Guns, politics and viral videos

How an arrest became the perfect storm of gun rights

First published in four parts: here , here , here and here

By Alex Wukman

BELTON, TX — It’s just a few frames of video taken from a dash cam in a police cruiser. The sequence is less than four seconds long, but it contains two almost instinctual reactions.

The first frame comes early, about three minutes into the video, and it shows Temple, TX Police Officer Steve Ermis grabbing an AR-15 rifle hanging across the chest of U.S. Army Master Sgt. Christopher “C.J.” Grisham.

In the next frame, Grisham protectively clutches the gun and backs up while telling Ermis “You can’t disarm me.”

In the third frame of the sequence, Ermis pulls his service weapon, points it at Grisham and moves toward the hood of his cruiser. From those few seconds a world of differing legal interpretations and antagonized relationships was born.

Grisham’s second trial for allegedly interfering with the duties of a Temple, Police officer started Monday. His first trial in October resulted in a hung jury.

The charges, and both trials, stemmed from the incident with Ermis, which occurred on March 16, 2013 while Grisham and his son, Chris, were on a 10-mile hike for Boy Scout merit badge.

The elder Grisham carried an AR-15 rifle and a concealed handgun, for which he had a permit.

Although Grisham would later claim that he was carrying the weapons for personal protection against feral hogs and coyotes, when Ermis initially asked him why he had the rifle Grisham said, “Because I can.”

Grisham, founder of the popular military blog A Soldier’s Perspective, is no stranger to controversy. His gruff in-your-face writing style won him praise but, also irritated his superiors.

The lessons Grisham learned promoting his blog in the rough-and-tumble days of the early 2000's internet helped his arrest grab the attention of gun-rights advocates and media outlets across the nation. It also sent a cell phone video of Grisham’s arrest, recorded by his son, viral.

In the video, which was linked to by conservative outlets like Fox News and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Grisham tells Ermis he will cooperate after he gives the camera to his son. As Grisham reaches underneath himself to unclip the camera from its strap, he tells his son to “start filming.”

As the first day of testimony unfolded on Monday, Nov. 18, 2013, prosecuting attorney John Gauntt Jr. asked Ermis about Grisham’s handing of the camera to his son. He questioned Ermis about why he let Grisham “put conditions” on complying with his directives.

“I wanted to de-escalate the situation,” Ermis said. “I didn’t know who he was and I didn’t know when my backup would get there.”

Both Ermis and Lisa Wilkerson, the area resident who initially reported Grisham and his son to a non-emergency police dispatch number, testified that it was the rifle that they found threatening.

Wilkerson testified that it “was the gun” and not Grisham’s actions that she found threatening. She told the court that she had “lived in the Temple-area for about 40 years and never seen anyone walking through a neighborhood with a large gun.”

Responding to Gauntt’s question, Ennis said that in his 30-plus years as a law enforcement officer it was the first time he had ever encountered someone “walking down a roadway with a long gun.” The unusual, and for some discomforting, sight of a person carrying a long gun was brought up by the officers at the time of Grisham’s arrest.

“If you feel threatened you’re a sorry excuse for a police officer,” Grisham said in the video. Grisham’s second trial comes at a heightened time for guns and run rights.

Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry

Since the summer of 2009 private citizens walking into a store or restaurant openly displaying firearms have become recurring sights across the U.S. For many, a publicly displayed firearm — especially a rifle or a long gun — is a provocative image that can be hard to contextualize.

“The reason we openly carry long guns is because we can,” said Victoria Montgomery, spokeswoman for Open Carry Texas. “My rights don’t end at the tip of someone being offended.”

However, the decision by some of the more active open-carry advocates to focus on attempting to destigmatize rifles and shotguns leaves some traditional gun-rights groups scratching their heads.

“The focus on rifles and shotguns creates confusion,” said Alice Tripp, the legislative director for the Texas State Rifle Association. “It’s always been legal to openly carry a rifle or a shotgun.”

Texas has no law preventing someone from openly carrying a rifle or a shotgun because they “were always considered farming and ranching implements,” she said.

For Montgomery, the decision to openly carry a rifle or shotgun is motivated by the simple fact that “it makes me feel safe.”

“If I want to walk to the store to get milk I can’t just grab my 9 mm,” Montgomery said. “I have to make sure that I’m wearing something big enough that it can be concealed and loose enough that it won’t imprint.”

In Texas, it is illegal for concealed handguns, even the outline or the imprint of a gun, to be visible under clothing. For Tripp and her organization, getting rid of those types of restrictions is the top priority.

Guns and politics

Texas is a prime battlefield for a cause that has invigorated gun-rights advocates across the country.

“The fact that Texas is one of only five states that expressly prohibits openly carrying a handgun by statute has these guys up in arms,” Tripp said. “We think that the licensed open carry of a handgun is something that makes sense right now.”

Tripp and her organization are not alone in their belief that the open carry of handguns is something that’s time has come.

A recent policy paper issued by Greg Abbott’s campaign for the Republican gubernatorial primary called for the expansion of the open carry of handguns into Texas, a sentiment he reiterated at a Nov. 14, 2013 campaign stop in Belton.

“I will support and sign into law open carry and campus carry laws,” Abbott, the Texas attorney general, said to about 100 people assembled at the offices of BellTec, a local tool and drill bit manufacturer.

Abbott’s remarks impressed some local voters such as Steeler Simpson, a BellTec employee, who said the expansion of open carry is a top priority for him.

When it comes to guns and the expansion of gun rights, state Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), a candidate in the Democratic Party of Texas’ gubernatorial primary, has not come out swinging as hard as Abbott has.

Davis’ campaign issued a statement reaffirming the her dedication to defending the rights of “law-abiding citizens to own, purchase, and sell guns,” without mentioning if she supports open carry or if she would sign an open carry bill if it was presented to her.

“Americans have the right under the Second Amendment to own firearms, and that is not going to change,” Davis said.

Liberty and security

While many gun owners such as Montgomery feel that openly carrying a firearm, either a handgun or a long gun, is a fundamental portion of their Second Amendment rights, the sentiment is hardly universal.

Over the last year, gun control groups have been pushing for increased regulations and one of the most vocal has been Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense, a mother’s advocacy group formed in the wake of the Dec. 2012 Newtown, Conn., shooting which killed 20 children and six adults.

Kelley Bowman, a spokeswoman for the Texas chapter of Mom Demands Action for Gun Sense, referred to the Sandy Hook shooting as “the mom’s 9/11.”

“When you look at it in the context of Sandy Hook, open carry doesn’t make sense,” Bowman said. “It’s very in your face and insensitive in an un-Texan way.”

By helping to kill a campus carry bill in the 2013 Texas legislative session, and successfully lobbying Starbucks to ban open carry at their nearly 11,000 locations, Mom’s Demand Action has drawn the ire of many open carry advocates.

Bowman and Stephanie Burlingame, Mom’s Demand Action’s communications lead for Texas, said those victories were only the first steps.

“We’re lobbying Staples to ban open carry from their locations as well,” Burlingame said. “It shouldn’t be up to an employee of Starbucks or Staples to assess the intent of someone with a gun.”

‘Thank you Lord, there’s a camera around’

As U.S. Army Master Sgt. Christopher “C.J.” Grisham’s trial continued, prosecuting attorney John Gauntt Jr. focused his case on what Grisham said and whether or not he complied with Ermis’ instructions after the officer arrived on the scene.

“Officer Ermis tells Sgt. Grisham not to touch his gun,” Gauntt said. “Grisham holds his hands out and looks at his rifle. And says, ‘OK.’”

As Ermis approached Grisham, the officer was unaware of Grisham’s intentions, according to Gauntt. The prosecutor reminded the jury that Grisham “didn’t mention hogs or coyotes when officer Ermis asked him why he was carrying the rifle. He said he was doing it because he could.”

Gauntt reiterated to the jury that Grisham grabbed the rifle when Ermis attempted to disarm him.

“Officer Ermis doesn’t use unreasonable or excessive force,” Gauntt said. “He reaches up and unsnaps a clip.”

Grisham’s defense attorney, Blue Rannefeld, explained Grisham’s clutching of his rifle as “reasonable because it was a reaction.” He zeroed in on the fact that, while the dash cam video from Ermis’ cruiser shows that the officer did not ask Grisham to relinquish his rifle, the officer repeatedly stated he did in subsequent reports.

“An ordinary citizen can be charged with a crime in Bell County [because] an officer misrepresents himself not once, not twice but three times,” Rannefeld argued. He equated Ermis’ misrepresentation of the events as tantamount to perjury.

After Grisham failed to comply with Ermis’ instructions about touching his long gun, the officer forced Grisham onto the hood of the car.

Ermis shoved his service weapon against the back of Grisham’s head. The officer told Grisham to put his hands behind his back. Grisham refused.

Gauntt, and his co-counsel Richard Lazott, hammered on Grisham’s refusal to comply with Ermis’ instructions about placing his hands behind his back. Gauntt wondered if ordinary citizens, with a gun to their heads, are “still going to refuse to comply with an officer’s demands.”

Lazott reminded the jury that Grisham only agreed to put his hands behind his back after telling Ermis he was going to give his camera to his son.

“It was a conditional compliance,” Lazott said. “Is that what we want, conditional compliance?”

Rannefeld did not share the prosecution’s interpretation of the events and considered Ermis’ placing Grisham on the hood of the car and pulling a gun to border on the very definition of unreasonable and excessive.

“Officer Ermis put a gun in the back of Sgt. Grisham’s head and spread him across the hood of the car,” Rannefeld said. He argued that Grisham’s decision to hand the camera to his son wasn’t interrupting or impeding Ermis in carrying out his duties, but Grisham exhibiting “self-preservation.”

“He had a gun to the back of his head,” Rannefeld said. “If an ordinary citizen was in that situation he would say, ‘Thank you Lord, there’s a camera around.’”

Conviction and sentence

It took two days of testimony, and two hours of deliberation, for a jury of three men and three women to find U.S. Army Master Sgt. Christopher “C.J.” Grisham guilty of interfering with the duties of a police officer, a Class B misdemeanor under Texas law. Punishment for a Class B misdemeanor can range from nothing, no jail time and no fine, to a $2,000 fine and 180 days in jail.

As the verdict was read, Grisham’s wife, Emily, wept. Because Grisham opted to allow the jurors to decide his punishment, the trial entered into the sentencing phase — which allowed the prosecution and the defense to impugn and fortify Grisham’s character, respectively.

As part of his offensive, Gauntt called his office’s investigator, Joe Medrano, to the stand. Medrano testified that since Grisham’s arrest, he was responsible for keeping tabs on Grisham’s activities, as well as the activities of various members of Open Carry Texas.

According to Medrano, Grisham used the video of his arrest, to “get his side of the story on the road,” attract followers and raise money.

“Grisham used it to ask for donations,” Medrano said. “And he raised close to $52,000.”

Gauntt examined Medrano about Grisham’s media profile, noting that Grisham had appeared on several nationally syndicated radio shows and given multiple interviews to various local and national media outlets.

“Does the defendant seem to be using his notoriety from the incident to push his political views?” Gauntt asked.

“Every day,” Medrano replied. The defense’s case relied heavily on character witnesses. Grisham’s wife, Emily, eldest daughter, Annissa, a member of his church, Timothy New, and a pen pal he developed while he was stationed in Iraq, Janelle Duncan, were all called to provide testimony.

Saying that “the last eight months have been punishment enough” Emily Grisham pleaded with the jury not to send her husband to jail.

Annissa, a high school senior, said that it was her last year living at home and if her father were incarcerated she “would feel like she was robbed of daily time with him.”

In his closing argument, Rannefeld described Grisham as “not a threat to society” and again urged the jury to ask for “zero dollars and zero days.”

Gauntt’s rebutted Rannefeld’s statement by appealing to the jury’s sense of personal responsibility and reminding them that, “we are all accountable for our actions.”

“Grisham still doesn’t get the entire reason we’re here,” he said. “This case isn’t about guns or gun rights. It’s about complying with the instructions of a police officer performing the normal duties of his job.”

The jury was instructed about the range of punishment could be applied to then exited the courtroom for deliberation. After an hour of deliberation, the jury returned with Grisham’s sentence: a $2,000 fine, the maximum fine allowed under the statute.

Grisham immediately said he was planned to appeal the conviction. He told friends and family that he had already contacted the National Rifle Association about securing funds for his legal defense. He did not say if he had heard back from the organization.