, when public servants must be reminded who the boss is.
You are correct. After the incident in question if you feel wronged, then you need to politely find your way the police department and request an audience with the head honcho. If that does not satisfy your complaints, take the matter up with the courts.
But if you want to shoot a cop over a traffic violation because you feel weak or demeaned be my guest. Just know that you will spend the rest of your life in jail if you are lucky.
I do not like the god-complex that many LEOs have, but when you are armed even legally they DO NOT KNOW YOU and will procede with caution.
The way to deal with a bully is to confront them, and punch them in the nose. Passive compliance won’t make things better.
I can agree with every point raised in this article. Took some words right out of my mouth even.
I can recall a few tense moments in my earlier years with police officers when they determined I was carrying. The best course of action is politeness. Most interactions with police officers do not need to be blown up into something that requires news coverage or a day in court.
Even of the cops who did not treat me with the same courtesy I showed them, courtesy and speaking only when spoken to kept everything on even keel. I have never been made to feel like my rights were violated or were about to be. Its amazing how much good attitude and a respectful tone will go a long way to leaving under your own power versus leaving under the power of an officer.
Well written.
Cops are just people, if I was called out to check up on some random guy walking around with an AR slung across his chest, loaded, I would proceed with caution as well. I would have asked him for the rifle if I thought it was safer to ask him some questions without the rifle, not just grabbed at it. I just didn’t think that the guy was really treating him like a criminal or bullying him, but rather just seemed nervous and a little clueless. You can’t think of police and citizens as US vs Them or you will always handle things based on one perspective…..yours. Instead look at it as they are a person with a job just like you are a person with rights, work it through and be cool. There are a lot of things that are legal that are not normal, if you want to shove it in peoples faces, you have to be willing to deal with people’s ignorance, and sometimes overreaction. He knew what he was doing when he was walking down the street with that in that manner. Just like other people know what they are doing when they burn a flag regardless of the legality.
Kind of like the women in TX getting a cavity search with the same glove. Sit there and take it , the police are the authority. Every other day there is a cop in Memphis indicted for something. Just because you wear a badge doesn’t mean your a good guy. A police officer or soldier is no different then anyone else…. there are good ones and bad ones. http://www.policemisconduct.net/
should he or should he not???? Well, all of you that think he should would probably march right into the ditch to be shot in the back of the head or the gas chamber to be suffocated to death without any resistance, verbally or physically. The Nazis did it to the Jews, so why can’t it happen here? What a poor excuse of a charge that ignorant policeman made saying “Rude carry of a firearm”??? Never heard of such B.S. Show me where that is written in the law books???? Wish I could sit on the jury for this one….Temple P.D. would pay dearly. Only thing bad about that is it would be taxpayers money, but maybe TPD would learn a lesson hard, get rid of the ignorant riffraff and hire some knowledgeable, intelligent, competent police officers. There is proper procedures for handling these type of situations and any police officer should know them and handle them safely without violating any law abiding citizen’s rights or endangering themselves. This clearly was not handle professionally, competently, or lawfully. Now, should he not? Honestly, for m/sgt Griffin to have resisted physically could have cost his son , himself and/or the police officer’s life, but to verbally resist as he did was absolutely correct and within his rights. For them to check him out was definitely within their legal obligation and duty, but not like a bunch of jackbooted thugs. So, what do we have here?? A terrible failing of this country and its moral values. Power over people is what rules and there is always a few and, I mean quickly becoming a large few, when given such power, always abuse it. We see it today in all levels of our government. We are quickly becoming not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, because we allow such as this, even as minor as you might consider it, to happen. We do not question it, investigate it, or prosecute it. Our freedoms have been won and provided to us by the blood of men like the m/sgt Griffin, so if you are not willing to sacrifice anything at all, (put no skin in the game), then march right on into the ditch and receive your just reward…YOU ASK FOR IT.
To correct this misnaming in my statement m/sgt Griffrin to m/sft Grisham. please excuse my ignorance.
If the police officer does not lose his job over the videotape, then the relationship will deteriorate and eventually a police officer or citizen will lose their life.
Poor police work is poor police work. You get a call about someone carrying a long arm in public? Is it illegal? Then, what do you do? For a police officer to violate the law and make the statements he did on camera speaks volumes about how poorly trained he is or how low the expectations of the department are.
If you assume that the police officer can/should disarm the citizen, then what the hell is he doing two-stepping with an armed individual? He did not have positive control over the situation until his supervisor arrived. Had this man been intent on bad things, we would be mourning the loss of a police officer.
If you assume the officer had no legal standing to disarm the citizen, then what the hell is he doing jerking the guy around?
Is the guy being a jerk? Yes. But that is not illegal. If you want to have the guy put the gun down while you have a quick field interview, then tell him that. Have that conversation and move along. But what we have is a citizen who has been arrested for committing NO CRIME. He had a concealed carry permit for his pistol and the TX law allows open carry of long arms. Then, ask yourself why he was arrested? Do the police sound and look professional in the video? Is this what we want? How far does bad police work have to become before we have an Akron Police incident?
“If the police officer does not lose his job over the videotape, then the relationship will deteriorate and eventually a police officer or citizen will lose their life.”
Huh? that is just crazy
Jim,
He arrested a man for doing something that was LEGAL. As much as I am willing to acknowledge the guy is a jerk, that is not illegal activity. Carrying a long gun in Texas is legal. Having a concealed weapon with a license is LEGAL. What was the basis for his arrest?
And as someone who understands police protocol, he screwed this up royally. He failed to assert control of the situation from the beginning. So, we have them jerking around until another officer arrives. We cannot allow him to continue working as a police officer. He can’t effectively arrest a jerk for not breaking the law. If we allow a precedent that contempt of cop is a chargeable offense, then it is going to turn ugly. Eventually, someone is going to get killed because of “police do whatever they want” runs into “from my cold dead hands”.
Andrew I agree with what you wrote, except for challenging CJ Grisham about his Bronze Star. If you’re betting on Michael Yon vs. CJ Grisham, you’re betting on the wrong team.
Yon has been discredited ad nauseum.