SDF Video: Army Combat Veteran Loses Guns 2A Rights for 1,567 Days video screenshot

The Criminal Justice System seems to be taking on a new meaning in America where Citizens are presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. The CJ Grisham case continues to have folks scratching their heads. A retired Army First Sergeant went on a merit badge walk with his scout son out on a country road and winds up in jail after legally carrying a rifle in Texas. The case became controversial, because veteran Temple law enforcement officer Steve Ermis decided to make up a law on the side of the road and disarmed a Texan. It wall all caught on video. The case was finally resolved after hundreds of hours of litigation and monetary value of $175,000 in court costs. Grisham regained the right to open carry a handgun two years later, with a License to Carry.

“We are honored to help a decorated veteran regain his property after so many years,” said Larry Keilberg, national director for (SDF). “You have so many people that are always going to take the officer’s side of events, but we are glad to have supported a military veteran who was minding his own business until someone like officer Ermis intervened and infringed on legal activity.

“Our SDF attorney team stood by Grisham all the way, fighting for him against an out of control legal system starting with a bully cop, manipulation of the charges to fit the defense case, followed by a very biased judge, Neal Richardson, who said (as reported in the media), that the Grisham family were ‘Local Yokels’ and that he ‘was a better parent.’ “Grisham and the SDF attorney team sued the city and the two police officers in Federal Court and a trial date was set based on the evidence presented. The SDF paid a police expert witness in preparation for the trial and a week before the trial, Federal Judge Walter Smith Jr. changed his mind and dismissed the case only later to be removed from the bench for being intoxicated in his chambers and sexually molesting his court reporter and others multiple times. It makes the public distrust the system,” Keilberg noted.

“We are very supportive of Constitutional Carry in Texas,” said Andy Valadez, Marine veteran (non-combat) and marketing director for “Most law enforcement officers have come to understand that many Americans who choose to carry should not be treated like criminals on-site, mutual respect goes a long way and good guys are not bad guys.” “It saddens me that my family had to go through this legal abuse,” said CJ Grisham, Founder of Open Carry Texas. “I fought overseas for my country and led men in-theater, only to come back home and have to fight my own country. We have problems that need to be dealt with regarding how law-abiding citizens are treated by fellow oath takers.”

Do you have legal defense coverage? Perhaps you do not favor open carry, but there are plenty of instances of law-abiding concealed carriers going through similar experiences? How would you handle either scenario? Share your answers in the comment section.

Open Carry Texas is a gun rights activist group founded after his arrest and supported by other open carry gun rights groups across the nation. is a comprehensive litigation protection membership covering individuals, families and businesses in regards to personal protection with the use of any weapon in all 50 states, U.S. Territories and Tribal Lands.

For more information on the National Association for Legal Gun Defense please visit:

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (85)

  1. This cop should of been fired. We fount in Iraq to stop this kind of police force against their people. And here in the US there are so many cops like that. And they ask way they are not respected. The arrest people because they just want to prove that they have this power. Which they miss use. Everyone should stand their ground on this.


    1. Well said. I don’t know if you read any of my comments. What I believe the problem to be is people who don’t believe citizens should have the right to carry. They call the police on the person they see carrying and say what ever they have to say to get the police to go out there and basically harass them in hopes of them getting arrested for something. This man from what I heard got arrested for resisting. That’s pretty much you didn’t do what I told you to do charge. If you look at all the stuff that happened to this veteran when he wasn’t doing anything illegal. It makes the police officers look bad. In the video the police officer went right up to the man and grabbed his gun. What do you think would happen if you went up to a police officer and grabbed his gun. I’m sorry I got carried away saying nice comment.

  3. Grisham no doubt was ready and perhaps even hoping this situation would come to a head. He is representative of OCT and its members in that regard. That said, legally he was not in the wrong. He could have handled it better if he wasn’t looking to get into this argument.

    Officer Barney might have been legally in the right when he grabbed the rifle. That however is a serious breach of space. Is your average LEO going to be OK with someone grabbing his firearms? If not, why does he think anyone is will be?

  4. Dirty cops like this that abuse their authority need to be fired & barred from any law enforcement position for life. Also any prosecutor & judge who think the cop is justified should also be barred from any court position. People wake up here, cops are not always right. Weed out the abuse

  5. It appears to me that this man was hoping to create a situation where he would be stopped by the police. The officer could have handled it better but he was faced with someone in a rural area carrying a rifle that alarmed someone else enough to call the police. I would have asked him to lay the weapon down and step away from it. The officer could then have identified the man and he said he had a concealed carry permit. Within a few minutes the officer would have id’ed him and seen he was on the up & up. At that point he would probably been sent on his way. Put yourself in the officers shoes. It’s dangerous out there and a man walking down the road with a gun has the potential for bad things to happen. The officer didn’t handle it right and even embellished what happened to his Sargent. But at the end of the day he wants to go home alive. I still believe the guy with the rifle set this up to happen. Plenty of blame all around. But use your head folks, if you have a gun, do exactly as the officer tells you until he sorts it out and assures himself he is safe. Your life could depend on it.

  6. The fat cop was lucky the son didn’t shoot him as he was scuffling with dad with his back turned to the armed son

  7. Has Steve Ermis the cop been dismissed from the force? Has his Tx license for law enforcement been revoked? Those two cops should not be allowed in any form of law enforcement in this state any longer.

  8. Everybody is citing the LAW the 2nd amendment and open carry being legal. That is absolutely irrelevant. That is sitting in a chair making a debate. On the street you get a report of a possibly dangerous person with a gun. For everybody’s safety that man is going to be disarmed. If he is disarmed then you can do all the checking and talking that you want. This is not “stop and frisk” this is a complaint has been made, that is probable cause. Cops safe, citizens safe. It is that simple. Ask a cop. Ask somebody who knows reality on the street. Any verbal response to the man running his mouth are irrelevant. No you shouldn’t fire the cops.

    1. lame, u’r absolutely correct. let the court sort it out. it’s all recorded. the guy appears to me as someone w/ a big chip on his shoulder:
      cop– some reason y u hav this? (rifle)
      grisham– bc i can
      to me, that’s a smart-ass response. i don’t blame the cop on this one.

    2. I have read a number of your comments and have to disagree with both your suppositions and apparent philosophy. First off I have volunteered for our local police department for four years in their Citizen Volunteer Patrol, have had three relatives who have been cops and have significant training as a volunteer to know several things with certainty. First police are there to enforce the law not make it not harass the people they “Protect and Serve”. If it is not illegal to open care a gun or rifle then it is not illegal period. All good police works here in Longmont starts with talking which is the first step in their escalation of force policy and is intended to diffuse and minimize any form of unnecessary hostility. If you bothered to look at the video carefully you would see the officer made two major mistakes in the first 1 minute. He grabbed the man’s gun and pulled his own gun while under no threat whatsoever. He created the conflict, he did not try to ameliorate it. Sorry but you are dead wrong. We don’t arrest people for attitude or not breaking the law. If he got his guns back he obviously won in Court. That should say enough right there.

    3. “Why are you driving this corvette on the highway?” Because I can.

      “why are you voting here today?” Because I can.

      “Why are you going to this church?” Because I can.

      Being questioned about doing something that is perfectly legal REQUIRES a smart ass response…..

    4. There was no “complaint” made, just a report. Does everyone in the Temple area that is openly carrying get treated this way??? Pretty sad on the part of the cop.

    5. Since you have clearly taken the “Man+Gun=Threat” mentality rather than looking at the situation I will not debate your position. I will agree that if the police were called by a citizen (not stated in the article why or if the police were called or simply were driving by) reporting a “man with a gun” they certainly should investigate the issue and speak to the person on the side of the road walking with his son and carrying a rifle. Once it was ascertained that the man and his son were not engaged in unlawful activity then it should have ended there. A peace officer blatantly exceeding his authority as was PROVEN in this case is not acceptable. Everyone is accountable to the law INCLUDING Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities..

  9. I get angry when I see cops abusing their power. I would not have handled it as well as the veteran in the video. Complacent citizens are the reason that halfwit cops infringe on our rights. The officers on tape are full of s*!t and should be publicly stoned.

  10. This is a clear violation of his right to keep and bear arms. Law enforcement has no right to hassle someone like this just for excercising his god given right noted in the constitution that states that it is a god given right that the government recognizes as such and is guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. This is far to typical behavior from law enforcement. They have been given too much authority. An individual has every right to question why he is being harrassed when they have done nothing wrong. The cop was clearly an asshole with a badge to harass.

  11. What we see here is another example of how the American people are being conditioned to accept violations of their Constitutional rights by their own government. Yep…never, ever question a cop, even if the cop is wrong! Folks, you’re losing your freedoms and it will only get worse until you wake up one morning and realize you live in a full blown police state.

  12. Would the cops have reacted similarly had he been carrying a teddy bear?
    A teddy bear is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, but carrying the gun
    is. There is no defense for the actions of these cops. The guy was out for
    a walk with a legally carried gun and was no danger to anyone. I’m betting
    that the cops wouldn’t have to look very far to find some real bad guys to
    harass in Temple, TX rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars doing
    what they did in this video.

  13. I hope he sued for those 2 cops jobs! And Cops need to be argued with period! Most of the time they lie about everything including the call that supposedly got fat boy out there! If I got a gun pulled on me by an a-hole like that he wouldn’t of been standing there! No he didn’t have the right to touch him at all so enough of the bulls%$t you 2 are yapping! Yes tell them the law don’t let them take advantage of you they need to do their Jobs the correct way not this way. This is why these police are shooting everybody because they’re too cocky and act like they are in the law no they are not they need to be told so. What are you two idiots cops telling us not to talk back !!!!???? If so go f%$k yourselves!

  14. Overreaction by both parties. But i believe that cop knew damn well the guy had a right to carry that rifle.

  15. Another incident caused by an incompletely trained, badge heavy, Barney Fife having donut withdrawals… This is very common in rural Texas, where county deputies prowl the back roads… The local judges and DA’s are just as bad… The Old South is alive and well in rural Texas…

  16. The LEO was wrong in the first place, putting hands on the guy’s rifle without permission. Poor training, and bully tactics by both LEOs. The guy escalated by mouthing off instead of calmly explaining who they were and what they were doing. But at that point, the LEO touching his rifle had already pushed the situation into a confrontation, instead of a friendly and respectful meeting. I can’t believe the one LEO said he didn’t care about the law. Piss poor. I can understand why many people believe police departments are recruiting candidates with questionable intelligence and common sense. Protect and Serve is out the window. These cops assumed the subject’s guilt and treated him as a lowlife instead of a citizen with rights.

  17. Ok LEO here the officer was in the wrong 100% he should have been in control of the situation he should have used verbal commands like. “Sir do you mind coming over by me. Please keep your hands away from the rifle for yours and my safety.”

    It was just poor of the officer to go and start trying to pull the rifle off the guys chest! The officer should have explained more of why he was stopping him! If your a police officer use your mouth talk talk talk give commands everyone likes to know what’s going on and even more when they are having a police officer talking to them.

    Will say that the guy as he was in the right needed to shut up if he would have keep his mouth closed the officers would seen that he was not a problem and let him leave with the weapons most likely!

    Again how long did it take for the officer to explain why he was stopping the guy with the rifle? How long was it until the guy with the rifle told the officer what he was doing walking with a rifle!

    This backwater police officers make all cops look bad! Know that law! Talk to the person! Explain why you are there most reasonable people will respect you more for that and will not act up! Again talk tell the person what you want them to do and not do!

    Sorry the officer and Sgt should both been fired and had there law enforcement license revoked for this! As the Sgt should have taken the DVD and reviewed it if he would of reviewed it he would have seen all the mistakes his officer made on that call and all the ones he made also!

  18. Agree that vet was out of line. Always cooperate with law enforcement. Argue in court. Moreover, carrying a rifle and handgun on a country road hike in broad daylight indicates Mr.Grisham has a big chip on his shoulder anyway…Does he think some jihadist is going to jump out of the bushes out there? Everyone I know who open carries has a chip on their shoulder and one day some punk is going to knock it off and people will die.

  19. Sorry I left my first comment after only seeing the video. Now I read the article and the comments. To the people who says you can’t argue the law on the side of the road. I say this. You pay all the lawyers fees and court cost and for time lost defending something that shouldn’t of happened. When our own police officers and government officials don’t follow the laws. Where does that leave us? Take the gun out of the equation. Then your left with stop and frisk. And how many states say that’s illegal? You can’t stop someone and ask them for I.D. If there doing nothing wrong. If someone called and said he was doing something wrong. Have them there. Then if you decided to file charges you will have a complaining witness. Then some lady said they should’ve asked the kid if he was alright. Wow. How would you like to be stopped by the police when your taking a walk with your kid and have them pulled aside and asked if there ok. That’s nuts. And if all of this is being done because he has a gun. That’s nuts. People need to start respecting our laws and constitution and applying them to all the Citizens. We don’t have to like what people say or do but we should respect it. as long as it’s not illegal.

  20. I really don’t know what to say. It’s clear the man got harassed by the police officers. He was doing nothing wrong. The police officer said they got a call of a man with a rifle doing something wrong. Who ever took the call should’ve asked what the man with the rifle was doing wrong. If Texas is an open carry state. Then someone walking down the street with a gun shouldn’t be considered unusual or harassing in anyway. The police officer told him he’s going to make sure he has the right to carry a gun. This man was doing nothing wrong and now he has the police investigating him and lying about what has happened. I seen no resisting in the video at all. I just see a Citizen asking why he is being man handled and treated like a criminal when he is following the law. If a police officer doesn’t know the law then he shouldn’t be enforcing them. To arrest this man and charge him with resisting is clearly over kill and harassing him. The charges should be thrown out and the officer involved should be reprimanded. If an officer feels threatened when a citizen has a gun then maybe they shouldn’t be an officer.

  21. You can criticize how the guy handled it all you want, and that’s fine all the way until those officers decided they needed to arrest him to save face. The man knew what his rights were. He was pissed off because he and his son weren’t doing anything wrong. Those cops should have turned him loose, with his firearms once they checked him out. If they really were responding to a call, once they made contact and saw that he wasn’t breaking any laws, that should have been the end of it. The officers had a bruised ego and decided they would show that man just how much power they had over him. It’s a shame this made had to fight these people for multiple years. I’m glad he got his rights back, but this never should have happened in the first place.

  22. The cop had no right to touch his rifle. That was an unwarranted aggressive move by a dumb cop. According to the posters here I guess he should have pulled his pants down in front of his kid and let the cop dehumanize him. Dumb cops that use their departments to cover their mistakes is why people have such a bad feeling towards them.

  23. The LEOs had no idea who he was, he would not give them his I.D. I support ALL Vets BUT I support ALL LEOS Also. All the Vet had to do was answer the Officers questions and show him his I.D. and he would’ve been on his way….just like the Officer said. With so many LEOS getting shot doing a very low paid job, I’m shocked that Anyone e would have an issue with this. I want to bear & keep my Firearms and I will as long as I comply with laws and LEOs. Vet should’ve kept his cool and it’s No One Else’s Fault that He talked his way into handcuffs and lost his weapons for a few months. Comply, Answer questions, Keep yourCool b/c YES, we have a Right to our Weapons BUT LEOs have a Right to Safely “Do Their Jobs w/o All the Drama…just sayin.

  24. The guy was within his rights to carry openly HOWEVER if he had simply kept his hands away from his weapons and had a calm conversation with the deputy all of this could have been avoided.The cop does not know who this guy is or his mental state or intentions.but he shouldn’t have gone and grabbed the rifle.Call for back up stand back and have a conversation get ID and run him and if clear send him on his way.No drama,law suits or court fees.

  25. Never argue with police.
    Cooperate completely, whether right or wrong.
    In Pa. The police are not allowed according to the states Constitution to even question you about a open carried firearm.


    “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

    Doesn’t mean if a Leo is responding to a call about you and your open carry.

    Still do not argue, and comply.

    Let the questions be decided at later time.

  26. Yep, should have just shut up and taken the abuse. And Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus…

    At SOME point, we must DEMAND our rights or we will surely lose them…

  27. Another a-hole loses an argument with a LEO. Only pays a 1,567 day penalty for the debate and $$$. Be respectful to the police even when they are wrong. Good lesson for the Eagle Scout.

  28. These officers should be in jail. They actually state that the law doesn’t matter and that they are exempt from the law. People like this give the good officers a bad name. They really need to teach these idiots the law.

  29. I am personally not a supporter of open carry for this very reason. The cops can’t tell who the good guys and bad guys are. However the cops in this scenario did everything wrong and should be disciplined if not fired. They are meant to enforce the laws and didn’t even know what the law states!

  30. This is a big problem in this country,the police have turned into bullies. The shooting of unarmed citizens and the cover ups that have taken place tells me the system is out of control. We no longer are innocent until proven guilty,we have to prove ourselves innocent and heaven help you if you cannot cannot afford the hundreds of thousands for a competent lawyer. I don’t know how but we as a country must get the police under control.

  31. I’m a combat vet, and huge proponent of 2A rights. Also a huge supporter of LEOs, and don’t envy the danger they must confront on a daily basis in today’s crazy world. Have to admit that after seeing the video, I agree that this vet got too belligerent, which LEOs rightfully need to protect themselves from, as a situation can go bad very quickly for LEOs if the individual they are questioning has bad intentions. Should the first officer on scene reached out and handled the vet’s rifle without asking early in the conversation? No. But should the vet have gotten defensive and belligerent when that happened? No. LEOs are stuck between a rock and hard place in situations like these, and they MUST err on the side of caution for their own personal safety, and that of the public. Yes, folks freak out and call the police when they see someone walking down the street with an AR-15, and the police must check it out if called. Be respectful, follow all lawful instructions, and NEVER touch your firearm while being questioned by law enforcement. Had the vet done the same, he would have saved himself a lot of pain, money, and stress on his family, even though it appears he had no bad intentions from the get go. Too many wacko “cop killers” in today’s world for LEOs not to be overly cautious in situations like this. Yes, it’s Texas (God Bless!), but walking down a paved public road (e.g. not hunting or at a range) with a rifle slung around your shoulder is asking for trouble, even if it’s completely legal.

    1. agreed, jared. i’ve been around cops all my life, even pitched out on watch w/ a couple. the people here screaming for the cops’ scalps have no idea what the reality is on the streets. i’m more concerned that there are so many here who are immature, disrespectful, mouthy, & should never be allowed to carry anything but a bb gun. probably a bunch of snowflakes anyway.

      in today’s world, u just don’t go around carrying a rifle, esp. a military-style firearm. the media has done too good a job of indoctrinating folks to the idea that all firearms owners are headjobs– & grisham just gave them more fuel for the flames. he wanted this encounter; it is quite obvious.

    2. And you are a disrespectful punk, Jason. If you can’t just make your case w/o name-calling, you’re a stupid punk at that. You should never be allowed to touch a firearm.

      I live in Spokane, Wa. If you’re ever in the area, we should get together & “talk” about this further. I’d love to give you some lessons in social graces. Punk. Go pop your pimples now.

  32. I agree with the other comments to some extent. Ould have the Cop(s) have handle this differently, absolutely! But the citizen could have just as much. It’s a good thing that these two were not thugs because the cop had all his attention on the dad and not the kid. If they did mean harm, hat kid could have done anything to the cop since his back was turned to him the whole time.

  33. I really think that’s the problem now a days. I’ve recently been screwed over in court and no matter what, right or wrong, a officer or money will win every time!!! We have lost track of right and wrong and unfortunately the government has to make sure it’s politically correct. I hope him and his family sued those cops and that city to were they think twice about messing up the same way with their great, great grandchildren!

  34. Maybe you can sue them later in Texas, but you can’t EVER sue them in Indiana.
    I was arrested in 2006 for felony Pointing a Firearm after an unlicensed, uninsured driver rear-ended me TWICE and sent my 70-year-old mother to the hospital with serious injuries. I held him at gunpoint when he ran away, but then ran back to his vehicle and retrieved what I believed was a weapon and took off into the woods again.
    The cops didn’t look for anything in the woods. They just told me that I wasn’t being arrested, while they were handcuffing me, threw me into the back seat of a squad car for an hour and drove me to jail. When I tried to tell them what happened, I was told to “Keep my mouth shut.” They called the prosecutor from the scene, who told them to arrest me and to let the kid go with a couple of tickets.
    I was held without bond (not by a judge, mind you, but on the orders of the prosecutor), was not told what the charges were until the following day, when I was summoned to the interrogation room. There, a cop told me, “I’m here to read you your rights and take your statement.” By then I was so angry, I told the cop, “You can get my statement from my attorney!”
    Until this happened, my entire criminal record consisted of one count each of Minor Entering a Tavern and Minor Consuming Alcohol, both from the same incident in 1978. I’ve never been arrested nor investigated for ANY other crime.
    Anyway, the prosecutor got mad when I wouldn’t sign a plea agreement. He said, “Fine. If you don’t want to play ball, I’ll just add a few more charges and send you to state prison for twenty years!” I replied, “You add just as many charges as you think you can spell correctly, and I’ll see you in court!” I learned of the specific charges when I was arraigned a few hours later, and I told the judge I was trying to prevent a felony, not trying to commit one (I knew that “Leaving the Scene of an Accident With Injuries” is a felony because it has been published in various editions of the Indiana Driver’s Manual). He ordered me released on my own recognizance (no bond, which further angered the prosecutor).
    I was acquitted of all charges following a nineteen-hour-long trial. The prosecutor did EVERYTHING he’s prohibited from doing; suborned perjury from police officers and state witnesses, fabricated evidence, falsified evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense (during his testimony, the kid who hit us admitted he was currently ON COURT-ORDERED PROBATION for Driving While Suspended for having caused previous accidents, but the prosecutor had had his criminal record sealed until six months after my trial was over).
    So I was acquitted on all counts. Walked out of the courtroom vindicated; a free man.
    Yeah – not so fast.
    The law states, quite clearly, that my property (my weapon) and my rights (my handgun license) are to be restored immediately upon my acquittal. The prosecutor told the Noble County Sheriff’s Department NOT to return my gun (it took EIGHT YEARS and the election of a new prosecutor to finally get my gun back), and I was promptly (seven months AFTER my acquittal) re-tried by an Indiana State Police kangaroo court, who found me guilty by virtue of the same evidence and testimony by which I had been acquitted in a court of law!
    The NRA turned their backs on me when I needed them most (although, after refusing three separate pre-trial requests for help from my attorney, they sent me a check after I was acquitted and put my story on their web site, claiming the NRA had “played an instrumental role in my successful defense.”), the USCCA had absolutely NO INTEREST in anything except my credit card, and no lawyer in this state will touch this case with a ten-foot pole because, “… The statehouse can make it very difficult for us to make a living.”
    If the lawyers in this God-forsaken state are afraid of the government, what chance do the rest of us have???
    I’m STILL fighting with the State Police to reinstate my handgun license as required by law. So far, I’ve spent over $55,000 on this stupid case (my trial cost $12,000 – the rest has been gifted to lawyers who write a couple of letters or emails and say, “Well, I tried. I can try again, if you want, but I’ll need another five grand.” Uh … No, thanks; I can write my own letters. I am absolutely at my wit’s end. Like you, I NEVER would have believed this could happen in America, but I’m not their only victim. A friend of mine who has no felony convictions, no history of violence and a squeaky-clean driving record has been denied a handgun license by the Indiana State Police because (according to the letter he received denying his application), “One of our officers doesn’t believe you should be carrying a handgun.” INDIANA IS A “SHALL ISSUE” STATE!!!
    At my administrative hearing (which was legally precluded by statute), the State Police embellished my testimony, falsified evidence and did everything they were not supposed to do. I wasn’t even allowed to call my own witnesses, for Pete’s sake!
    The ONLY people involved in this case who DIDN’T break the law were my now-deceased mother and me! And yet, here I sit, fighting a very serious Second-Amendment battle against the Sovereign State of Indiana (I am CONVINCED Indiana has seceded from the United States, and just didn’t tell anyone).
    My state representative refused to get involved, saying, “In Indiana, we don’t send police officers or elected officials to jail.”
    My congressman formed a comittee to find reasons NOT to get involved. I know this because I received a letter, signed by the chair of that comittee, which stated, “… this is not a constitutional issue, and should be addressed by the courts.”
    As a disabled (non-combat but service-connected) veteran of the United States Navy, I have to say that this entire experience has made me ashamed of my military service. I know that’s going to piss a lot of you off, but I don’t care anymore; YOU go through this and see how much pride you feel when you see the flag or when you hear the National Anthem.
    I should NOT be FORCED to accept my role as the victim of blatant public corruption! No American citizen should have to do that.
    Oh, one more thing: the prosecutor, in his attempts to show the jury how easily I lose my temper, left my mother sitting in the hallway on a hard, wooden chair for TEN HOURS before calling her to testify (he knew she had a broken L-1 vertabra). She never walked again after that day, and spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair. When he did finally call her, two people had to help her take the witness stand. When asked whether she had written the statement that was in her handwriting, she tapped her finger on the rail and said, “I wrote down the exact words that officer told me to write.” “That officer” is now our county sheriff. Anywhere else (in the United States, for example), this would be, at the very least, Witness Tampering. In other states it can be construed as Obstruction of Justice but, here in Indiana, it’s apparently Standard Operating Procedure: My witness has a concussion? Oh, no problem; just write down what I tell you to write, sign your name and then we’ll see about getting you some medical attention for your injuries.
    I hope it never happens to you, but when it does, I hope you’ll also remember my name.

  35. Here is a simple truth most cops have a low I.Q. unable to think for themselves they merely follow orders. Their training tells them if they see a man carrying a rifle to be suspicious, logical thought tells one that an old guy with a slung rifle in the open in the middle of nowhere hiking with a kid is not much of a threat. This was Texas the cop and the judge should have lost their jobs over this civil right violation.

  36. Say the cop is jerk, your response is to stay calm and keep your mouth shut. What was the cop told about this man? Did he perceive an immediate threat? Is it better to secure the rifle or wait until it escalates and somebody gets shot? If the vet had gone along and kept his mouth shut we wouldn’t be reading this story. People, including cops, respond to loudmouths even when they shouldn’t. Were the cops perfect? Probably not. Did they do anything wrong? The totality of the circumstances. Until you know all the facts. Until you know what training and experiences the cops have had you can back seat drive but you are probably going to be wrong. Was the man physically abused? Was he or his son in danger from the cops? The vet took a minor welfare check and turned it into a confrontation. The cops did nothing substantively wrong.

    1. I get a kick out of people like yourself who don’t respond to what was written.
      First the cop did eventually say that they had a call from someone about him carrying a rifle which if it is legal to do then they should just have told him he was scaring people but that is really their problem since he was not violating the law. Second the guy said nothing out ofl to the cop until the cop grabbed his gun. You also never responded to the comment of the supervisor that he didn’t care what the law was. Since folks like you always need to get the last word we are done. You and the cops need some lessons in looking at the facts not what you assume may have happened. No further responses forthcoming. You may have the last word if you like but if I get one back I won’t bother reading it.

    2. The cop was wrong. If he felt threatened he should have used his vehicle as cover and then ordered or directed him to put down the weapon. Instead he just walked up to him and put his hands on the weapon. Granted his mouth didn’t help, however the response by the officer didn’t help anything either. Being cooperative with the officer probably would not have any effect on this, as you watched the officer’s actions. The officer had already made up his mind that this guy was in the wrong. It pains me that officers are not up to speed with gun laws/concealed carry laws of their state, given the larger number of citizens carrying firearms. If he was so concerned for his safety, why did he never keep the son is his view? Allow the son to walk right up behind him? I’ve had contacts with law enforcement officers while carrying and had people I know stopped for speeding and had legally carried firearms in open view by the officers and they have all been excellent contacts because the officer did not over-react as in this case. Matter of fact most of them turned out to have good discussions about firearms in general. I work in the public safety sector, and while I don’t know what dispatch information they had, I also know that 911 callers can and do greatly exaggerate the information they give dispatch. You have to balance that information with what you see. Both sides have faults, but the officer set the tone and never tried to de-escalate the situation with the video I saw.

    3. Lamedbytes is completely wrong on the statement that the police did nothing wrong. Law abiding citizen harassed and subsequently arrested on false charges is exactly what we just watched. As a fellow man in blue who works in an open carry state, go have a civil conversation with the citizen in question. Don’t put you hands on the citizen, or just walk up and grab their weapon for no reason. The officer escalated that situation from the word go. Talk! Listen! Then decide reasonably what needs to happen next. The officer violated that mans rights, there is no denial of that fact. This was a case of police over stepping their duties and wasting resources. Great job on the camera work.

    4. You ask if the cops did anything wrong. Yes! They arrested the man when he had not broken a law. But after working with cops for 10 years, I have found out that cops are not required to know the law. It is ok to stop him and check his status. Was he legal to have and carry the gun? The cop could have asked the citizen to disarm from the safety of his car and not have gotten in his face and grabbing his gun. You or the cop may no have liked what he was doing, but if he was legal you have to let him go. And his supervisor or his chief back at the P.D. Should have dropped the charges and signed the cop up for legal and operational training. P.S. If you are ever asked to come down to the talk. Say no by I will meet at my lawyer’s instead. A detective will stick anyone with a crime just to clear his back log of cases. Seen it done. And they record everything you say from the minute you walk through the door.

    5. You sir, are a twit. I’m sorry to tell you but you are probably one of those people who thinks everytime a black person was arrested he was done do as racism.

      I know how cops are trained, and this cops breeched every form of training. Lets go over it shall we?

      1: The cop approached the individual. If a cop feels threatened by somebody openly carrying, they are suppose to remain in the vehicle and use their loudspeaker. The Army Vet even addressed that in the video. It doesn’t matter, as you say, what he had been told of this individual or anything. That is police standard when feeling threatened.

      2: If you pay attention, the cop actually TOUCHED the gun, and he touched the weapon WITH OUT ASKING. That’s a BIG no no, for not only did the officer place his fingerprints upon the weapon but you have to ask somebody if you can see the weapon. You absolutely can NOT walk up and grab another person’s weapon. As you seem to like your ‘what ifs’: What if the firearm had been loaded and accidently discharged? The officer created an unsafe situation for both himself and the suspect.

      3: The officer made up a law. Yea, I’m sorry but you can not simply make up a law upon the spot. Police officers actually have something for that. They have the right to detain you for up to 24 hours for no reason. So really, the officers had no reason to simply make up a completely bogus law upon the spot to begin with.

      4: The cop was physically aggressive upon a man putting up no resistance. He slammed that guy down upon the hood of the police cruiser…WITH A FIREARM BETWEEN THE SUSPECT AND THE CAR! Again, what if the firearm had discharged? The police are suppose to ask for the gun, and if a suspect is willing to give up the weapon they are then required to ask the suspect to drop the magazine. These are all safety precautions for the safety of the officer and the suspect.

      4: Yea, they never searched that guy until after they had him handcuffed and accused him of resisting search, a search they never advertised a reason for.

      5: Miranda is Rights? After placing him under arrest, Miranda Rights where never read.

      So, although the cops are not the bad guys, they clearly violated many of their own policies and the rights of the suspect. Which I’d obvious in the fact that the man was eventually exonerated! So perhaps lamedbytes should follow their own advise and stop backseat driving on something they clearly have no idea of which they are speaking of.

      Docduracoat is also right, that you can not argue the law with the police. However, a suspect has rights provided by the law to help protect themselves when court time comes. This man was cooperating, he allowed his weapons to be taken away when asked, he answered the the officers questions. The officers blatantly ignored his rights, which was what he was questioning.

      This man actually made an exceptional point. These officers never provided proof of their police identity other then their cars and badges. The was an instance in Mississippi when I lived there during which somebody was pretending to be an officer, pulling people over and killing them. The police themselves actually told people it was their RIGHT to prove the officer was truly an officer by calling dispatch and asking if an officer had actually pulled them over.

      Finally I have one last comment. You are blaming it on the suspect…saying he was in the wrong. Yet this exact thing has happened many times with black people and the cops did the same thing and it was racist, all over the news, etc etc etc. If this man was colored, would your arguments still be the same? I find it unlikely…

    6. I disagree. The cop touching the rifle is what set the confrontation on fire. Cops were wrong.

    7. It was all on video. The local yocal
      cop was wrong read the story soldier boy. The judge and probably the cops mentor was a drunken pervert.
      The judge was De benched, thrown out and case dismissed.
      The citizen did nothing wrong. This is a big problem as poor training and basically people not qualified to be cops carry badges and guns smart guy.
      This story in fact is a perfect example of a complete clusterfk from a law enforcement perspective.
      I hope the guy wins a big judgement against those aspholes.
      Have a nice day.

    8. BS! The cop started the confrontation by stopping a citizen that was exercising his Constitutional right. First mistake. Then he grabs the guys rifle without reason or permission. Second mistake. Yes, the citizen should not have gotten mouthy, but police are supposed to be trained NOT to deliberately provoke or agitate people they stop. Then the cop goes on to lie about what transpired before the back-up arrived. Third mistake. This cop needs more training or a different career. Would you feel the same way about this confrontation if the citizen was carrying a bottle of water and the cop tried to seize it without explanation and when the citizen argues that the cop can’t take his water, the cop grabs him, pushes him to the hood of the car, handcuffs him, and starts ransacking his wallet, then lies to his supervisor about what happened? Why couldn’t the cop just ask the citizen to please put down his rifle before he got out of the car, or have him unload it before he was face to face with the guy. This cop obviously thought he could do as he pleases to satisfy his power trip.

    9. The story contends that the cop made up an non law! This is classed as an Action Under Color of Law.
      In a number of my past law classes, it has peen pointed out that 90% of the people who are in jail, talk there way in!

  37. Lamedbytes is 100% correct
    You cannot argue the law with the Police
    That is for the courtrooom
    Your best course of action is to be calm, polite and cooperate
    You can’t win an argument with a policeman
    He has a radio as well as a gun and a badge and can call in reinforcements
    You can sue them later

    1. I agree, Doc. The cop was called for a suspicious person who was openly armed. The cop had the right to stop & question the fellow &, if he felt threatened, to arrest. Beyond that, the guy should’ve remained calm & explained to the camera what was going on, then shut up & submit to the police. It’s as though Grisham was just itching for a fight w/ the cops. This is NOT the day & age to be so brazen, unless you are making a public display for standing in court. Taking his son w/ him was, imho, plain bad parenting. And I am all for 2nd Amendment rights! I used to carry firearms to the shooting club as a teen; however, those days are over, & people have been scared out of their wits by maniacs & media.

    2. Cops lie in court they hide evidence to make their case! Innocent people go to jail or get killed! Your full of s%$t buddy! These pigs need to be stood up to they should hear they are doing the job wrong!!! They laugh because even if they get sued it’s not their money or problem!

  38. Here is reality for a legal open carry advocate carrying a rifle. In Ohio they shot a man with a realistic toy gun. Our guy didn’t get shot that is a plus. When carrying people are going to call saying that a maniac with a machine gun is menacing the streets of the city. Cop pulls up and citizen starts fumbling around with his AR. That is on the video. Citizen cops an attitude and keeps touching the rifle. This guy kept saying over and over that the cops were cowards for being afraid of him. He talked himself into all the trouble he was in. The cops did nothing wrong.

    1. Sorry but I have to disagree with your statement the cops did nothing wrong.
      If you will review the first minute of the video the cop did everything wrong.
      He approached and immediately put his hands on the vets rifle starting the conflict. He then pulled his gun for no reason at all except the vet objected to his “taking” physically his gun from him. Any officer with half a brain would have asked to inspect the weapon and could have done so while placing his hand on his firearm. So as far as I am concerned the officer started the confrontation by not using appropriate and alternative ways of dealing with the situation. I volunteered for 4 years for our local police force here in Colorado and they have an escalation of force police which always starts with talking first not touching or becoming confrontational unless the suspect starts it first. In this case the vet did not. This officer and his supervisor who said he did not care what the law was are both morons and should have been fired.

    2. dprato is correct! Did the vet do anything wrong, sure. He shouldn’t have gotten defensive and argued with the cop. But the cop was clearly wrong.

    3. Hey deprato I agree with you disagreeing with lamtard! Lambtard has to be a dumb ass if he is supporting this fat cop first off the man didn’t touch his weapon at all til the cop grabbed it to take it illegally! That to me is stealing and I would of pulled my hand gun to protect my son and property and as soon as that happened fat boy would be in the morgue and I would plea self D and have the proof because I seen it but this army veteran had the nicest attitude to not shot that a-hole!!! I would of sorry if I am not breaking the law DO NOT TOUCH ME!

    4. Respectfully, your comments are idealistic and lack a knowledge of police tactics and the law. As soon as Grisham became agitated and began reaching for his rifle, the officer had a right to secure the rifle. The law is clear in that regard. If Mr Grisham was calm, polite, and cooperative, the incident would have been resolved in an entirely different manner. It was clear from Grisham’s demeanor, statements, insistence on filming, and repeated comments that he was going to sue, that he was looking for the outcome he got. Bottom line, don’t act like you are an adversary and you won’t be treated like one.

    5. Sorry Kurt but if you view the video you will see that the officer reached for the gun first and that is improper police protocol. You ask questions first and make no contact unless you are being attacked “first”. Second, I volunteered as part of the Citizen Volunteer Patrol for the Longmont, CO police department for 4 years. We were intimately involved and trained in police protocol and their escalation of force policy which always started out with talking and getting the facts first. Care to tell me what your first hand experience has been?

    6. dprato,

      I do not mind sharing my experience with you. I worked 28 years as a sworn police officer. I worked several details including ten years on SWAT and took a service retirement after finishing my last ten years as a Sergeant. I was involved in hundreds of uses of force and three police shootings, including one where I was the shooter.

      I commend you on your volunteering with a police department, I managed our volunteer program for the last ten years of my career and respect the group immensely. However, being a volunteer for a few years does not replace, six months of police academy, five months in a formal FTO program, a year and a half of probation, and constant recurrent training. It is easy for arm-chair warriors to analyze what took place from a couple minutes of video, but until you are placed in front of a man armed with a rifle who is displaying what appears to be unwarranted hostility, you are not in a position to judge the officers actions. Luckily, such incidents are still judged using the “Reasonable Officer” standard, not the, “emotional untrained citizen” standard.

      You spoke of escalation of force and how officers “always” start with talking before progressing to using force. Frankly, that is ignorant (usually liberal) blabber. I witnessed a young officer do just that when faced with a man armed with a rifle. The suspect got three shots off at the officer before he was able to return fire. Luckily, it ended well (for the officer). I challenge you to google, “police officer killed by man with rifle”. You will be able to read about, and watch videos of, numerous police officers who were murdered by suspects who were displaying less hostility than Mr Grisham before they murdered the officers.

      I am not saying the officer could not have handled it differently. We are all human (even police officers) and are therefor imperfect. Grisham did the best that he could at the time. He probably learned from this experience and will do better next time. But, in this instance, he made it home safe to his family and neither he or Mr Grisham were injured. So far this year, 84 police officers were not so lucky.

      Because he could have been more friendly or chose not to touch Grisham’s rifle when he did, does it mean he should be prosecuted or even, “stoned to death” as someone else wrote? I would ask everyone suggesting such garbage to walk a day in an officer’s shoes to see if YOU handle every call to perfection.

      Bottom line…we are all unable to accurately judge this incident. We were not there to hear the initial call for service. We were not there to see all the minutiae from Mr Grisham’s body language to his sons’ reaction and demeanor. Unless YOU have stood in front of a man armed with a rifle acting in the manner that MR Grisham was, you have no idea how you would respond.

    7. Sorry, third to last paragraph should read, “the OFFICER did the best he could at the time”

    8. And this is why the BLM and Black People hate Cops..Those two should both be fired and I hope they loose the house in the Law Suit.

    9. You must have watched a different video than I did.
      1) You say:”When carrying people are going to call saying that a maniac with a machine gun is menacing the streets of the city” I say: right to carry means right to carry. The correct response to these people is to inform them of this fact.
      2) You say: ” Cop pulls up and citizen starts fumbling around with his AR” I say: watch it again because that is not what happened. The policeman instigated the entire event by placing his hands on the AR15 first, which then caused Mr Grisham to protest. Policeman then draws his own pistol (which I do not blame him for), and Mr Grisham removes his hand from the AR15. None of this would have happened if the policeman didn’t have an attitude from the word go and touched the AR15(which he had no right to do).
      3) You say: “The cops did nothing wrong” I say: the policeman did plenty wrong by approaching Mr Grisham with an attitude, assuming he was a criminal, attempting to disarm him, and not being aware of his own states gun laws. I do not blame the policeman for drawing his pistol, because at that point he had reason to feel threatened. Prior to that everything that happened was 100% his fault. Mr Grisham gave the correct response to the fist question: “because I can” . I just can’t understand why so many of us fight for right to carry and are so quick to let a policeman make up his own gun law on the spot, negating the right to carry. The policeman had already decided Mr Grisham was guilty before he approached him and good for Mr Grisham for refusing to be ILLEGALLY disarmed.

  39. I agree with Doug (Aug 22nd 10:25)
    I live in Texas and I also have a CCL.
    How did the police know that maybe he was some nut marching the kid somewhere to kill him?
    If that was the fact then everyone would want to know why the police did not stop and check that things were ok!
    There was wrong on both sides.
    They could have asked for his ID which is lawful in this state as well as asked the young man if he was ok.
    In a respectful tone, he could have said what he and his son were doing which at that point they could have thanked him for his time and sent both on their way.

  40. This guys attitude is what caused this situation to escalate. If he had calmly addressed the officers, I’m sure this would have turned out differently. Then all the name calling and insulting their professionalism. You can’t argue the law on the side of the road, only in court. And NO, CHL holders should not be considered a threat, but they are and judges have ruled that way. Now in Texas, you’d think the officers would be better versed in the gun laws and know how to handle citizens with weapons. I’d also hoped the father would have better prepared his son on how to handle police encounters.

    1. No Doug, it was the cops lack of professionalism and confrontational attitude that caused it. The vet just helped it spiral out of control by not controlling his own anger. But the cop is supposed to be the professional, trained, public servant here.

    1. The liberal f%$ktards are trying to ruin this country! Won’t let a legal law abiding citizen do his thing! But they let gang and terrorists groups run army camps !!! Try telling me it’s ok for muslims to train like they are in boot camp located in handcock NY and Virginia areas! Etc. don’t investigate that but harassment of citizens is fine with these libtards!!

  41. I would love to hear what happened to the two arresting officers, ESPECIALLY the one that said that it didn’t matter what the law says! I hope at least he was fired, and the original officer should have been reprimanded greatly, and told what the law is, and that he needs to follow the law and not make up his own.

    Neither of these officers were there to “Protect and Serve”.

  42. Sad but this is becoming a routine ordeal. I personally​ was detained with a friend, infront of my children, for car theft. After hours spent at the next county jail they transported me to my home county jail. Hours later everyone disappeared. Then a young female jailor came and uncuffed me, apologizing, saying it was a mixup with my name. What about my friend who was also arrested? Was his name mixed up also? I’m all for my local l.e.o’s. But times have changed. Now we are guilty until proven not guilty. And with so many laws how can a person keep up?

    1. JamesM – You’re right. I’ve been pulled over and had private property confiscated, with the cop saying if you come to the station with proof of ownership, you can have it back. I was on vacation over 100 miles from home, so it wasn’t worth it to me. I do support LEO’s as well, but I have known a few that became cops for the power trip.

  43. Calm, cool, polite. Leave the lawyering for the court room. On the street the cop has to win, every time. If you feel he is wrong then cooperate, keep your mouth shut and file a complaint later.

    1. Your a pig pushing your propaganda f%$k you! These idiots should of done the job right from the beginning! It would of never got this far. No wondering pigs are getting killed more then ever!

  44. It’s unfortunate that law enforcement is not better trained to handle situations like these and that the “blue wall” gets in the way of good policing. If I were an officer today I would do what was necessary to be safe but I would also use some common sense about how to deal with a situation before pulling my gun on a person who has a firearm draped over his shoulder pointing to the ground. Cops like that do more to ruin the support of police in this Country than any other single factor.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.