Connect with us

Featured Articles

[Video] Texas Officers Consider themselves “Exempt From The Law”?



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. Grisham 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:…

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

Want more? Check out these articles from our site:

The 5 Best Concealed Carry Tips for Responsible Gun Owners

2nd Amendment: 5 Reasons to Carry a Gun

Kids And Guns – How Young Is Too Young?

Continue Reading


  1. Bob

    April 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM

    Be careful at taking this one sided explanation of what happened. Sgt Grisham has some questionable actions in the past posted on his blog and this could have all been a set up.

    • Donald Plattner

      April 18, 2013 at 9:16 AM

      Such a broad, non-specific lefty comment.
      If you had any common sense, regardless of any of Grisham’s past comments, you see that Grisham was unprofessionally and unconstitutionally handled. Grisham was correct that both local officers should wear brown shirts.
      Generally speaking, Texas has mostly professional and competent officers. It’s a shame these two local “banty roosters” sully Texas’ good LEO’s.

      • CJ

        April 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        Donald, I absolutely agree. Most Texas LEOs are good and honorable people. My arresting officer was not typical by any means.

        • craig

          April 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

          You should not pick on Bob ..he is still in recovery trying to come off the hard drugs

      • Jerry

        April 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

        I don’t know Texas law, but what I can’t understand about this incident. It was said in the video “RURAL COUNTRY AREA”. The two officers appear to be Temple “City Policemen”. What authority to “CITY officers” have in the Texas “RURAL” areas?? Bell “County” deputies, I can see. Texas “State Police”, I can see. Texas “Rangers”, I can see. BUT a “city” officer in the COUNTY. What the hell were they doing there AND WHAT AUTHORITY do they have in the COUNTY??

    • CJ

      April 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM

      Bob, Yeah, I just couldn’t wait to have my guns taken and spend my Saturday in jail instead of with my son. What level of idiot are you? If I had set this up, I would have taken video the moment the officer stopped me. I would also not be hiking down EMPTY COUNTRY ROADS and would have chosen instead busy streets or downtown. You’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you?

      • Creeker

        April 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        Sir, It appears based on the video and this response to Bob that you allow your emotions to over run your senses fairly easily.

        I am a retired LEO, and while I disagree with some of the actions and apparent attitude of the Temple Cops, I also hope that you realize that some of their response was directly related to your attitude.

        F.I., your actual arrest. It is pretty obvious to me that you were transported and charged to cover someone’s butt… however you wouldn’t have been if you had remained calm rather than gotten indignant and made a scene.

        I don’t doubt for a minute that your initial contact with the PFC was handled wrong by the Officer, and that he SHOULD have asked you to remove the rifle rather than grabbed it, as you say he did. However you should know that if I were to have made contact with you, I would have done so with my weapon unholstered and pointed at the ground, for no other reason than that I don’t know you or exactly what response I might receive from that request. It is a simple Officer Safety issue. I’m fairly certain at this point you would probably have taken great issue with that, as well.

        I’m not going to critique the whole video, but I am fairly certain that during your career in the military there were times that some of your actions or responses weren’t performed the way you would have liked in hindsight. If you would rather your local Governments hire Automatons who will only follow an edict from on high, rather than human beings who can also react and have emotions, I suspect that the Government wants that, too.

        I don’t.

        I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist, but I know that Cops have to use some common sense when dealing with known armed individuals of unknown intent, and I believe that respect on both sides is paramount to diffusing those situations. I agree with the adage that “An armed Society is a polite Society”.

        I hope things work out for you, and that everyone can learn a lesson from this incident.

        • Shannon Pritchard

          April 20, 2013 at 8:01 AM

          Studies show that approximately 20% of the population is sadistic, and only the threat of punishment keeps the sadists in line. The police dept draws sadists like a daycare draws pedophiles, so their makeup is much higher than in the general population. The officer who did this should be in prison, and the officer who allowed it should be fired and neither should ever be allowed to own a gun again.

        • Longshot

          May 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM

          I agree with you on only one point. Most, but not all LEO’s are very good men. I know my county Sheriffs, and my city cops. All of them. The Alabama troopers I do not know because I do not want to know them as they are as crooked as a snake. They are on the take, abuse women driving alone with false charges unless “sexual” favors are given. My wife was one of their victims. Since there were no witnesses, my wife’s case was thrown out of Court. Somehow, the video recorder mounted on the dash of the cruiser didn’t record the traffic stop. My wife still has PTSD about the “incident”. Rape it was, and foul was the officer.
          These “city” cops should not have been in a rural setting unless it was in the town’s jurisdiction (as it was obviously NOT). The man and his Son were mentally and physically abused, AND their civil rights were severely violated. These “city police” should be convicted, and should be severely punished up to and including jail with the common inmates, no special treatment to protect them. If I were arrested, convicted, I would expect no less. After all, we are all “equal” in the eyes of the law, aren’t we?

          • XXLegion

            May 3, 2013 at 9:29 PM

            Sorry to burst your bubble regarding lack of jurisdiction – most states have laws allowing on-duty LEO’s to leave their area to enforce laws in other area’s. Their primary jurisdiction may be a town, city, etc., but the law allows them to enforce the law in other area’s depending on circumstances. We don’ poach other jurisdictions; just enforce the law when directed by comm, or assistance calls.

        • Ann Hobgood

          May 3, 2013 at 10:05 AM

          Sir, I don’t know Texas law, even though I lived there for 3 yrs., neither do I own a gun. Though I don’t object to others having guns. But I would have the same objections as this person did about being accosted on a rural road and having the officer NOT requesting his weapon just reaching and physically grabbing the weapon. Also as stating in one other reply this was a city officer. What was the city officer doing in the county? Their responsibility is the city, not the county.
          I don’t think the man arrested would have raised as much objections with your approach. Even with a drawn gun pointed at the ground it sounds like you would have REQUESTED his weapon(s). I think his major objection was the officers approach and subsequent actions. The subsequent actions are something I would object to also. I hope he does sue the Temple City Police Department. The police should not be above the law. They should be held accountable to the laws also. I think the actions of this officer is one reason why a lot of people do not trust the police now.

        • Paul

          January 29, 2014 at 2:01 PM

          Creeker I agree the officer had to show some caution when approaching MSG Grisham because there are too many nut jobs around anymore. MSG Grisham could have defused the situation by being proactive and put the officer at ease by offering him the weapon or showing the officer that the weapon is unloaded or telling the police officer that he will clear the weapon for him. After all MSG Grisham is not on Ft Hood or any other military installation or training area and MSG Grisham is not on a FTX, he is walking around on someone’s private property in an open field with an AR-15 on-the-other-hand the police officer is doing his job and on official status as a police officer. I don’t think this is an issue about MSG Grisham rights to carry a weapon. Put yourself in the police officer position he is told to be on the lookout of a men with a weapon, the police officer does not know MSG Grisham, and MSG Grisham is showing some strange behavior when ask about the weapon.

        • Combat Veteran Seabee

          February 17, 2014 at 10:20 AM

          If I see a cop coming with his weapon UNHOLSTERED, I’m doing the same, it a “Personal Safety thing!”
          Way too many peop[le getting executed by the cops these days, and that is the truth. Try to refute that leo!

      • Danny

        April 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM

        Where is the beginning of the video? Why have you left out parts of it?

      • Matt

        October 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

        1) An assault rifle on a tactical sling is ABSOLUTELY “threatening” to MOST of the population. I’m former special operations and if I saw someone walking along the side of the road like you were I wouldn’t like it one bit. The rifle should have been BEHIND you. I have lived and hiked EXTENSIVELY in mountain lion and bear country and those animals don’t just pounce without warning. They show themselves and give warning so your weapon didn’t need to be that readily available.

        1) The instant you saw the officer any RATIONAL person knows that any visible weapons should be OFFERED to be turned over to the officer in the manner the officer requests. “I understand officer that your job is dangerous and you don’t need some idiot around you armed and making your job more dangerous. How would you like me to turn my weapons over to you? I have this rifle that you see but also a 45 pistol on my left hip. Just let me know what you want me to do.” They are VERY reasonable when you show that you’re OFFERING to make sure they don’t have to be concerned about you.

        2) Was the officer acting a bit like a gun-control jackass? Yes. But if you would have simply remained calm, and compliant instead of constantly “I don’t give you permission”, and “what am I doing wrong.” and generally escalating the situation I doubt you would have had the problem you did.

        Look, society is what it is. Some people, and police officers especially, get nervous when they see someone with a firearm and are more nervous still with “military style weapons”. If you OFFERED the firearm to the officer upon initial contact and remained calm and compliant it is my experience that they would have checked out your story, made sure you had no warrants and your CCW was valid all in 5 minutes or less and then given your firearms back unloaded and simply asked that you not reload them until you returned home.

        AT MOST they might have asked why you felt it important to carry an assault rifle on a tac sling weapon in the front. You pointing out the 4 confirmed mountain lion attacks since 2011 in Temple and multiple encounters with them probably would have had them understanding and largely left you alone.

        They are police officers, they got a call, they had to do something.

        And carrying around an assault rifle on a tac sling, weapon in front, loaded … come on, no officer was going to be comfortable with that and IT IS LEGAL for them to ensure their safety. With the call they had to investigate.

        Again, if you had thought about it RATIONALLY you could have simply not acted like an idiot and you likely would have been on your way in a few minutes.

        I know I repeated myself here, but that’s because I was trying to demonstrate that you were, in fact, being threatening (I would have felt that way) and simply shifting to the weapon at your back would have likely resulted in a very different scenario.

        • PaoloItaly

          October 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM

          Being a former airborne recon I have to disagree on the harsh judgement passed on the police man. He might have acted a bit more politely but in all honesty, if you carry an assault rifle slung over the chest, this is not a relaxed, not potentially threatening way of carrying a weapon. A rifle slung on the chest is a typical way of having the weapon ready for action. Should our sergeant have carried the weapon slung by the shoulder with the muzzle pointed to the ground, like every hunter does, and maybe without the magazine in place, since he’s not in a war zone, things might have been a little different. So much for a serviceman responsible handling of weapons…….the law is the law, common sense is common sense.

          • David

            October 22, 2013 at 9:57 PM

            If the cop was that concerned about his safety because of the presence of that firearm, why would he approach to within an arms length, close enough to reach out grab the rifle. Why didn’t he draw his weapon from a distance and “prone him out” first, so that hecould more safely remove the rifle as a threat?. The fact that he walked right up on him and grabbed the rifle indicates to me that the cop considered him pretty low risk, if any risk at all.

          • Combat Veteran Seabee

            February 17, 2014 at 10:22 AM

            And the law is OPEN CARRY! No need to say more!

        • Tank

          December 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM

          The point being missed in your observation is that this is not a matter of civility to the officer. By stopping a person who is not committing a crime, walking with a visible weapon in Texas was not breaking the law, the officer has already stepped on the rights of the citizen. Why do I have to offer my weapon to an officer just because he asks for it? Why do I have to produce identification just because an officer asks for it? If I am not breaking a law the officers need to be trained to the fact that I do NOT have to surrender any of my rights to them just because they ask or tell me to. The fact is, each time, we as law abiding and pleasant citizens allow this to occur, we are giving up our unalienable rights, and by doing so allowing the authorities the ability to further abuse their positions.

        • CaptRemo

          February 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM

          Sorry.. everyone has missed a major point here. An older, armed man is walking down a country road with an unarmed 15yr old boy. Had they been hunting, they boy would have been armed as well. Does anyone see probable cause for a stop, disarm, and question here?

          I teach CCW classes in Idaho. We are a very conservative state. But, were I LEO, I’d want to find out what was up.

    • Calin Brabandt

      April 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      If so, police set up citizens all the time. Why not the inverse to catch criminal cops?

      • Longshot

        May 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        If you live in Alabama, criminal cops are rarely prosecuted unless it is a killing. They are quietly let go, never charged with a crime.

    • Shannon Pritchard

      April 20, 2013 at 7:57 AM

      Regardless of what else occurred, just the fact that the officer said that “they don’t care what the law is” or “Just because a guy has got a firearm, he’s dangerous?” Grisham asks, drawing the reply, “Yes, sir.” should get him fired.

      He is fortunate that the Sgt did not shoot the officer in self defense when he went for his gun. Once that officer stepped outside the law he is just like everyone else, and he cannot brandish a firearm without risk of being shot.

    • Eleanor Rohl

      April 22, 2013 at 9:41 PM

      The saying is: give a hard azz a gun and a badge,and you have just created a crazy hard azz ,smart azz, who thinks the laws do not apply to him, and becomes belligerent, demeaning and will do anything to prove he is above any law. These people give our good LEOs a bad name.

  2. DC

    April 18, 2013 at 7:44 AM

    I do enjoy reading this post, but sometimes like today with this video it irks me. What happened to respect. Has that gone to the way side with its brother common sense. Police get calls like this frequently. It is our current society that initiates this call of a suspicious person. The Police cannot ignore that call. Without seeing the beginning of the interaction it is unknown if the actions taken were justified. Only the words from one side of this story are present. Why not just shut up, be respectful, let the man do his job, and then leave. This man just taught his son that honest people trying to do their job should be disrespected and argued with. Now this man is trying to get people to pay for his own disrespect. It is sad that Respect has passed on to the other side. Hopefully buried with its brother Common Sense. God bless the both of them.

    • JT

      April 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM

      Since when is standing up for one’s rights wrong? “Bostonians! Just pay your tax on tea and shut up. I am the king of England!”

      But I guess Americans are being conditioned to obey whatever the man with the badge, brown suit, coat and tie or whatever symbol of power is displayed tells you to do.

      • GMR

        April 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM

        It’s the dumbed down, don’t think for yourself society that says “You don’t know what you want or need so we’ll tell you!”
        The cry babies in this country want to be coddled and can’t fathom standing up for anything of worth.

    • Joe Schwartz

      April 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM

      I agree a little respect goes a long way. “A soft answer turns away wrath”. Joe was contentious from the first word, the officer reacted naturally. He has the right to carry a firearm, but the officer has the right to disarm and detain an individual he as doubts about. If he had not acted contentiously it is very likely this would have had a very differnent outcome and the officer would have asked a series of questions, determined there was no threat and returning the weapon, left them to finish the hike. A scout is curteous, one of the 12 points of the scout law. I hope the boy doesn’t follow his dad’s example. Lets reserve out fight for our rights for legiitimate fights. I don’t know what Joe was eventually charged with but I am not contributing to his defencee whe he clearly brought this on himself.

      • Bill Hartzell

        April 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        Sorry, sir- you are wrong- he does NOT have the right to ‘disarm’ him. He has the right to ask him for his permit, which must be given. He has the right to ASK him to put his weapon down, but until he places him under arrest, he does not have the RIGHT to disarm him. Americans, KNOW you’re rights, know the law and do not allow them to be abused, especially by jack-booted thugs. This POS of a cop is LUCKY he didn’t pull that s&*t on the wrong person. A back road, in an out-of-the-way area of Texas and doing something that stupid, it’s a wonder the cop didn’t end up getting his dumbass shot. These idiots will only pull this illegal crap as long as the American citizen doesn’t know HIS rights. Please don’t misunderstand my comments about the cop not getting shot- I would never advocate shooting a member of LE for such an illegal act as this- I have numerous friends in LE but none like these idiots.

      • CHAZ

        April 18, 2013 at 5:16 PM

        Joe you are totally right!

      • Dal

        June 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM

        You are exactly right, Joe. Peace officers have every reason to approach every situation with heightened caution, and the author here clearly acted contentiously from the start instead of calmly answering questions (and setting a good example of level-headedness for his son). His attitude made the whole situation spiral out of control and he has no one to blame but himself.

      • Combat Veteran Seabee

        February 17, 2014 at 10:26 AM

        All speculation on your part. You have no idea how this might have been different. We see it every day, 400 rounds pumped into a car that wouldn’t stop and killed an UNARMED COUPLE! Baltimore

    • GMR

      April 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

      What he taught his son is to be a man and a free citizen with RIGHTS!! Our rights as citizen supersede the police abusing our rights. If the police want respect, the perhaps they should give respect. Mr. Grishan did nothing wrong.
      Would you have rather he laid down and allowed the cops to walk all over him and his son?
      Additionally, they violated his sons rights by not allowing an adult or legal representation to be in the presence of a minor who by the way was neither charged nor arrested.
      The emasculation process in this country is too deeply entrenched and people suggesting what you have here furthers the agenda of emasculation that has led this country to the despicable state we now have before us.

      • CL

        April 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

        It would seem to me that the detention of the boy against his will would qualify as kidnapping.

    • SB

      April 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM

      Yup, that is right, forget your 2nd amend. rights and let the LEO do whatever they want. they are exempt from the law. If the officer felt threatened why did he not wait for backup to arrive before approaching? use the speaker and issue commands from shelter of his car? no, this is the typical arrogant officer that can not stand to be objected to and I hope that when it is over that he and his supervisor are both looking for new jobs. my father was a police officer and I am proud of the work that he did, but there are always those that abuse their office. this was one.

    • skipfoss

      April 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM

      That has been the problem, we stand there and be respectful and let the employee of ours tell us what to do and when we ask what the problem is you get some smart ass answer from the jerk I will tell you when I finish , Bull shit you will tell me what the reason is for stopping me before you proceed any farther,but of course then you are put under arrest for resisting,which in its self is a bogus charge,and just likre this smart ass cop he and his buddies all over the nation who they work for and who the bill of rights protects ,which shows that he is not exempt from any law as a matter of fact he is more responsable than a normal citizen whom he works for

  3. Jim Mcgeough

    April 18, 2013 at 7:48 AM

    Absolute disgrace…police not knowing or caring about the law and manhandling a citizen ….unbelieveable..

    • joseph walsh

      April 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      What a horse’s Arse. In todays enviroment he should have put the arms down when the Officer approached him . I dont give a rats butt that what the law is over my safety and the citizens I protect. His failure to comply at the onset Got him the treatment. I would have put the weapon towards my back, Not in the front as if I was still overseas on patrol. Then the attitude about gbreaking the law…. well that a special kind of stupid. I would have asked if I could show my permits and go from there. He was obnoxious and rude. He is lucky he was not disarmed at the point of a gun.
      Like hands on head drop to your knees keep your arm out ect. OH and yes you special kind of idiot. There are cases of father and son shooting and killing cops. Good Job DAD showing your kid that the LAW and common sense sometimes collide. but attitude and stupidity trumps being a good citizen and your rights to be “free” Oh and thank you Now you have given law makers some thing to chew on like revoking certain laws due to extreem buttholeness

      • JT

        April 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM

        Joseph Walsh………….duh. He doesn’t need a permit. You are conditioned from watching too much TV. You think a permit to own and carry a rifle is akin to having a driver’s license. Texas, Joseph. Heck! California! You do not need a permit for a rifle.
        “Let me see your permit!” “Duh, officer, I don’t need one!”
        Joseph, this is a clear example of a little man with a badge having power but no authority. This will never make it to trial. The policeman will get reprimanded and the gun owner will get an apology. Boss Hogg and Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane is what you have here.

        • Melvin Schell

          April 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM

          JT In Cal. you can not carry a rifle in toe open anymore, that is a new one for us.

        • K Lewis

          April 18, 2013 at 1:45 PM

          When the police receive a report of a “person with a gun” they respond to investigate. The police do NOT know who you are or what your mindset is. This was not an armed person being approached out of the blue, this was a call of a person with a gun. Had the Sgt not acted like an ASS this would not have escalated and the Sgt would have been able to contine his hike. NORMALLY, when responding to a call like this, SAFETY is the number one rule! The officer’s number one rule is GO HOME AT THE END OF THE SHIFT. Most officers will tmporarly disarm you or have you at minimum sling the weapon over your back for EVERONES SAFETY while they talk to you and identify you and verify that you’re legally authorized to possess the firearm. Once those two things happen, the encounter is finished and the Sgt would have been free to go.
          The Sgt did two things wrong, he failed to identify himself as a CHL holder (which is required at the onset of contact with police), it was only after the officer asked about other weapons that the Sgt said he had a .45 on his hip and was a CHL holder. The second was when he started pulling away and resisting the officers attemp to secure the weapon for safety during the contact.
          I don’t know of any officer that takes issue with the 2nd Amndmt. A PoliceOne poll conducted last week with 15,000 officers nationwide showed officers overwhelmingly support the 2nd Amndmt (78%). A little common sence goes a LONG way and the Sgt lacked it, and seemed to be pushing an agenda. Now he’s wanting us to pay his defense fund. No thanks

      • Robert Greer

        April 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM

        “When Policemen break the law there is no law only a fight for survival.” Billy Jack

      • skipfoss

        April 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM

        Sounds to me like you are or have been a cop so take your politeness and shove it

        • Creeker

          April 18, 2013 at 2:13 PM

          So in your book ALL active and retired Cops should be treated as if they were bullies and thugs?

          Respect is a two way street, and I’ve always treated people with respect until they’ve proven they didn’t want it.

          It’s looking like you don’t want it…. or you are from some location in which people don’t give it to anybody, because it might be a sign of weakness?

      • bonzaisteve

        May 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM


  4. Retired Marine

    April 18, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    So let’s just make up laws and enforce the phony laws, while the real law breakers can do their thing. Way to go Temple, Texas, where their cops are either queer’s or steers, and I didn’t see any horns on their heads. Well folks, Temple Texas is as bad as Austin. Wow a rudely displayed rifle, really? How does one rudely display a rifle? How about the rude display of a big fat overbearing cop, and a moron Barney Fife for a supervisor. neither one has any idea of the law and both should be suspended and discharged for illegal arrest and harassment. There actions are deplorable at best.

    • Paul J Greiner

      April 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

      Well said fellow vet. And, thanks for your service.

    • Jimmy Tanner

      April 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM

      That’s just hitting the nail on the head. Doughnut Boy and Barney.

  5. George

    April 18, 2013 at 8:22 AM

    No one, repeat. No one is exempt from the law!
    Not the police, nor anyone else who lives in the United States. No one, no where, no time! Some laws maybe stupid and a bit crazy but, that doesn’t mean one is exempt. No more time now.

  6. Dan Callaway

    April 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM

    I am sorely disappointed in the actions of the Temple, Texas police officers. I am a 33 year veteran Texas peace officer and a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment. In Texas, no such law of “Rudley Displaying a Weapon” exists. As a matter of fact, there is no reqirement for permit to carry a legal shotgun or rifle in the State of Texas. It appears to me that Officer Steve Ermis violated his oath of office to protect the United States Constitution. It appears that a citizen’s complaint was more important to him than Sergeant Grisham’s’s 2nd Amendment Rights. I understand the citizen’s complaint but I also believe that Sergaent Grisham’s rationale for carrying the weapon was reasonable and that he was carrying the weapon in a non-threatenting manner. The officers had a duty to respond to the call and check out the situation but once contact was made with the Sergeant and the situation was checked out and the officers did not view any violation of law, Sergeant Grisham should have been released with no action taken against him.

  7. Paul J Greiner

    April 18, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    Far too many police officers nowadays appear to be gripped by fear in dealing with even the most routine traffic stops. Fear makes people unpredictable and therefore dangerous. As a soldier in Vietnam, often operating in a stressful environment, I was less prone to deal harshly with the Vietnamese people than the police seem to be when it comes to our own citizens. Since 911, police are seen as heroes and are given a pass in almost every situation. These cops are way out of line and when cops are this stressed out they should consider another line of work. This is shameful. And here I’m considering a move to Texas (from NY) after my son graduates from HS. This makes me wonder.

    • Mark Holtz

      April 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      The law enforcement are being fed all kinds of lies from the corrupt government. We the people are being accused of being terrorist. There is a document that states that Christens, Arm forces, people that are able to think are all terrorist. Thats why the police are so edgy. They are being conditioned. If you don’t agree with this administration or government officials you can be arrested and held forever. Thank you patriot act!!! and the list of propaganda is on going.

    • Darren M Weber

      April 18, 2013 at 3:19 PM

      Uncle Paul J, I still think Texas is one of the freer states when it comes to gun rights, but I do tend to see a lot of troubling videos of policeman acting outside their authority. I believe, unfortunately, there needs to be an education of the police force as far as citizen’s gun rights. They should already know this, but it seems far too common that they are ignorant of the law or they just decide to ignore it.

  8. Chris

    April 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    I see,and agree, with both sides of this issue. But it seems to me that 1) respect was a bit lacking on both sides and 2) had the sergeant simply explained what he was doing and why he was armed, to protect from wild hogs, cougars etc., the outcome would have been much different. Having been in the military myself, USMC grunt, we know how to deal with people with “Rank”. Yes sir, No sir, thank you very much sir, oorahh! ( Oorahh is grunt for Go F&$K yourself).
    It’s a shamed this happened. Show respect, get respect. Simple

  9. Mike

    April 18, 2013 at 9:02 AM

    I believe this situation could have been resolved in 5 minutes if the gun owner had not tried to make a spectacle of the situation. While the responding officer may not have handled the whole thing in the best way, if a gun owner is polite and responds to questions and yes, maybe even surrenders his weapon for a few minutes to de-escalate the officer’s fight/flight response to potential danger, this whole thing is a non-issue. Because the gun owner decided to push the limits of non-compliance and basically try to make a spectacle of the situation, it all went sideways. Imagine how the responding cop feels pulling up to a guy dressed in camo carrying an AR-15 slung around his chest. His first concern is his own safety. Did he handle it wrong, probably. Did it have to go this way, no. If the gun owner had been more compliant, he would have had the opportunity to explain that he was on a 10 mile hike for his son’s scouting project and the rifle was for protection from the various wild animals known to be in the area. Rifle returned, officer happy, call answered and no one arrested.

    • Frank

      April 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM

      After watching the video, I would say that there was a little bit of wrong doing, or improper actions taken on both sides of the issue! First of all, when the officer confronted the man, rather than just grabbing the rifle and trying to disarm the man, the officer might or should have asked the man to turn-over the rifle for the safety of everyone involved, until a proper determination of what was actually going on or what the man was doing walking with the rifle! Just trying to grab the rifle is NOT the way to try and disarm an individual. Secondly, when the officer stated he didn’t care about the law, then all hell broke loose! If both the officer and the man with the rifle, would have acted respectfully toward each other, this would have been no problem!

  10. Van Stallman

    April 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM

    This is not right, Sgt. Grisham was doing nothing wrong. I see a civil suit on its way for harrassment and false arrest.

    • Van Stallman

      April 18, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      what moderation?What happened to freedom of speech?

  11. jason lund

    April 18, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    The underlying theme must be investigated. WHO made the complaint call?
    Was it a local politico, or their family member? A known mover and shaker? Or an ordinary citizen.

    The police are becoming more and more militant in their treatment of We The People, and I am of the opinion that if the current methodology of abuse of power continues, there will be a form of a civil war brewing. The bill of rights is the greatest thorn in the side of that class of people that want to be the ruling gentry of our society. More and more, the police use two sets of rules to abide by. One for the ordinary citizen, and one for the special class of those that have assets, land and power obtained via them.

    How much more shall we take. Respect is not issued like a blue uniform, it is earned. Once respect for the enforcer of the law is removed, the law itself becomes almost meaningless. Why are the police more apt to turn on the law abiding citizen than the known gang member or drug dealer? Perhaps because they know they have empowerment over the ordinary folk that they have lost on those they SHOULD be pursuing.
    Happenstances like this are what cause me to stock up on ammo, food and related in order to weather what I feel is coming down the pipe at our society, headed by those who we were taught as children to respect, but as adults find no reason to respect what treads on our freedoms.

    • William

      April 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM

      Agree, part of desensitizing citizens to Marshal Law and UN Troops. I to have been stocking up on food/ammo for last 6 months (since 44 took 2nd term watch). Its coming-collapse of dollar/Fiat money & Fed Reserve/NWO as well as disarming America.
      Expect more of this kind of treatment, those Temple officers should be give time off and training (without pay) until they learn how to conduct themselves correctly.

  12. GentleMiant

    April 18, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    Everybody’s wrong.
    The armed guy acts agitated instead of reasonable,
    The cops are careless with what they say, and not as calm as they should be.
    But I doubt this guy’s suit will succeed.

  13. Longhunter

    April 18, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    If there is a law on the Texas books covering “rude display of a weapon” then I think this man has a good basis for a lawsuit and a good case for overturning such a preposterous law which on the face is overly broad and therefore unconstitutional. His 2d Amt right is not trumped by someone’s nebulously defined “fear.” What was he doing at the time the citizen called in the complaint? Just walking down the road with a gun slung across you chest is not threatening. PERIOD. I was a cop back in the 1970s and this kind of situation would never have occurred with me.

  14. larry

    April 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    its a sad fact in our society that our police forces throughout the nation are populated by imbislic walter mittys that chose the profession inorder to, for the first time in their life, have some manner of authority over others… typically lacking the intellect or positive self image for success in the competitive world, they chose an authoritarian designation, that once obtained allows them to make up for the countless insults and embarrassments they suffered growing up… picked on and frequently beat up after school, they feel they have at last obtained some power over others, a stays they could never attain without a gun on their hip… this unfortunately results in frequent felonious acts and recurring inappropriate discharge of their firearms… talk about background checks, I would wager a very substantial percentage of these armed mental midgets lack the emotional stability to carry a gun…

  15. Debbie

    April 18, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    I’m REAL sorry but this guy is WRONG!!!!!!! I cab guarantee you if I see a man with a AR-15 walking ANYWHERE, publicly displayed, I would call the police immediately………we MUST have wisdom in our “””right to carry”” & STUFF LIKE THIS only goes against what we are trying to CIVILLY protect. And as LAW abiding citizens, it’s our job to help “””watch””” for these kinds of things. I have carried for 40 years & NEVER had a problem!!!!!! Ad I’ve also witnessed suspicious people & called in on them. NOW IF we actually go into a civil war in this country THEN we WILL ALL be armed. I have MANY law enforcement friends & they CARE DEEPLY about protecting ALL rights. This fella wasn’t doing anything illegal…..he just didn’t need to make THIS statement… heart hurts for his son….and this is the WRONG way to teach a child. I’m a Texan, of 6 generations, & we all have had the peace of “right to carry” ! And I truly don’t believe it’s going to ever change unless….like I said before, IF civil war breaks out”. Walk soft but carry a big stick….concealed!!!!!!! You’re actually putting your own self in danger by broadcasting your weapon……remember, LIKE A FOX.

    • JT

      April 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      Debbie, Perhaps if his AR was pink it wouldn’t have seemed so threatening. What if it was a double barreled shotgun, the kind our vice president thinks is “reasonable”. I mean, NY! One “military-style” feature on a gun. This is ridiculous. Suppose someone has their ham sandwich stuck inside their pocket and a person calls the cops to report a “suspicious bulge”! I suggest you read about pre-WW II Germany. Read about East Germany during the Cold War. Citizens were encouraged to report on neighbors who were acting suspiciously. Out come the storm troopers! Since when does illogical paranoia on the part of the ignorant and uninformed constitute the right for a sworn officer of the law to invent some new personal interpretation of the law?

      • Debbie

        April 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        JT……………all I can say is, “hide & watch hunny”. My standard dress, when carring my rifles….notice that’s plural…., is Mossy Oak…You’d have to know the mindset of a Texas woman “”b-4″” you comment. We don’t back up or down, give up in or out..nuff said.Have a great day. ;-0)

      • Debbie

        April 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        And I forgot to add the most important thing, Psalm 27:4. Of whom shall I fear….NO ONE!

  16. Ed

    April 18, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    In virtually every state, a government official who knowingly violates the state or federal constitution can be stripped of their immunity and sued. This appears to be a clear violation of of the 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure.

    I’d say these officers won’t be in law enforcement much longer.

  17. Buck

    April 18, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    Why are these bums still cops ? Is Texas falling on its a– ?

  18. Scott

    April 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM

    I am a retired NYPD Detective…The officer stated he got a call…The officer did not know who this person was or what his intentions were…he did not doing anything any other officer would not have done…he kept himself and others safe till he figured out what was going on…This guy was being a dope by carrying that rifle…he was ok for the sidearm with his carry and conceal permit but not to smart with the rifle….His comments about rogue cops was stupid and he was looking for a lawsuit….This guy was an unknown person….We as officers do what will keep us safe and also others…example…a NC cop stops a man for a broken tail light and gets shot…When we stop people they know who we are but we do not know who they are…I gave a ticket to a guy in NY and later found out he shot a cop in the south….If you have not been in Law enforcement don’t speak what you do not know….

    • Debbie

      April 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM

      I DITTO that & very MUCH appreciate your service….. I am a LIL RED neck lady BUT agin……it’s WISDOM + TACT = DISCRETION + LIFE SAVED!

    • realamericancowboy

      April 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      I’m assuming that your status as a retired “NYPD” detective explains your obvious ignorance of the “LAW” of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States of America.It would also explain your ignorance of Texas law.In both cases, you have misspoken, as the “ordinances” of New York, or New York City do not apply in Temple, Tx., as well they should not.Beside the fact that this citizen’s rights under Constitutional law have been violated, according to, at least the 1st, the 2nd, and the 4th amendments, you are ignorantly applying your personal opinion were it does not apply.Albeit, this citizen did not handle the situation as appropriately as you, or I might have, that did not give the police officer the right to lay his hands (physically assault) on him.Carrying a weapon at “port arms” is entirely different than “brandishing” one, and the officer, if he were properly trained, would have kown that.He is, obviously not properly trained.I am a **** veteran.I have law enforcement experience.I would not have handled the situation in such a manner, simply because of the geographic nature of the stop.Those of us out here in God’s country do not ordinarily, run around shooting each other up.We commonly carry rifles, and shotguns in the rear windows of our vehicles, and occassionally, on our person.And we do that in many midwest, and southern states, not just Texas.We, also tend to be a bit more respectful to one another than these two idiots, so you could easily label this instance as an anomoly.The citizen was confrontational, and the officer was the same.Two idiots in the wrong place, at the wrong time.Bottom line is, you start comparing apples (New York), and oranges (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, etc…), and try bringing that liberal, personal/politically correct, communist/socialist, big govermnent/gun grabbing mentallity out here in the real, rural world of America, you’re just looking to get yourself between a rock, and a hard place.Keep that garbage in New York, and Cali/Mexico.

    • tank

      December 30, 2013 at 4:03 PM

      Again, when is walking with a gun breaking the law, and now the basis for a stop and demand. UNLESS a law was clearly being broken….WHICH OPEN CARRY OF THE GUN WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW…. the officer had NO right to stop this man, whether he had a gun or not, remember driving while black is not a crime, neither is open carry in an open carry state!

  19. John

    April 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM

    This just shows the total uslessness of our so called law enforcement

  20. Charles Tilley

    April 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM

    If Texas has a open carry law , Than what is the problem . You are allowed in Texas and if Police officers don’t enforce the law they must be breaking the law. Maybe Police should be fired for breaking the law .This man’s civil rights were broken and he should be allowed to sue the city and the Police Officer too.

  21. Derf

    April 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    These situations are common throughout the US. Many can be found on YouTube. Too many people are blaming the carrier, not the LEO, for doing something perfectly legal in these situations. Some are calling it baiting, but it is still legal. The LEO must first observe, maybe from a distance. In some states, what this officer did is immediate grounds for suspension – it is against the 4th amendment. Most of these situations occur during what is known as open carry – and you can debate the merits of OC for years and it still does not matter – if it is legal, the SCOTUS has ruled that openly carrying a firearm is ALONE not enough to do what is known as a Terry Stop. There must be some other RAS before any more than a “conversational” stop is attempted, at which time, the carrier can terminate it whenever he/she sees fit, and walk away. The problem always seems to occurs when the LEO “takes it personally” and tries to make the carrier “respect his authority”. Many lawsuits have been filed and won because of exactly this situation. A good site to visit to see many of these situations and results is – or search in Youtube under “open carry” or “open carry harrassment”. A good Youtube video is under “open carry portland”…..too many of these have occurred and in some places the police have learned to respect rights – but some have not.

  22. JJM

    April 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    I have no problem with Open Carry and would only become concerned if Aggressively Approached or other Suspicious Behavior. TX is being invaded by pansies and panty wastes lacking Common Sense. Wondering how busy the police force gets during any hunting season.
    Sgt Grisham did become (understandably) verbally aggressive and should have kept better control of his emotions and mouth. A more conservative sling system would have been appropriate. I am not condoning the actions and words of LEO. Hopeful that all police video confirms his compliance to lawful orders.

  23. J B Good

    April 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM

    Active duty military can not be legally arrested. At best, they are detained and transferred to military custody.

    While this guy is obnoxious, last I checked that is not a crime. Under Terry the PO PO had the right to do a limited stop and to secure the weapon. After doing this, and confirming that there were no criminal concerns, they should have let this guy go.

    Arresting him on some nebulous or nonexistent charge was unlawful. He had a legal right to do exactly what he was doing.

    • XXLegion

      May 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM

      Active duty military can be arrested, booked and tried in civil court. This is not a dictatorship. I know because I have arrested a fair share of active duty personnel (off base for just about all of them, and on base with a warrant and assistance of base commander for two of them).

  24. Larry K.

    April 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM

    Police were investigating a call about “some guy walking down the road with a gun”. A little cooperation from the idiot and I believe the whole thing could have been solved quickly and without incident. Spewing the “I have rights” nonsense while not being compliant and then recording it all shows the guy was looking for trouble. Having said that I am sick to death of lawmakers chipping away at our 2nd Amendment rights but don’t blame the policemen trying to do their jobs. Troublemakers make us all look bad. Be civil and polite and understanding. This is the kind of attitude that makes us gun owners look like crazies. If stupid hurt there would be less of it in the world. Arrest the idiot.

  25. Bob

    April 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    The man in question is an agitator and an ass. If he I such a law abiding citizen then all he had to do was to comply and be calm. He continued to act in a agitated state, continuing to raise his voice and challenge the police authority, one that any reasonable person would think would not be of sound mind to be able to make rationale decision. No police officer or person is going to have a person handle a weapon and hand it to them. That my friend is a death wish and if he cant understand that then his right to have weapons and his license should be in question. A police officer has to act smartly and if a citizen doesn’t understand that to bad. Safety is their number one priority to both us and the public. That’s what keeps police officers alive. Good judgment and smart policing. Good job to the Police Officer and his supervisor.

    • c hall

      April 18, 2013 at 1:44 PM

      Under what police authority where they allowed the terry stop? This is Texas not NY.

    • tank

      December 30, 2013 at 4:10 PM

      COMPLY WITH WHAT??? He was not breaking the law, there was no need for him to COMPLY with anything, why is this so hard to understand for anyone, not breaking the law, no right to stop and question, no right to ask for ID, no right to disarm, and should have been no need for the law abiding citizen to have to be polite, he was being harassed without any crime committed.

  26. GuyNM

    April 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM

    Back in Junior High (dating myself) I used to carry my Savage over & under (20ga/.22) strapped across my back and my Ruger Single-Six strapped around my waist peddling my stingray 7 or so miles to the river (Rio Grande). No one ever called about me being a threat to them. Cops just waved and I smiled and waved back.

    We sure do live in different times. America sure was blessed then. Let’s keep blessing her as best we can.

  27. Carlos

    April 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    They have an open carry law in Texas & prior to responding the Officer should have simply asked the dispatcher if the Suspect threatened anyone with the Rifle & then initiated contacted using Officer Safety protocol and common sense. I don’t expect the Civilian to act as professional as a paid law enforcement officer!

    I could just imagine how that encounter would have escalated had the Man & Son been Black or Hispanic! The Dad should have been a better example for his Son without a Doubt but both parties were wrong to certain degrees but the paid police professionals have a higher standard of conduct.

  28. wm

    April 18, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    It is actions like this that give all cops a bad name. Why should we as the general public trust the police when things like this happen? I have had LE training, and I am currently disabled. If a cop ia paranoid and has to invent charges to get his way he needs not only to find another job, but be prosecuted the same as any other criminal.

  29. Jorge

    April 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM

    I believe that the officer was looking for any excuse to arrest the man and disarm a law a legally armed citizen.

  30. larry smith

    April 18, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    Police Officer and his supervisor should be layoff three day without pay. they didnot read him is rights.

    • marsha

      April 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

      The officer was rude, and obnoxious. The Sargent could have handled it it bit more calmly, but after all the uncalled for shooting of people’s pet dogs by law enforcement, I have serious doubts as to the fear the officer claims to have felt. Some people simply should not be cops. They use their position to bully others. My respect for the police in general went down hill after I saw at least weekly shootings by officers of dogs that were enclosed in their own yards, and it was the officer who had NO right to be where they were, yet yelled the “I felt threatened” mantra to get themselves out of trouble. I think better background checks need done on wanta be cops, and I think its against the law that none of the officers read the man his Miranda rights before telling him he was under arrest and placing him in the car!

    • David Busener

      April 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      Great point but it looks like harassment. It will be thrown out if the patrol car recording shows negative on the Miranda rights.

    • Creeker

      April 18, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      Funny. I didn’t hear any questions about his “crime”. Not that I am defending the Cop, because I think he was over the top and over reacting, but I hear that comment from everybody who gets their law license from the Cheerios box.

      Name, Address, what are you doing here, identification do not require Miranda. Didn’t it say that on your box of Fruit Loops?

      • tank

        December 30, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        On my box of fruit loops it was very clear, NO CRIME being committed, no right to ask for ID, no reason needed for existing in a place, doesn’t matter who I am or where I live, no crime being committed, no reason for questioning, this is why the abuses continue, in this United States of America, unless I am committing a crime, there is no requirement to have an address, a name, or an ID., Again, being black, brown, yellow, gun toting, bible thumping, gay, straight, etc.. is NOT a commission of crime, nor a reason for a stop.

  31. Liz Book

    April 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    I have a similar situation going on over here, in DAYTONA BEACH, INCORPORATED(incorporated 1876), but mine involves sexual assault. I would suggest that you contact a good Constitutional expert. Do not stand down and do not Stand back! I contacted my favorite Constitutional expert,Lawrence Walters, to help me seek justice. But I was never charged with a crime, and no one ever handed me a ticket, for anything. Seeing what they put you through, was very similar to what I went through, but mine went way way beyond this. I am still so traumatized that I couldn’t even finish watching your video. But I saw enough to make me feel sick to my stomach, again.

  32. David Busener

    April 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    People called the police on me for walking up to the rifle range with my 16 yr old son, about one mile, with .22lr rifles. Cops stopped and asked if everything was alright, as if I had gone off the reservation so to speak, to which I replied that whoever called the police needs to get a life. I sit next to these guys in church every sunday and they know me, but citizens are like scared wittle wabbits. Doctor says I need exercise so I walk up to the range. What’s the difference between that and driving? No fast getaway without a vehicle! lol. We need to get people used to the idea of carrying guns. Acclimate folks to the practice where it’s legal. This guy resisted with words, not with physical conduct. Now he has a trumped up charge of resisting which is a felony That’s gonna cost him and his family $10,000 to take care of. Hippocrate Texas should be ashamed of this breach of public trust by the police.

  33. David Reisner

    April 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM


  34. Grant

    April 18, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    While I fully support a man’s Right to bear arms, in this case it’s called “bear baiting”, which is a form of setting them up by asking for trouble. Seems to me if a man has a .45 on his hip, that should be sufficient to handle any animal.

    I understand testing the law and the only way to do that is to break it. But he wasn’t breaking any laws, just attracting attention.. so he got what he expected.

    I also noticed the original cop was so unprofessional he put the handcuffs on upside down so to double lock them he had to reach underneath. Idiot. Probably has an IQ of 85 or 90. (100 is average)

  35. Jim

    April 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM


  36. donn

    April 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM

    Sad situation for sure; so many nuts walking around. In my state there is no shooting from a road at all [maybe for self defense] Asked for a reason he is carrying the law does not say “reASON” JUST “RIGHT’.
    I hear wild hogs are dangerous for sure. so are abunch of illegals. Plenty of those in Texas. DRB retired military

  37. Don Tolbert

    April 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM

    It’s quite apparent that both sides of this issue were in the wrong to varying degrees. As many here have pointed out, instead of “picking a fight” in front of his son, perhaps teaching him respect for the law first and foremost would have gone a long way. Cooperation with the police in order to come to an understanding about the situation probably would have lasted all of 30 minutes, and not a night in jail. Just my humble opinion, sometimes we have to educate the educators.

  38. Glen

    April 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    I too have been abused like this man. In my state, Wyoming, it is usually the Game Wardens who ack this way. It appears they have no supervision or control. The only way to solve this issue is to sue the crap out of them, so the supervisors and the people of the city can see the harm financially this sort of action creates. Thank god for video cameras and camera phones.

  39. Paul Wendeln

    April 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    Based on what I’ve heard in the video and read I think the Sgt. may have experienced a different outcome had he just answered the police officers question as to why he was hiking with the rifle at the initial encounter. It’s not as if the first words out of his mouth were put your hands in the air, or sir at this point I have to disarm you. I would just encourage the sergeant to put himself in the officer shoes. He received a call about a man walking down the road carrying a rifle as if on patrol. Well he has to investigate, and the Sargeants reply was not really an answer to his question which probably put him on the defensive causing him to think he may have to engage or be engaged. Even if you were 100% in the right, being calm, respectful, and making the officer feel at ease will probably always help the situation turn out happier for all. Unless he knows you personally he doesn’t know you from Adam. Answering his question with a question is probably not the best way to start the conversation. Remember he wants to go home to his family also. Anyhow if what you were doing was legal under Texas law I sure hope any charges against you are dropped. And if what you were doing was illegal unfortunately you will have to suffer the consequences. But I still thank you for your service to the country, and I hope everything turns out well for you. PW

    • Bradley Martin

      April 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM

      I see your point Paul and agree that a good attitude might have made things turn out better but our fore-father’s amendment of “the right to bare arms”, is actually the right to have weapons to keep the government in check so we didn’t have the same situation that England posed on us. They knew that the government has a tendency to get out of hand and this is a prime example. Most people are not taught these facts. The police took him in for no other reason then to prove they could because he ticked them off. Government is so corrupt and Americans are getting tired of it.

  40. Richard

    April 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM

    FUBAR ! PD should have ask for weapon or for it to be put down. Total out of control, this is how bullets start to fly. POI uncooperative.

  41. John

    April 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    OMG… Hey FAT BOY!!! Come Git Sum! I’ve got a gun and I carry it in a ***LEGAL MANER***… I *INVITE* your lard-ass sorry piece of shit, embarrassment to law enforcement EVERYWHERE, out-of-breath, happy to be out of your moms basement because the “cool kids” were kicking your ass at Call-of-Duty online, waiting for the next doughnut raid, porky pig self to come try to disarm ME for doing so! You might wanna bring some extra help though and the help you have in this video isn’t gonna suffice!!!

    Now, please don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying to do harm to peace officers. There is nothing PEACEFUL about what these officers did though. I *AM* saying that porky pig in the video would have ended up cuffed with his own hand-cuffs, in the back seat of his own cruiser though…

    How many others, watching the video, saw AMPLE opportunity to not only disarm porky pig but his “backup” also??? Many will say, “John! I can’t BELIEVE that you would say this!” Well, trust me… I’m already on their list as a “terrorist”. I’m rated as a rifle expert by the United States Marine Corps. ANYONE with firearms training, let alone those of us who happen to excel at such training is already on their list. I’m nothing if not honest and honestly, porky pig would have wound up cuffed and under citizens arrest for violation of the 4th amendment (at minimum).

    And before someone says, “John shouldn’t have a firearm!”… Let me be VERY CLEAR!!! I don’t NEED a firearm to be able to defeat the likes of Temple PD shown in this video. Bare handed, against porky pig wearing his body armor and armed with whatever he happens to have strapped below his fat rolls, I can and WOULD take him into custody without having to resort to using a firearm AT ALL!

    What a disgusting embarrassment to LEGITIMATE law enforcement officers!!! I think I’ll GO PUKE!

    • Bradley Martin

      April 18, 2013 at 9:14 PM

      Its funny you call him fat boy. we just had a discussion last night about how they should have a test to make sure these guys can run “endurance”. Most can’t and if I want protection, looks like I will have to do it myself.

    • WDB

      April 21, 2013 at 1:34 AM

      When the cop grabbed the gun without saying anything. When if by training alone the SGT put the cop on his fat ass. I agree with everyone that things could have been handled different. I think both cops should be busted down to walking a beat out in the rural country. Should help them with the weight problem also.

      I carry a gun because I can’t a cop

  42. CJD

    April 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM

    No Miranda. End of story. Sgt Grisham goes home, takes his guns with him and the police are lucky if he doesn’t press charges.
    It is all there on tape and there can be no discusion beyond this. It is an illegal matter to be brought before a court of law and that can not be done, anywhere. No lawful court may hear a matter without or outside of juris prudence. Just can’t be done. again, end of story.

  43. Bradley Martin

    April 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM

    Here is the thing…. The government lost it’s right to take them away and this was clearly a political move to show us that they can. I would get a hold of someone at the NRA and show them this video and let them make a commercial out of it. The American people need to see this and the police need to be accountable for their actions. Acts like this is why people resort to violence. This country is headed towards a revolution if we don’t get a handle on things!

    • Linda

      April 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      Bradley, the NRA did know and hubby emailed the link to video and story.
      all they did was say thanks for email and to this date I dont see anything national or on the public broadcasting from them. I am now disheartened by them and wonder at our future conttirbutions to them.

  44. A

    April 19, 2013 at 8:20 PM

    I commend the officers. They did a good job.

  45. richard1941

    April 19, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    The most amazing thing about this video is that it was not destroyed by the thugs!

    Chairman Mao has written that “power comes out of the barrel of a gun”. The police have the right to do whatever they want because they have more guns than you. If you try to fight them in court, they have the full resources of government at their disposal, and you will lose if you are not wealthy like O.J. or Bill Gates. Physical resistance is futile, as they will simply kill you with their superior full-auto firepower, helicopters, armored assault vehicles, chemical weapons, and they will ruin your reputation and make you appear to be a nut with their one-sided access to the media. Police attend university for four years and earn degrees learning all the tricks of their trade; you, as an amateur, must never go against them.

    Learn from Mao how to conduct a war with less resources. Never fight them when they are coming to fight. Just retreat. Attack them when they are packing up to go home and all their weapons are put away. This is called “people’s war”. Be like Mohammed Ali: fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

    Are you not aware that on September 11, 2001, the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave became a commo-fascist POLICE STATE run by power hunger thugs? Yes, my father’s generation beat the Nazis, my generation beat the Reds, and now it is all over. We have become them.

    Therefore, the best response in such a situation is to remember three things to say to a police officer: “Yes, sir,” “No sir”, and “Thank you sir.” Humor them and make them feel powerful, and you will do much better. Of course, if a stray bullet from your flank man should hit one of them in the head while they are doing this to you, your lawyer will make a LOT of money. Fact: in most cases, the heroic first responders with radar guns actually are above the law because of their superior access to force.

    I think I will plan all future long trips to avoid Texas. They don’t need my money there with that kind of behavior. Is Oklahoma any better? I was officially told by an Enid policeman, “If you are not a Baptist, you will go to hell!” And in Enid I was rear-ended by an uninsured Mexican. Maybe the CSA isn’t so bad. (CSA: California Soviet Authority)

    • ellen

      April 24, 2013 at 4:45 PM

      Since when do police officers get four years of training? Here we are doing good if they even get shown how too shoot the guns they are carrying. A lot of porky PO POs too.

  46. Johnny Joe

    April 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM

    Texas penal code Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (8)”displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm”. If this maniac was carrying an assault riffle strapped to the from of his body in my neighborhood like he was walking the streets of Iraq, I would call 911 and say I felt alarmed and scared. He needs an assault riffle for coyotes? His side arm is not adequate? This man needs his CHL taken from him along with all his guns for being mentally unstable. Very irresponsible gun owner!

  47. Al

    April 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    I think I have to agree with Johnny Doe in part above, if I saw a two guys walking down my street and one of them was carrying an assault rifle, I would have phoned the cops too. However, as somebody mentioned above, if you look at the video, they seem to be in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of Texas, a gun state, why on earth are two city officers treating them like this?

    As an ex policeman, in some of the worst areas of the planet, let me tell you, even I was never exempt from the law. The biggest issue I see with this situation is that the two policeman, one a supervisor, say they are exempt from the law! If this is not a cause for dismissal from the police department, then heaven help all you folks in Texas, because if the policeman think they are law exempt, what comes next is a scary thought!

  48. GD

    April 23, 2013 at 3:54 AM

    To me the Sargent doesn’t even look like a suspicious character, a thug or a threat that would be causing any concern. What is the mentality of some of the citizens that call the police and make claims like this? Be it that they may have just moved into the area from a big city and/or haven’t seen anyone walking down a desolate road with a rifle before?…It is a lot about society and the way things have changed in the past ten to twenty years. I hope this fragile person that made the complaint to the police department knows about what this poor guy, and even the police officer are going through…just walking down a road with a rifle in open view. He didn’t shoot it while going down the road or at any houses…No, he was just minding his own business with his kid. Where do those (911-happy) people come from?

  49. scott

    May 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM

    Well, being that I am a Marine and a retired Cop I can say this. The reason you were treated the way you were was for a few reasons. 1, a citizen called the Police to report a man with a gun. When you walk around with an AR-15 on a sling and someone calls the Police, you must comply with all the commands and actions of the L.E.O., regardless of weather or not you believe him to be correct. 2, the law differs in many states, you are not allowed to challenge an L.E.O. who gives you commands. If you comply and you are still arrested there are civil courts to handle your complaint as well as Internal Affairs and Civilian Complaint Review Boards. 3, had you just listened and followed his instructions you would have been disarmed, checked out, cleared of any wrong doing and released to go on your way, obviously being upset and resisting is never a good posture to take when an L.E.O.’s main goal is to go home to his family at the end of his shift. I’m just a little curious, what was the purpose for walking around on a 10 mile hike with your Son with an AR-15????? The .45cal wasn’t sufficient for your stroll???? I think you used a some poor judgement with bringing along the AR. I’m not saying that your state doesn’t allow it, but why draw attention to yourself unnecessarily??? I don’t know, seems like you were being a little “Buffy” and may have been trying to impress you Son by walking around with the AR. From what I can see from the video, the Officer’s had every right to contact you because the P.C. was established via the citizen calling it in. They had a right to stop and frisk for their safety and yours. If your state requires you to identify a concealed weapon then you failed to do that. Poor judgement, lack of compliance even if you didn’t agree with him wasn’t acceptable. L.E.O.’s can not allow citizens to challenge them while there are firearms involved, nor should they. L.E.O.’s don’t take a sworn oath, put on a uniform and a gun to be placed in a position to be hit, spit on, kicked, slapped or shot. When they give you lawful orders, you must follow them carefully and deal with any illegal behavior on their behalf at a later time. Too many L.E.O.’s lose their lives to hesitation, search the video of the Viet Nam vet stopped for a V.C.V. and he pulls out a rifle and kills the cop. Good luck, be smart….just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    • Sc

      December 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

      If the LEO’s MAIN goal isn’t to DO A GOOD JOB as a police officer–to protect the public in an effective, intelligent, respectful, lawful manner–then he should go home safe & sound to his family at the end of his shift and not come back.

    • tank

      December 30, 2013 at 4:27 PM

      You are right, just because you have the right to express your views, you know FREE SPEECH it sure doesn’t mean you should, so why don’t you just stop.

  50. sara

    December 6, 2013 at 9:23 PM

    Cops have anger issues, that is why they become cops, to wield power. I also noticed cops tend to have very small penises, which adds to their anger at the world.

    • GJK

      January 6, 2014 at 5:15 PM

      Most cops do not have anger issues, what makes them angry is having to deal with the brain dead morons day in and day out. For example: being called out to an accident, sirens and lights blazing a d everyone on the road has no common sense to yield to an emergency vehicle. But who is the first person to complain when it took them 2 minutes to get respond to THEIR emergency!! Most people go home and talk about there day with there spouses, police officers can’t do that because of the right to privacy the swore to protect. Maybe if your mouth wasn’t so big the penis’ would feel so small.

  51. Dirtdeere

    December 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Texas Penal Code
    Section 42.01 Disorderly Conduct
    (a)A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
    (8)displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

    (d)An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

  52. GJK

    January 6, 2014 at 4:31 PM

    I would like to know who called in the complaint!! Was it a friend or family member of the responding officer, and would this person call in a complaint if this man and son walking happened upon them being robbed or kidnapped ECT.

  53. Mahdi Vrielink

    February 2, 2014 at 3:19 PM

    Too bad that the video doesn’t show the situation from the beginning. I would like to see what happened before everyone was shouting.

    I’m Dutch so maybe I speak from the perspective of a country where no arms are allowed. But I’m working in law-enforcement.

    First of all I believe that a police officer always has the right to disarm someone unless or untill he knows that nothing is wrong. In this case the police received a call from worried people. He’s got to take that serious.
    Nobody can expect a cop (in this case) to have a chat about the beautiful rifle and to find out later that he was dealing with a criminal.

    In the beginning of the video I hear the officer say: “When I find out there’s no issue… you’ll be on your way”. And that’s where it’s all about. He needs to find out that there’s no issue and convince himself that the worried citizen that called was wrong.

    As I said, I miss was happened before the video.
    How did the police approach you? What started the discussion?

    When I look at the clothes you were wearing, you didn’t look much like a dangerous person. Second you were walking with your son. I don’t know how old he is and if he was wearing his scout uniform. But it might have been an obvious “father-son situation” which makes it even less potential dangerous.

    Being a cop, I would have choosen for a friendly approach, asking to put the hands on the head, telling there was a call and that I need to investigate the situation and asking to co-operate. I would have told and explained every next step including taking away the rifle.

    Maybe it went wrong in the approach? I don’t know.
    My experience is that the right approach and telling what I do avoids needless discussion in most cases.

    What I don’t understand is why you were arrested and brought to the police station. Didn’t the officer say: “When I find out there’s no issue… you’ll be on your way”?

    I can’t see the discussion as an issue. I think it would have been better not to argue with the police while your son was around. Just saying “You’re wrong, but if you don’t believe me, find it out yourself”, would have been enough.
    And for a police officer it should be no problem to “loose” and say: “Sorry, I was wrong but I acted on the information that I had at that moment”.

    If nothing was wrong, it gives me the impression that those officers were somehow afraid to say sorry and just arrested you to keep up appearances.

    I always keep this saying in mind, also during my work(hope my translation is ok):
    “Not he is strong who throws someone on the ground, but the person who controls himself when he gets angry”.

  54. Pingback: Officers Consider Themselves “Exempt From The Law” | Absolute Rights

  55. John Hamilton

    April 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM

    What police men this men were nothing but jack booted thugs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Copyright © 2020 Survival Life. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this website to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.