text:
Home Crime and Punishment Complete Dashcam Video of Arrest of Army Master Sergeant CJ Grisham
Complete Dashcam Video of Arrest of Army Master Sergeant CJ Grisham
Robert Farago
OK, so now we see the whole sequence of events leading to a Texas jury fining Army Master Sergeant CJ Grisham $2000—the maximum allowed under Texas law for "interfering with the duties of a police officer" (a Class B misdemeanor). And it's crystal clear that the Temple Texas police officer Steve Ermis' gun grab put the LEO into a situation where he (the cop) felt threatened. And justifiably so; Grisham reached to regain control of his rifle. But again, Ermis initiated and then escalated the situation. If he'd stood off a respectful distance—which is also the safest option in this situation—I reckon none of this would have happened. After Ermis cuffed Grisham, well, things just played out as they do these days. Except maybe the cop lasering Sgt. Grisham with his own .45 (3:40 in). At the end of the day, Grisham's anger is more than understandable. Their decision to arrest him seems to be based on nothing more than small town stupidity.
Previous articleDaily Digest: Follow-Ups Edition
Next articleQuote of the Day: LEO Carve-Outs. It's Complicated
Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.
Aggressive Burglar is Permanently Retired After Trying to Disarm a Houston Good Samaritan
Florida Man Would-Be Carjacker Is Shot and Killed After Emerging From an Outhouse to Attack a Woman
Wrong Store: Three Armed Customers Stop a Holdup in a North Georgia Convenience Store
Jeff November 21, 2013 At 22:51
Where can I send a few bucks to pay his fine?
TStanton November 21, 2013 At 23:10
+1 to that
Tom November 22, 2013 At 05:13
Before you jump on the CJ Grisham bandwagon, be aware he's a shady individual.
http://michaelyon-online.com/faggots-and-women-are-unfit-forcombat-the-face-of-a-broken-army.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/no-award-at-all.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/stalking-soldier-arrested-disarmed-by-texas-police-some-facts-opinion-and-analysis.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/monkey-business-our-broken-army.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/justice-in-texas.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/grisham-trial-in-texas-the-party-s-over.htm
John in Ohio November 22, 2013 At 08:24
Ah, let the character assassination begin. The RKBA movement always eats its own! So, are you going to contend that this officer that grabbed the rifle in the video knew that this citizen was a "shady individual"? I didn't look at your links because they don't matter. The situation at hand is all contained in the full video; most in the first few moments. If everyone is looking for messiahs, then don't bother. What we have are imperfect human beings and that's all we're ever going to have in this movement.
Now, if your comment was purely just a heads up then I thank you but you could've clarified that. Otherwise, my initial comment stands.
gloomhound November 22, 2013 At 10:29
John in Ohio you Sir are a very wise man.
It's not about character assassination, but making sure that Shanon Watts and others don't use him as the poster boy, thus dragging everyone down with him. Video doesn't always present the whole picture.
@Tom: And your post is somehow going to 'make sure' that Shanon Watts and others don't use him as the poster boy? I gave you an easy out in my reply. All that you had to do was call it a heads up. Obviously, it was more to you than simply passing along possible relevant information. 😉
Pete Zaitcev November 25, 2013 At 15:19
I see people seem to miss a couple of points about this Yon character. Number one of them, is there anything that Yon wrote aboug Grisham that is not true? ANYTHING?
Let's assume that Yon's writings are driven by vendetta for disembedding. Fine, Yon is an asshole with a grudge. How does it change what's written? Is Grisham not a dangerous psychopath who's going to drag RKBA down with him?
And another thing: Gen McCrystal, who actually ordered Yon kicked out. Same things about character assasination were said back when Yon wrote bad things about the General too. And when McCrystal was pulled out of Afghanistan out on his ear, suddently all that Yon wrote turned out to be very true and justified. Like the bridge thing. Remember that? No?
William Burke November 25, 2013 At 16:03
Yes, he appears to not be a dangerous psychopath.
NONE of what Yon (of the comedy team, HITHER AND YON) says about the master sergeant has the SLIGHTEST bearing on what happened. Not in the least. I wonder why you felt it necessary to raise the issue once again.
@Pete Zaitcev: I didn't look at your links because they don't matter. The situation at hand is all contained in the full video; most in the first few moments.
Clearly, it sucks to be you, skunk.
smokeybehr November 22, 2013 At 14:22
If the only source that you can come up with is Michael Yon, then you've got a problem. Yon has had it out for Grisham for a long time, ever since Grisham reported the problems that Yon caused to units he was embedded in Iraq with. Now Yon does his "reporting" from Chiang Mai, Thailand, the home of many ex-pat Americans who take advantage of Thailand's lax enforcement of child sex laws.
balais February 17, 2019 At 18:14
Yon is a honorable and respected man in military circles. And the fact that you would tangentially, passive-aggressively accuse him of moving to thailand for boys is disgusting and slanderous. You're a fuck knuckle and should contemplate running out into traffic
Blue November 21, 2013 At 22:52
Officer Ass-Clown at your service.
Nicks87 November 22, 2013 At 12:45
More like Master Sergeant Ass-Clown at your service. I agree that the officer's actions were inappropriate but why not just let the officer take the weapon and detain him, then get a lawyer and sue the dept. But now because of the way he reacted he has no recourse.
Glenn in USA November 23, 2013 At 02:24
You don't understand Nick87. You don't let anybody just come up to you and take and handle your gun. You are responsible for it. No matter what. If the officer had come and ASKED to see then that might have been a different story.
Bob November 23, 2013 At 10:22
Police should always be treated as the extremely hostile and dangerous criminals that they are. I say criminals because they thrive on the Nuremberg defense excuse as they kidnap and cage peaceful people for possessing leaves and other victimless "crimes" dreamed up by power-hungry politicians psychopaths.
It is standard operating procedure for cops to escalate situations in hopes of bagging a felony and high fives at the precinct.
You said it! And as legalization/tolerance grows steadily, such a shame they'll have to find someone else to pick on.
Sixpack70 November 21, 2013 At 22:56
What would possess a person to grab another persons gun like that? Why did he need to read the serial number off of the gun? The officer escalated the situation for no damn good reason. Of course the guy is going to touch his rifle, you just pulled it from his body and then let go. There should have been no charges and no fine. This is utterly ridiculous.
Because he figured he could get away with it… and he did. 🙁
Couple of chickenshit small town Tx cops.
Jus Bill November 22, 2013 At 14:11
Mayberry, TX.
And totally clueless jurors slaves.
I agree. They act like beaten dogs, not like my fellow Americans. (LBJ Basset-Hound look on "my fellow Americans)
Adam November 21, 2013 At 22:58
This did nothing to change my opinion of the situation. Officer Ermis is a moron. You don't walk up to someone and just start grabbing their stuff. Then holding him down on top of said gun and telling him to keep away from the gun is just dumb.
Azz hat!
Basically the officer created the problem, overreacted, expected the citizen to simply let him do whatever he wanted, then arrested the citizen for non-compliance. Yeah that seems fair.
You VILL comply!
Skyler November 22, 2013 At 05:57
I don't know if you've noticed, but we don't live in a free country anymore. The police are taught that they are always right and that they are not allowed to tolerate any resistance at all. In Williamson county Texas I know that they are taught this. During their interview for a position with that county after graduating from the police academy they are asked what they would do if they pull someone over for speeding and ask to see an id and the driver hesitates to comply immediately. The correct answer is to, without warning or a second command, smash their window and pull them out of the car through the window.
This is what they are taught. They are in charge and we will comply no matter what.
The place to argue with a cop is in court where they generally can't shoot you. People would be well advised to remember this when encountering a cop and when entering the voting booth.
John November 21, 2013 At 23:01
They might as well pull out the checkbook, this is case closed
Hannibal November 22, 2013 At 07:05
Didn't read closely, did you?
I hope the appeal takes place in the US.
Brennan November 21, 2013 At 23:10
7 minutes of that was all I could take.
ropingdown November 21, 2013 At 23:13
It is doubtful the Texas courts will consider it reasonable to feel threatened simply because the man has a gun. That would render the word "threatened" in the statute empty of meaning. Under such an interpretation virtually any manner of open carry would be a violation, clearly not the statute's intended meaning.
If the law stated that a man might carry a hammer unless the police find it threatening, would that entitle a hammer-phobic LEO to adjudge every hammer carry 'threatening'? Obviously not. And how remarkable that the second LEO said "I don't care what the law says…" and then mumbles about the plethora of laws in this day and age. Yes. We noticed. We don't find it amusing. The least he could do, though, is respect the words of the laws he chooses to enforce.
I am reminded of the Illinois training officer who expects concealed carry to increase the number of 'disturbing the peace' offenses. Well, if lawful concealed carry strikes an LEO as disturbing, then it is a foregone conclusion, though not a lawful one.
Ended up with a hung jury first go around. He was found guilty the second go around.
http://ktemnews.com/grisham-found-guilty-of-interfering-with-duties-of-police-officer/
Roice November 21, 2013 At 23:22
Mistakes were made by both sides. Incorrect statements were made by both sides. However, in America we usually side with the concept of "freedom" when a dispute of this nature arises. I know that a jury recently found the master sergeant guilty and admit it's a close call but one thought keeps reoccurring to me…. Do the police want to cultivate this type of reputation in the Land of the Free? Think about it. Thousands and thousands of people have now watched this video. A good man has now been prosecuted who meant no harm to anyone. The police officer's safety was his primary concern but now there is recentment, spent tax money, a shaken kid who had to watch his dad engaged in this manner, a tarnished veteran's career, etc….. I can't help but think the police won the lengthy court battle but lost a bigger war. They both could have been a bit more composed. Hundreds of people will hate police even more than they currently do (wrongly I would add) because of this video. It shouldn't have played out like this and the officer was both the instigator and controller of the developing confusion. He has a right to question the man and his son but he still over reacted I think. It will further alienate police from the hearts of those who's help they need to do their jobs. They win the court case and lose support and trust of many people in that community. Who was the real loser in the long run…..?
I would say that, YES, they DO want to cultivate this type of reputation. What's the alternative explanation? That they act in a random fashion?
What's the alternate explanation!?…….There are literally hundreds: The officer was poorly trained. The officer was having a bad day. The first comment "Because I CAN" was perceived to be confrontational (not the wisest way to begin the encounter though technically correct). The officer is scared by black rifles. The initial caller said something untrue and set the stage for over caution. The master sergeant went to grade school with the officer and beat him up when they were 9. The officer is a liberal douch bag…etc.,etc.,etc. I'm not trying to say the cop acted appropriately in all ways, however, when he asked the man "what going on" all the master sergeant had to say was, "We'll sir, my son and I were out for a hike and I thought I'd carry my rifle in case we are attacked by zombies" followed by a smile and chuckle. None of this would have happened. I'm as pro 2A as anyone believe me…. I'm just saying I wouldn't have taken an attitude in my 1st sentence. The entire encounter was a disaster and the cop shouldn't have arrested him I agree, but I see problems with the mans response and so did an impartial (hopefully) jury of his peers.
"We'll sir, my son and I were out for a hike and I thought I'd carry my rifle in case we are attacked by zombies" followed by a smile and chuckle.
That statement could've easily bought the citizen a mental health hold and evaluation. The citizen was breaking no laws. The officer is paid to know that. The citizen doesn't have to answer any questions. The officer DOES have to accept that and cannot detain a citizen without something more to go on. This officer can't be excused so easily. The officer was wrong from the beginning which poisoned the rest of the interaction.
Steve November 22, 2013 At 12:27
John in Ohio, I really don't think that comment would bring out the straight jackets. I also know from experience that when a Police Officer receives a call he/she has to respond to it, especially a "man with a gun call. Even if the Officer just rolled up on these two men, why can't he just approach them and ask questions concerning the rifle in possession? Does the Officer know if the man is a convicted felon or are the two men just enjoying a walk down the street? What I'm getting at here is that the Officer was justified in conducting an investigation and could have asked for ID to verify all was well. I know some here think that the Police should not have to ask for identification, because after all that's what the brown shirts did 70 years ago, but if the Officer believed suspicious activity is afoot, then he can conduct his investigation. Now,did he go about it the wrong way? I believe so. As a matter of fact, this whole situation was a cluster from the get go with both parties.
Just remember folks, there are ALOT more of us "pro Constitution" Police Officers out there than what the media is projecting these days. We are not about taking our rights away, or disarming us. But we do have a job to do and that involves conducting investigations appropriately from both sides.
Leonard Embody November 22, 2013 At 13:18
Suspicion of what criminal act initiated the terry detention?
@Steve: We agree that such a statement wouldn't likely bring out the straight jackets. But, I wrote that it could have; as in if a citizen has the misfortune of being in the presence of a bad cop. This cop was acting as a bad cop.
In a state lacking in compulsory identification laws, there's no good reason for a citizen to identify when stopped solely for carrying a firearm. I, too, believe that there are more 'pro' officers out there than might be readily apparent. However, I think that the majority are of the 'I support the 2A, but…" variety; just like in the gun owning community. To preserve the freedom of everyone, we need as many of those individuals in BOTH overlapping groups to drop the qualifier and walk the damned talk.
But we do have a job to do and that involves conducting investigations appropriately from both sides.
Observing from a distance or even attempting a brief consensual encounter is proper. Beyond that, where's the RAS? A vague call from another citizen doesn't generate RAS. Refusing to answer and asking if one is "free to go?", "being detained?" is likewise proper. No RAS, leave the citizen alone and tell the caller that simply seeing a MWAG is not observant of a crime.
Y'all also need to get your call centers properly trained about the RKBA. These calls shouldn't even generate a unit rolling up without other suspicions. As you know, not every call generates a dispatch. In my county, MOST calls are handled right there in the call with no officer dispatched. These situations should be treated the same.
@Leonard Embody: Pretty much. That's similar to when one voluntarily hands them any identification. Officers simply hold on to it and avoid giving it back to drag out the encounter in the hopes of generating some reasonable suspicion from which to justify going even further.
(Oops… wrong place. This post should be in the lowest level of the comments below here. It belongs with the 'don't ask for a supervisor' comment.)
dsreno November 22, 2013 At 01:47
So, what reputation does this establish? They can stop you for nothing and seize your means of self defense, while they cook up a half-baked excuse to take you to jail. With statements like "we're exempt from the law," they want to make sure we understand that the police have indisputable power over us. The fact that Grisham was found guilty lets us know that even when they are wrong, they are right.
From the prosecution's closing argument: "laws must protect police and tell citizens you are not to fight back if an arrest is being made. An officer has a right to disarm a citizen before interviewing them."
I bet someone said something like that, sometime in history, regarding the Jews, too. Sic semper tyrannis
You make good points. It is a sad situation all around. I wish the best for the master sergeant and hope I never have to deal with jumpy cops.
Roice, the whole jumpy cop statement got me thinking. As long as the person being contacted is not acting aggressively, or jumpy either, the Officer will be more calm. Still on alert, but calm. Remember when an Officer contacts you, the ball is in your court on how the situation is going to go. It can go smoothly or rough. Just be calm, respectful and if you think things are getting out of hand, ask for a supervisor or make a complaint. Of course, I only speak from experience as a Police Officer and have made the conscious decision that at the end of the day, I am a citizen first with the privilege of working as a police officer.
Never ask for a supervisor because then at that point it means the stop or detention is consensual
drew November 22, 2013 At 02:00
Wrongfully hate police? I don't think you have ever been a black man in America. Not all police officers are bad. There are a lot that are terrible and should lose their badge foe the way they treat people, especially their treatment of people of color.
Sorry but I feel American blacks owe our nation an apology for the way they behave. If I was a police officer I'd treat a young, black, male like I was handling a rattlesnake. Instead of whining on sites like TTAG why not try to convince other African Americans to abandon their propensity for violence, drugs, victim mentality, and family abandonment. Cops would treat you better. Sorry if this isn't the response you wanted. We owe you nothing. You owe your nation dearly for the trouble you've caused. You communicated with a truth speaking patriot just now….. not the cow-towed cowards you are use to. Now STFU loser.
TT November 22, 2013 At 03:42
Roice,
Do you understand the concept of personal responsibility? You see Drew, or anyone really, does not owe anyone anything for the things done by anyone but them self. Now, if he has children, then he is responsible for them of course. But he certainly doesn't owe this country anything for the crimes committed by anyone regardless of their or his color.
"We owe you nothing. You owe your nation dearly for the trouble you've caused."
If Drew is American, and I suspect he is, then there is no we here. For there to be a we, Drew would have to be something other that us and you'd have to speak for America, something I'm sure you don't. What's more, our government owes him exactly the same as it owes any other citizen, respect of his civil rights. You did get one thing right though and this goes back to personal responsibility, he does owe the nation for the trouble he has caused, but not for the trouble all of any race caused.
"You communicated with a truth speaking patriot just now….. not the cow-towed cowards you are use to. Now STFU loser."
I've read a lot of politically incorrect statements on this board and that is great. I believe in the 1st amendment as surely as I believe in the 2nd. You are definitely not a truth speaking patriot, you are an idiot. I can't vouch for Drew but blaming him for the crimes of all African Americans is ridiculous and counter to the personal responsibility message that almost all on this board espouse to.
Anon November 22, 2013 At 07:03
You do not speak for anyone else here (ok, sadly, for a few, I'm sure); you do not represent the majority of us and you are making the rest of us look bad by acting like a stereotypical gun owner.
Can there be separate forum areas? The racist, bubba, "everyone-I-don't-agree-with-is-a-libtard"-section, and the literate, functional section?
EagleScout87 November 22, 2013 At 08:46
@TT
Swarf November 22, 2013 At 09:32
Well done TT.
For the trouble THEY'VE caused? Have you ever heard of chattel slavery?
Armchair Command'oh November 21, 2013 At 23:25
If these cops really felt threatened, why would they have left him unattended, at the far end of the squad car, without at least frisking him first.
There collective IQ were probably about 90.
"Their" . . . doh!
Cubby123 November 21, 2013 At 23:37
He get's fined? NRA ,Goa 2nd Amendment a foundation needs to get involved And GET THESE STUPID IGNORANT COPS FIRED and sued for 4th amendment violations;Ilegal search and seizure ,and 2nd Amendment violations of right to keep and bear arms!
And then there is the judge,apparently got a law degree from Asia ,cause certainly doesn't understand US Law!
Barstow Cowboy November 22, 2013 At 03:08
I say we all go to Temple, TX and be on the lookout for anything that we might see that makes us feel threatened, and when we see something we'll call the cops, even if what we see isn't a violation of the law. For instance, if you have a gluten allergy and you see a man eating a sandwich with wheat bread, call the Temple police and let them know you'd like them to go check it out, even though it's not a violation of the law. If you see a guy with big feet, call the cops and let them know that even though it's not illegal to have big feet, you'd still like them to go check this guy out, because you're afraid he might wind up stepping on someone's toes. I think as long as we're honest in what we're reporting that we'll be okay legally.
The NRA, GOA, and SAF don't condone the open carry of firearms. These "gun rights groups" are worthless except to collect money from ignorant people who think they are pro second amendment.
Yep. They tend to support privileges and not the actual right. Their policies and stance tell me that they are afraid of a truly free American society.
A-Rod November 22, 2013 At 11:56
Leo, You are just pissed because they did not come to your aid for your stupidity.
No. They are anti-2a.
Leo, PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ALMIGHT explain to us here on TTAG just how the NRA, GOA and SAF are 'anti-2A'. Facts, citations, references, off handed comments….
Leo? I thought his nickname was LENNY.
I've already cited the evidence on previous posts.
You make an excellent judge of "ignorant".
Matt in FL November 21, 2013 At 23:38
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Sorry, that's what I got from the beginning of the first sentence.
Ing November 22, 2013 At 11:42
Help! I'm being repressed!
Ralph November 21, 2013 At 23:39
In a world where innocent kids get shot eight times for carrying a toy gun, Grisham got lucky. I suppose we should be congratulating the cops for showing amazing restraint because they didn't shove a plunger handle up Grisham's ass. Way to go, Barney! You're a credit to your profession.
Matt November 22, 2013 At 08:12
I agree he got real lucky. The officer had his gun out and stuck in his gut who knows if his finger was on the trigger or not.
Out_Fang_Thief November 22, 2013 At 00:06
It's people like officer Ermis that show us the potential for some officers to abuse their position. And this was during a time of peace. What will officer Ermis do when under duress, or even under martial law? The Temple police went out of their way to make this entire series of events happen. I still haven't heard a plausible/believable excuse/reason for stopping Grisham in the first place. What I haven't heard anyone talking about is how this officer chose to provoke this confrontation in front of a minor child, Grisham's son. Then to top it off, illegally questioning a minor child outside of the presence of a parent or legal guardian. This officer just lost his man certification. What manner of non-man inserts himself like this into a father and son merit badge hike? This is absolutely unforgivable behavior for any man, much less, that of a uniformed LEO. How many civil rights did he violate that day, 3-4? This story shouldn't be about Grisham, it should be about the actions of officer Ermis. Officer Ermis Gets Away With It!!
Why do you have a higher standard for LEO's to live up to than for other men? LEO's are just guys who got jobs. It's highly likely that officer Doofus's dad was a cop too, and that's probably how this guy got his job. It certainly wasn't on the basis of good looks or intelligence.
The officer is paid to do a job and do it properly. That same officer also took an oath. He didn't properly do the job and he violated his oath.
Model 31 November 22, 2013 At 12:45
"Why do you have a higher standard for LEO's to live up to than for other men?"
1. The anti-RKBA people hold that police are the only civilians that should be allowed to have guns.
2. Because the police officer made it through 3 months of cop college, was given a badge and gun, gets paid for their efforts, and on a whim, arrest a man that is talking to but not agreeing with the cop.
3. The cop can mostly get away with reining h3ll down on someone that is not breaking any law other than the misapplied disorderly conduct charge.
4 Police are paraded in front of school children as heroes, honorable and trustworthy.
I could go on, but it is for these reasons police should be held to the highest standards.
Because they are entrusted with public safety.
Because they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Because THEY SHOULD be held to a higher standard!
Because every job doesn't hinge upon public trust, BUT THEIRS DOES.
You want more?
Maybe I didn't get that out right. I understand why they OUGHT to be held to a higher standard, given that they're basically worshipped by anti's, but in fact (as this hillbilly douche has proven) they're just mere mortals like the rest of us.
More's the pity. As I'm sure you agree.
scoutino November 23, 2013 At 10:00
And because with power they get as LEOs comes responsibility not to abuse it. And how can a cop say: I don't care what the law says! and keep his job enforcing it?
SIEG HEIL. Best of luck with the lawsuit!
I keep seeing comments about a lawsuit… all the story mentions is the guy getting found guilty. Given the judicial doctrine of 'clean hands' and his guilty verdict… what lawsuit?
Was that a serious question? A statement disguised as a question? THE LAWSUIT THE MASTER SERGEANT WILL FILE.
There could be a Federal Suit for violating is Constitutional Right against unlawful searches and seizures. He could try to sue not only the officer but the police department as well. The officer seized the weapon and there WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE. So it might boil down to whether the judge would grant immunity for the officer. It's not over.
Jim B November 22, 2013 At 00:16
It is the difference between a firearms friendly state and a state like Texas. In Alaska if you were carrying a rifle down the road the only reason the cop would stop would be to talk to you about hunting or your choice of arms.
Texas is allegedly a "gun-friendly state"; what say you, Robert, Nick? Is Texas a "gun-friendly state"?
I saw nothing "friendly" about this encounter. All I see is escalation and over-reaction, all caused by this s.o.b.'s grabbing of the rifle without asking or announcing his intention.
Shame, SHAME on the jury, for convicting this man for going peaceably about his business!
vioshi November 22, 2013 At 01:05
I believe I saw somewhere that Grisham was aware that the local JBs were not gun friendly. There will always be pockets of people I this country that disagree with other people. It's part of what makes America great.
MadLarkin November 22, 2013 At 07:06
Gun friendly compared to California, New York or Rhode Island? Sure. Gun friendly when viewed on face value? Not so sure about that.
This story is another reason I'm thankful I live in New Hampshire.
Cyrano November 22, 2013 At 09:05
Sometimes I wonder if Iowa is more gun friendly than Texas. You see a guy walking in rural Iowa with a gun and you will probably wish him luck on his hunt. We don't allow suppressors in Iowa but you sure don't get hassled like this by the sheriff.
J from Texas November 22, 2013 At 10:33
We don't have constitutional carry for handguns which is of course inexcusable and as you can see we may as well not have it for long arms. There are areas of Texas that are better than others when it comes to interacting with LE but there are definitely places where the police are nothing short of corrupt regarding (but not limited to) firearm rights.
I think there is a misconception about Texans thinking they have it the best when it comes to gun laws. Sure there are some misguided people that think this way but really at the core it is the Texas idea (whether real or not) of not taking S**T and guns just happen to be an extension of that. We do have some decent laws when it comes to defending yourself but as you can see there are areas where you can still lose a case like this with the right idiots on the jury. No state is perfect by the way.
LongBeach November 22, 2013 At 00:35
I need to get my ass to Alaska, right quick.
Don't forget to bring a sweater!
505markf November 22, 2013 At 00:58
What you have here is a mini-culture war… Temple PD has been accused for quite some time for harassing soldiers at nearby Ft. Hood. Mostly just typical civ-soldier stuff, but it has recently been escalating, I understand from friends of mine in that general area in Texas. You'd figure that anywhere that close to a major military installation that the cops, perhaps more than anyone considering how many of them have prior service, would treat the troops with more respect, but not from what I hear. An old story well understood from San Diego to Norfolk.
colinp November 22, 2013 At 00:26
Can we help him pay for this bs fine.
Frank Masotti November 22, 2013 At 01:58
Another case of the leo thinking the law does not apply to them. It only applys to those whom the deem fit, and as the officer said "we are exempt from the law". No they are not exempt from any law. However IMHO that is how most police feel.
DrVino November 22, 2013 At 02:03
Let's see…..
a $2000 fine….
TTAG has at least 2000 loyal readers….
$5 each and we pay his fine and gather some seed money for a civil rights suit that will hopefully advance gun rights in TX….
can I get a Harrumpf?
De Facto November 22, 2013 At 06:02
Put a kickstarter up and I'm in. Hell, I'll put in $50.
Before you start sending him money, be aware of his shady background.
Good afternoon, Mr. Innuendo. What's with the character assassination? If you had anything, you'd have said so.
Somebody tell me where to send it, I'm in.
Veteran, old man, and had enough November 22, 2013 At 02:19
I'm old. Crippled. Lived in war zones. When martial law is invoked, I will consider myself in a war zone again and promise to obey my oath to uphold the constution of the USA . I will not shoot at body armor.
Jay in Florida November 22, 2013 At 02:19
And people wonder why I have zero nada zilch respect for police as an institution.
The officer clearly escalated the non situation. He was threatened??
BS on that.
If he felt threatened in that situation he should be a dog catcher not a cop.
I used to live in a rural area and the local cops in my town all needed a lesson in how to deal with the public.
Leave me alone I leave you alone was the way it was.
He may not know where I lived. I knew where he did and he knew that.
Anyway. I hope the Sargent gets his day in Civil Court.
The laws are overboard on what is "resisting" and "assault" on an officer. An inadvertent brush is considered assault. If they are that big of candy asses, they need a new line of work.
The Original Brad November 22, 2013 At 06:03
I don't like to get into the middle of these fights, being a LEO myself I have a hard time watching a cop like this behave like he did. I admit, I am forming my opinion on watching about the first 5 mins. I couldn't take anymore before I started seeing red. There are good cops and bad cops, but the thin blue line will always be there. Militarized or belligerent police are a product of their departments and the fear mongering members of society who empower them. When a person calls 911 to report their fears, then exaggerates the circumstances based on feelings, the stage is all set for things to go downhill, add a stupid cop, it's virtually assured. We all know who the bad cops and other LEOs are and no one wants to work with them, but policing the police is much harder than most realize. It starts at the top, at the academies and in the local culture. Cronyism, favoritism, nepotism, all contribute. When I was a cop, my Chief had a son who went through 4, count them, 4 PDs before he finally settled down and became a decent cop. He got 4 chances and blew three of them and still got rehired. That kind of practice is what breeds cops like this. I don't know how to end it, just making an observation here. I do know that with YouTube dash hoard cams and cell phone cams, it's becoming harder and harder to conceal though. That's a good thing. 20 years ago we didn't have those things and I can tell you, things were much worse. So it may be small consolation but outing this officer like this may be painful to watch but it does provide more momentum in the right direction. Others PDs will watch this and train with it. Doubtlessly, thousands of officers will watch it to and learn from it. Some will say, "F yeah officer, you get some!" Others will say that's not me and I will handle myself differently. I think the latter category is growing, that's my perception. It's only because sensational cases like this make the headlines that we are aware of this problem, but also we blow on incident out of proportion accordingly. Condemning the whole LEO profession for the acts of a few bad actors. Millions interact with cops everyday, most of those interactions are positive.
I am embarrassed by this officers behavior, if there is a website to donate to his defense, someone post it. I can do that, and I can take this lesson with me to share with others I work with. That all I can do from where I am.
uncommon_sense November 22, 2013 At 07:46
Thank you for your honest reply Brad.
I have seen the exact same situation time after time. Someone calls in to report a "man with a gun" … then the police show up and immediately confront the man with guns drawn and immediately restrain the man. What is it going to take to get police to regard such a person as a subject of interest rather than a criminal? What is it going to take to get the police to observe the behavior of the person of interest rather than immediately trying to take down the person of interest?
Anyone can call the police and claim anything. How can that possibly qualify as a reasonable, articulable suspicion?
It's going to take more and more citizens open carrying like this. That's the way we change things in the O-Hi-O and it works. We need unity on the part of gun owners regarding OC of long guns and handguns. It won't change any other way than repetitively exercising the right until departments change their training and begin culling these bad cops. Refuse to go to the back of the bus; over and over again.
Tom in Oregon November 22, 2013 At 07:58
Well said. I'll also pitch in for his fine.
You summed it up pretty good and my hats off to you. These departments are a machine and it is difficult for good LEO as individuals to turn it around. We have to find someway to do it.
Farago, your blog posts are intellectually dishonest. You continue to insist on different standards for some open carriers. Here, you excuse behavior of a man wearing camouflage who wrestles him gun back from a LEO. You call the arrest "small town stupidity." In other open carry instances where the open carrier is completely law abiding you tear them apart.
Lol at you and your blog buddies.
jwm November 22, 2013 At 08:34
FLAME DELETED
Robert Farago November 22, 2013 At 08:36
Citation?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/robert-farago/open-carrying-a-rifle-while-wearing-a-bullet-proof-vest-seriously/
"Open Carrying A Rifle In a Bullet-Proof Vest? Seriously?" R.F.
"[O]pen carrying a modern sporting rifle through a city wearing a bullet-resistant vest is meshugah and asking for it." R.F.
"I open carried in Rhode Island. I'll do it in Texas—once The Lone Star State gets its you-know-what together. But I'm not an idiot." R.F. (In referring to open carry of a locked and cased rifle while handing out 2A literature)
The only reason I read this blog is so that I may point out robert farago's hypocrisy and anti 2A tendencies.
Context is important.
Embody, we like open carry. We like open carriers. But we think that you are a horse's ass.
Grabbing a gun from a cop is better than carrying a cased rifle and exercising the right to be silent and refuse a search. That is why I point out the hypocrisy if this blog.
Henry Bowman November 22, 2013 At 11:29
Sorry, Leonard… but folks like you and James Yeager apparently do not fit into the culturally acceptable mold of the gun rights community. You see, in order to be accepted into the fold of "The People of the Gun," you have to be passionate about guns, but not so passionate that you'd actually use your guns to defend your rights. People like you will just scare the liberals and cause anti-gun legislation to be passed. You have to still work within the system even when it's that very same system that has never, ever been used to produce more individual liberty. Or, so the thinking goes.
I differ from yeager as I would not say I'm going to start killing people, nor would I later beg for my handgun permit to be returned.
You watched a different video than I did. Frankly, I think citizens should be able to defend themselves regardless who is attacking them. Since I don't know any of the people in that video, I would trust Grisham before I would any of the punk thug LEO in the video.
I find your self-image laughable.
Referring to the M-body.
Jamie in ND November 22, 2013 At 07:17
"small town stupidity"?! Having grown up, lived in & still having family in a small North Dakota town I find your statement ignorant & insulting.
Having also grown-up in a small town, I find that objectionable also. Small towns are no more "stupid" than big cities, or no less.
It's a different kind of stupidity, that's all.
Once again, the police are out of line. Here are the facts. Someone called in and reported a man walking down the road with a rifle. Walking down the road with a rifle is a legal activity. No one claimed that the man with the rifle was pointing it at anyone or threatening anyone. So the policeman drives up and sees a man and his son walking down a rural road. And the policeman sees that the man has rifle. At that point the policeman immediately confronts the man rather than simply observing him. There was no immediate danger to anyone or anything.
This stop and arrest stinks. If the policeman wants to engage the man in a consensual encounter that's fine. And if the man refuses to engage in a consensual encounter, that is fine as well. Given the totality of the circumstances, the policeman had no business grabbing the man's rifle. The man was in a rural location. He had his son with him. He was walking down the road. He had a rifle. All someone reported was a man walking down the road with a rifle. And the police officer did not even observe the man long enough to see him do anything threatening or illegal.
Perhaps now everyone understands why the first words out of many people's mouths are, "Are you detaining me?" And the second words out of many people's mouths are, "I do not consent to any searches or seizures.". And finally the third words out of their mouths are, "I am invoking my right to remain silent."
Exactly. It's very difficult to predict when an encounter is going to turn towards violations of your rights so it's often advisable to default to the rule of thumb you outlined in the last paragraph. Apologies to all of those good officers out there but, frankly, the stakes are too high for individual citizens to gamble in many of these encounters. Clam up and let the officers stew on what charges then fire up a civil suit if you can. When they lose enough law suits and many citizens don't engage in consensual conversations with them, they will have to change… they won't have a choice anymore.
"If the policeman wants to engage the man in a consensual encounter that's fine."
Please. The Master Sergeant is a married man! 😉
Mediocrates November 22, 2013 At 08:02
That's the dealio. You don't "obey the officer's instructions" and you are going to jail for obstruction. Then you have to prove the arrest was unlawful at your expense. This is why I no longer have 100% support for LEOs. I reserve that 100% support until the relationship is established.
Sertorius November 22, 2013 At 08:03
According to the article, the judge allowed the prosecutor's investigator to testify that the sgt used this incident to raise money and publicize himself. That seems clearly "not relevant" to the charge, and should have been excluded by the judge. Grounds for appeal.
So, you will be convicted of "interfering with an officer" even when the officer is acting ILLEGALLY!
It's under the contempt of cop statute written in every law book in the land. Don't look for it though because I hear that it's written in invisible ink for maximum plausible deniability and zero accountability. 😉
Yeah. I'm pretty sure "Disorderly Conduct", "Disturbing the Peace", and "Causing a Public Nusiance" are some of the other chargable offenses under that statute.
billi November 22, 2013 At 08:13
"small town stupidity" as opposed to big city brilliance? #stopandfrisk
The deterrent value of the Second Amendment is lost when a citizen cannot bear a rifle in public unmolested by agents of government. In this video, 1A, 2A, and 4A protections are gutted. Towards the end, the officer says that he cannot resist an officer. That's not correct. One can resist an officer committing an illegal act. Although, it's usually not wise to do so since the situations and system are stacked against a law abiding citizen in such circumstances. The trend by law enforcement officers, as exemplified in this video, is deleterious to liberty and increases the likelihood of future violent encounters with free citizens in the future. It's a big county and somewhere, sometime citizens aren't going to passively tolerate behavior like this by servants of the People. It's a tragedy that government and individuals employed by it refuse to see that their unconstitutional actions are increasing tensions between them and law abiding, liberty conscious citizens.
Its a tough situation all around but I think it clearly shows Grisham was in the right.
He let the officer handle his firearm while it was attached to him without being asked or told by the officer he was going to do that. He reacted by placing his hands on the stock and fore grip when the officer attempted to remove it from him without saying anything.
Is that the smartest thing he could have done? Probably not. Was it a legitimate way to react in that situation? Absolutely.
And that is the problem, Grisham had time to react not strategize about the best course of action to take for the long run. I have no advanced training or military service under my belt, but I may have reacted in a similar way in that situation. Someone is trying to take a deadly instrument from me, that is tied directly to my name, without saying anything. I think it is reasonable.
More communication on the part of the officer may have avoided this whole thing but we will never know now.
Shawn November 22, 2013 At 08:41
Texas is going down the poop shoot.
CJ made the mistake of thinking that law enforcement should be trusted. He would have been better off to have exercised his right to be silent and he should have asked if he was being detained and refused to be searched.
I hope the sheeple jury that convicted him in the second trial reap the benefits of the punk thug LEO they have cultivated. In fact, maybe the Temple LEO should bring in the butt snffing dog and colonoscopy from NM.
http://www.kxxv.com/story/24026766/jury-gives-cj-grisham-2000-fine-with-no-jail-time
I figure they only went with the fine hoping he would not appeal it as well as avoid a law suite against Officers Stupid and Ignorant.
Alex November 22, 2013 At 09:10
The stop should have never happened in the first place, since the guy wasn't doing anything illegal.
The cop was unprofessional, and provoked a natural (and unfortunate) reaction in the guy by grabbing his gun without a word.
If he had said he was temporarily taking the firearm for officer safety, the guy would have complained, but likely have not resisted (and would have been in the wrong, legally, for resisting).
The law is likely vaguely worded, and intentionally so, so that "threatened" is not defined (or poorly defined), allowing them to seize a firearm whenever they feel like. This is the true intent of the law.
His first touching of the rifle was rather rude too, and a general indicator of the cops attitude (the sense of entitlement that he can do whatever he wants). You can also see the officers general attitude in how he became violent at the slightest resistance (pulling a gun and shoving the guy against the car).
The charges were the general "we have to arrest him for something" type charges, like resisting arrest, obstruction, and interference, which are either vague enough to be easy to make stick, or just something that they can drop later and charge him with something else (like they did here, he was arrested for resisting, and was charged with interference). Even if the charges later get dropped, the person "beat the rap, but not the ride".
In summation, the police officer caused the situation by behaving in a rude and unprofessional manner, unintentionally provoking a natural, but bad, reaction in the man.
The guy should have never been stopped in the first place, 911/police operators should know to tell people that carrying a firearm is legal, but they don't, and the police get sent for liability purposes (If they didn't investigate, and a crime occurred, then the media would be awash with how the police "did nothing").
The charges were all cop ego protection/punishment for being "uppity", they couldn't just let the guy go, they had to "get him" for something. They can't just admit to being wrong, (it probably never even occurred to them that they were, or could be wrong).
Keefs! November 22, 2013 At 14:58
Wow. I could not have said it better myself, and I agree whole heartedly.
The only thing that I would add is that the DA should have dropped the charges long ago. It sure seems like the entire county government is going out of its way to punish Grisham for something minor. Does anyone know if Officer Ermis has been reprimanded in any way?
Larry November 22, 2013 At 09:17
Ermis is damned lucky Grisham's son didn't retrieve the "unknown" .45 from his dad's side and put one through that fat mothers' brain housing group. Were that me,and I saw my father manhandled and slammed onto the hood for doing absolutely nothing illegal, I'd have made every human effort to remove Ermis from the living. Cop…ha, ha,: would have made a fine guard at Dachau, but not in America.
BWG81 November 22, 2013 At 09:40
Those who want to donate money, I believe he already has a legal fund somewhere in the $50,000 range. He plans to appeal the $2,000 fine and conviction. He has the money to do so at this point.
PavePusher November 22, 2013 At 12:23
Is it wrong of me to believe that, when police violate Constitutional Rights, and the laws they are sworn to support/defend, they SHOULD feel threatened?
You are not wrong as you wrote the truth of it. A self respecting officer ought to be ashamed of violating rights and laws. Barring that, an officer ought to fear violating rights and laws. As things stand now, there is very little, if any, accountability for these officers. That needs to change.
gringito November 22, 2013 At 16:50
THIS officer does not look like that. He is a disgrace for his profession. If I were his boss he would sharpen pencils until his retirement.
And yeah, in the end, this was a "contempt of stupid, moronic cop" charge, and nothing else.
WI Patriot November 22, 2013 At 12:47
Having been stationed at Ft. Hood for 21 months, I can tell you that local PD's take no crap from military members, as a matter of fact, local LEO's seem to go out of their way to harass and try to intimidate military personnel…
LTC F November 22, 2013 At 15:14
First, Temple isn't exactly a small town, it's population last year was 69,148. Having lived in Central Texas (first in the greater Fort Hood/Killeen/Temple metroplex and now in North Williamson County) and being a member of the Army I've noticed a few things. The police in the Fort Hood area with the exception of Killeen and Harker Heights don't much like Soldiers. A Soldier in Austin will spend a night in jail for things that UT Students get a gentle admonishment for. No run in with a law enforcement officer tends to be pleasant, but when LEO's in the Fort Hood (and from what I've seen Fort Bragg, Fort Riley, Fort Irwin, Fort Knox and Fort Benning) area realize they are dealing with a Soldier, particularly a senior NCO or Commissioned Officer, they tend to puff up their chests and flaunt their authority. This goes beyond open carry. In Officer Ermis's eyes he was dealing with two things, a gun nut and an uppity Soldier boy. Uppity Soldier boy was the biggest crime. When I was a battalion commander I had a Soldier spend a night in jail over "failing to signal a turn within 50 yards" despite being on a thirty yard stretch of road.
I don't know Grisham from Adam. He may be a great guy, he may be a jerk. Don't care. I honestly believe this had more to do with "walking while being one of those guys who used to bust my chops when I was in the service" than with open carry.
Idiots and dilettantes in the police are one of the worst things that can happen to a citizen.
tjlarson2k November 22, 2013 At 19:02
Eh, the only thing Ermis needs to feel threatened by is Dunkin' Donuts going out of business.
I say those of us in Texas should go to this, err… department and all open carry our rifles. Should be enlightening.
I don't know where the Officer thought he had the right to just go up and handle this mans rifle.
I would not have let him eve get that close and it would have been a different story if he had just reached up and try to grab my gun for no reason.
Absolutely. Who here wouldn't have reacted the same way – by trying to snatch it back?
Kevin November 23, 2013 At 03:40
Roice makes a good point. The DA may have won in the first go-round (well second. First one was a hung jury), but a zillion people have now seen the video(s) for themselves and a lot of goodwill and trust in the police has been lost. Hope CJ wins on appeal so that the cops get better training on stopping and questioning open-carriers.
JH Hill November 27, 2013 At 00:01
The cop, the judge and the second jury were WRONG. The judge should have dismissed the case or issued a directed verdict of not guilty! I hope Sergeant Grisham APPEALS this case – preferably transferring it to federal jurisdiction – as this case will be a "slam-dunk" if his lawyer raised the proper issues re: "search and seizure", "unlawful arrest", "firearms law", etc. in trial court. The case-law overwhelmingly supports Grisham's position – the relevant Supreme Court decisions are far too numerous to list them all! (Whether Grisham is a "saint" or a "bastard" is irrelevant – he should win on the merits alone.) If I were Grisham's lawyer, I would later sue the town of Temple, its police chief and the officers involved (in their official and personal capacities) for ALL legal expenses, plus a few million dollars more for damages.
1.) The cop can require someone to stop ONLY if he has "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the man has committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime. That means that the cop must have some objective evidence of a crime already committed or being committed which he can clearly state to the man and later to the court. Without such "reasonable, articulable suspicion", the cop CANNOT order the man to stop. Terry v. Ohio (1968);
2.) A firearm where legally carried can NOT be the ONLY reason for a cop to stop someone – that is, carrying a firearm can NOT provide the the cop the necessary "reasonable suspicion" The cop can NOT stop someone simply to check if he has a "license to carry", or to prove the man is not a felon, etc. Instead, the cop MUST have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the man is committng a crime or is illegally carrying the firearm, such as positive evidence that the man IS a felon. U.S. v DeBerry, 1996
3.) Absent "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of a crime being committed, the cop WAS allowed to ASK the man to stop – that is, to request (but NOT to demand) that the man stop, BUT the man was NOT REQUIRED to stop and was free to ignore any such requests from the cop. The man was NOT required to identify himself (regardless of any state or local laws – Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 616 (1971) ) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) ; nor required to even turn around to acknowledge the cop or even talk to the cop at all. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, (1968); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
"The person approached, however, need not answer any questions put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) ; Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160 (1949)
4.) The cop needed "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of a crime – which he did NOT have – simply to demand that the man stop. To demand anything further the cop required "PROBABLE CAUSE" of a crime – something the cop NEVER had in this case. Miranda v. Arizona – 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ; Dunnaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 (1979); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949).
It is surprising the prosecutor took it back to trial with a 5 to 1 vote for acquittal in the 1st trial. It is also odd that the 2nd jury was nearly 100% opposite of the 1st.
The first jury was 5-1 against grisham.
Paul Abernathy April 5, 2015 At 20:18
This gentlemen did nothing wrong yet the cop stepped over the line. The cop said he is above the law. The cop did not have a legal right to disarm an innocent citizen.
We have a constitution that is to be upheld…. Then they are embarrassed enough to file a trumped up charge.
Then he is judged by a corrupt jury….classic abuse of power.


This Partial Difference Subtraction (upper elem) Clip Art is perfect to practice subtraction skills. Your elementary grade students will love this Partial Difference Subtraction (upper elem) Clip Art. Clearly explains how to subtract partial differences, followed by a page of practice.


text:
Press Room > NCLR and Lambda Legal Sue Arizona over Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law
Press Releases & Statements Archive
NCLR and Lambda Legal Sue Arizona over Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law
Shannon Minter (c) 415-624-6071; Email sminter@nclrights.org
"I've been bullied because of my sexual orientation, and this law just encourages more of the same by labeling who I am as something to be ashamed of."
(Tucson, AZ, March 28, 2019) – The National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, along with law professor Clifford Rosky and pro bono counsel Perkins Coie LLP, today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Equality Arizona, including its members who are public school students, challenging the State of Arizona's anti-LGBTQ curriculum law, which bars students from receiving medically accurate, age-appropriate information about non-heterosexual people in their health education classes. Arizona law prohibits instruction in HIV/AIDS curriculum that "[p]romotes a homosexual life-style," "[p]ortrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style," or "[s]uggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."
"In 2019, it is shocking to see Arizona enforcing a law that openly disparages a group of students and requires them to be treated differently from all other students," said NCLR Senior Staff Attorney Julie Wilensky. "It is time for this harmful law to be eliminated from Arizona's schools so all children can feel safe and valued."
"Arizona is stigmatizing and demeaning LGBTQ students and preventing them from getting medically-accurate information that literally could save their lives," Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Puneet Cheema said. "They are breeding a school environment that is hostile to LGBTQ students and their relationships, and exposing LGBTQ students to harassment and abuse in classrooms, hallways, and locker rooms."
Today's lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of Equality Arizona, a non-profit organization that advocates for the equality of LGBTQ people. The organization includes student members, two of whom are described in the complaint. One student, referred to by the anonymous initials, "A.A.," is a gay freshman in a greater Phoenix high school. Another student, who is identified by the initials S.C. and is also named as a plaintiff, is a seventh-grade student at a middle school in Tucson. The lawsuit argues the anti-LGBTQ curriculum law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"We know that Arizona schools are not safe spaces for LGBTQ students," said Michael Soto, Executive Director, Equality Arizona. "Recent surveys of LGBTQ students reveal that almost 80 percent regularly heard homophobic remarks, 71 percent experienced verbal harassment, and 12 percent were physically assaulted. A state law that explicitly demeans and dismisses LGBTQ students and their relationships cannot help but encourage that abuse and discrimination. The toxic school environment created by this law also contributes to higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts among LGBTQ students."
"I just want to feel safe at school like every other student, but this law makes me feel like an outsider just because I'm gay," said the student identified as A.A. "I've been bullied because of my sexual orientation, and this law just encourages more of the same by labeling who I am as something to be ashamed of."
"School is supposed to be a safe place where my child, like any other student, can receive education and support that will help as they move through life," said Carol Brochin, the mother of S.C. "Rather than encouraging schools to provide that support, this law tries to erase LGBTQ students. The message it sends to these young people is devastating—that they don't matter, they are not valued, and their lives and future don't count. No parent wants to see their child harmed in this way."
Arizona's anti-LGBTQ curriculum law was enacted nearly thirty years ago in 1991. The law is outdated, harmful, and wrong, as Kathy Hoffman – the Arizona Superintendent of Public Education and a defendant in the lawsuit – has herself acknowledged. Repeated legislative efforts to repeal the law have failed, however, and the State continues to enforce it.
The case is Equality Arizona v. Hoffman. Read about the case here.
Attorneys working on the case are: Puneet Cheema and Peter Renn, Lambda Legal; Julie Wilensky and Asaf Orr, National Center for Lesbian Rights; law professor Clifford Rosky; and pro bono co-counsel Dan Barr, Barry Stratford, Randal McDonald, and Katherine May at Perkins Coie LLP.
Tom Warnke; (o): 213-382-7600 ext. 247; (c): 213-841-4503; Email twarnke@lambdalegal.org
Clifford Rosky 801-581-7352; Email clifford.rosky@gmail.com
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV through impact litigation, education and policy work.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) was the first national LGBTQ legal organization founded by women and brings a fierce, longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and our community's most vulnerable. Since 1977, NCLR has been at the forefront of advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ people and their families through impact litigation, public policy, and public education. Decades ago, NCLR launched the first LGBTQ Immigration Project, Transgender Rights Project, Youth Project, Elder Law Project, and began working to end conversion therapy through what is now the Born Perfect campaign.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


There will be a digger operating adjacent to the Pennine Bridleway/Trans Pennine Trail at Tintwistle from the 19th to the 30th September. The byway will remain open at all times. The work is being carried out by Electricity North West. Please bear this in mind when travelling along this section. Horseriders may wish to try and avoid the machinery by riding this section early in the morning or in the evening.


Initially, the library facilities of ICAR-NIANP was shared with SRS of NDRI library. Within two years, the ICAR-NIANP Library was shifted completely to a small building within the premises of the institute in the NDRI campus. In 2003, the institute received its new full fleged library facility along with its main building.
The NIANP Library is maintaining online database of the books and journals available in the library for the staff of NIANP and the members of NIANP library. This online database provides simple and advance search facility for books and journals holdings of the library. The members of the library can use the database online request system to request books, research articles and journals directly from the librarian.
NIANP Library has the following list of books, journals and research articles.


We offer 1,2,3 bedroom apartments &Villas for Holiday Rentals.
Swimming pool Villa or Swimming pool apartments in UdonThani we have both, prices starting at 399 baht per day, Car Rental 750 baht per day.
Your own Apartment from only 350 baht per day if you book 3 day or more.
You can come for a look and see how nice UdonThani Is.
day. Car with driver 300 baht per Hour.
Please contact Us for Any help or information. we offer free airport pick up and return in with the Rentals. Motor Bike Hire only 99 baht per day.


When he's not busy trying to annoy us on facebook or Producing songs and beats for some of your favorite Liberian and African singers , this is what Just Prince Sherman Thomas alias "Just Prince" be doing. I bet you didn't know he could sing this well? Well, don't be too surprised because some of us knew he was this talented.
The popular musical producer has finally released "You alone" and the video looks great. Don't even get us started with how amazing he sounds. Watch below!


Sock pair number ten is done - and they are absurd!
Yes, they were made to go with sandals. Because I'm cool like that.
The whole celiac thing has caused horrible swelling and pain in my feet and hands. (I'm still dealing with it some, actually. Apparently my body is giving me a celiac-immune reaction to rice, too. Walking is not always my friend.) Anyway, when that happens, my sandals are the only thing that can give any relief (for my feet; they do nothing for my hands). Last month the weather turned cold again and I had to choose between cold feet or an inability to walk. I usually ended up with cold feet.
But now, I can walk and have warm feet! Well, once it gets cold again. I haven't worn any socks in about two weeks.
Next up: obnoxiously neon stripes!


One of the more curious details about the whole Exodus story is one hardly mentioned or discussed, but may in fact be the one detail that hints at what may have actually sparked the rapid rush out of Egypt and the subsequent pursuit of the Pharaoh after these Semites. I am not suggesting there was some massive flight of millions of people as suggested in the bible but I digress.
The great plundering supposedly takes place on the very last night the Semites spend in Egypt which was also the night all of Egypt's first born children are killed by God. The story tells us that Pharaoh was so upset and disgusted, he hastened the Israelites to leave Egypt because it appeared as if their presence seemed to bring a curse upon Egypt. What happens next is somewhat odd.
We are told in Exodus chapter 14 that word reached Pharaoh that the Israelites had fled the land which, if we recall, was ordered by the same Pharaoh. Here he seems stunned that they actually left and it is even more surprising when you consider the large number of Israelites that left Egypt according to the Bible. If Exodus 14 is to be believed, it's as if the Pharaoh was completely oblivious to this.
As a result, Pharaoh has a change of heart and amasses an army to go after the Israelites to bring them back into slavery. That Pharaoh has a change of heart is puzzling considering he gave the order for them to leave because in a superstitious world, it was easy to believe that as long as the Israelites remained in the land, Egypt continued to suffer from one disaster after another while in the Israelite neighborhood in the Goshen area of Egypt, none of the plagues affected them. Why would he want to bring them back knowing the disaster their presence brought?
What some have suggested is, the 'mixed multitude' of Semites actually stole (plundered) Egyptian items on their migrations out of Egypt and what Pharaoh was actually doing, was going after them to take back what rightfully belonged to the Egyptians. The rest of the Exodus story, they say, is highly fabricated and/or embellished to clean it up a little in favor of the Israelites while simultaneously demonizing the Egyptians and their leader. It is also quite suspicious that the Egyptians would have been so sympathetic toward the Israelites and in such a giving mood when it was evident the Israelites were responsible for all the pain Egypt had suffered, topped by the deaths of all their firstborn.
What happened to the glorious land of Egypt after the Israelites left the land? If the Biblical account is to be taken seriously word for word, then Egypt should have been left in extremely bad shape. The land should been completely devastated and rife with civil unrest from a broke population who supposedly gave away their possessions to a fleeing crowd. To top this off, all that alleged slave labor was gone in an instance and the Pharaoh and most of his army were supposedly wiped out. All of this surely would have weakened the world's greatest empire at the time, however, there is no historical account of Egypt falling into some great demise at this point.
The Exodus is supposed to be the great miracle but the greater miracle would have been Egypt's ability to stay completely intact and powerful despite all that the Bible says happened to that land and its people during this period.
If the numbers given in the Bible are correct, the Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus would have been about two million (count the number of warriors). Obviously, their departure would have had a serious impact on the Egyptian economy.
Yet, the Egyptians, meticulous record keeps, left no records of the presence or departure of the Hebrews.
The Hebrews themselves who purportedly were in Egypt for some time, left no archeological footprint. Neither did they leave any of the forty years they purportedly spend in the desert.
The clear preponderance of the evidence, is that the Exodus story is only folklore.
That's a good question though. According to their mythology, why did they chase after them if they were the ones that wanted them to go?
Ancient warrior's right. There is no reason to believe they were ever there, much less any other part of the story.
The Exodus of the Isrealites is nothing more than a fabrication...the story was stolen and based upon the expulsion of the Hyksos. As with most of the stories found in the OT...they are based on someone else's story and just stolen and refabriated by them.
The prophecy given in Genesis 15 is about as vague as a prophecy could be; it does not specify the country or the time period when Abraham's descendents would be enslaved.
On the other hand, it serves the OP's purposes very well, to cherry pick a specific verse and draw conclusions.
Well, the OP was an epic fail. I forgot to include the actual scriptures so I've re-posted the actual topic completely.
One of the more curious details about the whole Exodus story is one hardly mentioned or discussed, but may in fact be the one detail that hints at what may have actually sparked the rapid rush out of Egypt and the subsequent pursuit of the Pharaoh after these Semites.
Now the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.
Fred, I realize this may (or maybe not) be of a sensitive nature to you, but I was not 'cherry picking' or at least, I was not intending to. It is true that the passage in Genesis does not specify any country or time period, but according to Exodus 12-40-41, there is a figure mentioned that, to the reader of the Old Testament, appears to have Genesis 15 in mind. Then there is the passage in Acts 7:6 that also looks at the Egyptian sojourn in Egypt as a fulfillment of Genesis 15. I was just workin gwith that info.
A common theme that runs throughout the Torah seems to be the escape from danger while gaining riches at the same time - whether this is from despoiling an enemy, a free gift, or a gift received in trickery.
Before looking at this, it's good to keep in mind the theology of the Ancient Israelites. At this point in their religion, they held the common view that life was the only chance for happiness, and death resulted in a shiftless, forgetful, dark and gloomy sleep. Any righteousness with God would only be beneficial if the rewards were received during one's lifetime. A good life was considered one that included some sort of property (for nomads, this would consist of great flocks of animals), an amount of slaves (most translations try to remove the negative impact of this word by using "servant" - very innacurate), multiple wives if possible (the Israelite custom -like their neighbors - was similar to later China: the number of wives was a reflection on the amount of your wealth - after all, it wasn't cheap to purchase and maintain a wife), speaking of wives - sexual vigor was expected to still be at it's peak at death, a modest amount of land to bury your family in, and many children to inherit your wealth and livelihood and, most importantly - to bury you properly and perform the correct rites when you died. Many references could be given to substantiate this, but I don't want to go offtrack.
The important point is that happiness is to be found in life - not after death. So wealth was important and facilitated this happiness.
Now, the theme of escaping a danger, or coming out of a conflict or deal, with more than one entered with can be seen in several places - the most obvious ones being the doublets (or possibly even triplets) found in Genesis 15, 20 and 26: the stories which Speiser calls "The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives". These are the stories in which a patriarch passes off his wife as his sister in order to avoid danger, and after the adventure is over the patriarch is usually in possession of a lot more goods than he previously had.
A doublet is a story that is told twice, with sometimes varying details. This used to be a big exegetical problem for literalists, until scholars decided that these doublets were just one of the evidences that made up the Documentary Hypothesis - the theory that the Torah is made up of 3-4 sources that were eventually redacted (edited) into a complete scroll: Genesis. If the same story is told twice, then it is merely evidence that two different tradents passed on the same story and the ravages of time helped change these stories slightly, due to their presumed oral nature originally. I mention that these might be doublets because our first source, the Yahwist (or J - so-called because Germans use the letter J to transliterate the Hebrew letter yod, which we normally transliterate as Y in English: thus the original horrible confusion that resulted in the abomination that was Jehovah, instead of Yahweh) - J tells the 1st story about Abram and Sarai tricking the unnamed pharoah of Egypt, and also the 3rd story in which Isaac and Rebeccah are caught playing pattycakes by Abimelech, King of the Philistines at Gerar. The 2nd story, which also involves the deception of the same Abimelech, is from the Priestly source (P) and involves Abraham and Sarah again - those pesky kids!
And there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to reside there because the famine was heavy in the land. And it was when he was close to coming to Egypt: and he said to Sarai, his wife, "Here, I know that you're a beautiful woman. And it will be when the Egyptians see you that they'll say, 'This is his wife,' and they'll kill me and keep you alive. Say you're my sister so it will be good for me on your account and I'll stay alive because of you." [So she does, is taken into Pharoah's harem, and]....And he was good to Abram on her account, and he had a flock and oxen and he-asses and servants and maids and she-asses and camels [a blatent anachronism, by the way, concerning the camels]. And YHWH plagued Pharoah and his house, big plagues over the matter of Sarai, Abram's wife.
And Pharoah called Abram and said, "What is this you've done to me? Why didn't you tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say 'She's my sister', so I took her for a wife for myself! And now, here's your wife. Take here and go." And Pharoah commanded people over him, and they let him and his wife all he had go.
Poor Sarai - well, at least Abram made out like a bandit! Was that his intention the whole time? Did he really fear for his life, and was unwilling to put his trust in Yahweh completely? In the end - Sarai has no say in the matter according to the text, and perhaps this is because her barreness has made her think that a few nights in a Pharoah's harem might help accomplish Yahweh's promise to Abram - if ya' know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink. An interesting note is that the J writer doesn't attempt to whitewash Abram's character in the story.
In this story, the Priestly writer makes a special point to show that Sarah remained untouched while in the Harem (this writer is especially enamored with genealogies and purity of the patriarchal line), and also whitewashes Abraham's character a little bit: she IS his sister, sort of.... Speiser has some interesting comments to make on this concerning Hurrian marriage contracts and the importance of Sister-Brother contracts, in his commentary - remember Abram's birthplace: Haran. This story is probably a doublet - and is just a different version of the other one told by J. In the end, once again: poor Sarah - at least Abraham makes out like a bandit!
Sad to say - it is the Pharoah of Egypt and Abimelek of Gerar who come out of the stories looking holier than Abram (indeed - there WAS fear of God in that place, despite Abram's fears to the contrary), but it is Abram who triumphs in the end, increasing his wealth. The matriarch Sarah is saved, in each instance, not by her husband - but by Yahweh in the 1st, and then God in the 2nd. The 3rd story involves Isaac and Abimelek again! Either he doesn't learn his lesson and is incredibly stupid, or we have another source - and indeed we do: it's a J story, showing a funny little family tradition of tricking people out of their goods.
I'm too tired to finish this post as I wanted.... To make a what should have been a short point short again: while the story of the despoiling of the Egyptians might reflect a whitewashing of the actual events - it's also very possible that it's just another story in a traditional motif of the wily person, or persons, in danger outwitting someone for personal gain. I'm almost certain that such stories would have been highly entertaining and hilarious to the ancient Israelites who heard them and enjoyed them.


text:
View all News & Opinion
An Early Visit to Janus
By bmadmin
By Dr Rob Brooker, Chair, Scottish Policy Group
At this time of year, with the shops stuffed with stuff and pubs offering some welcome respite from December's gloom and wet, it's hard not to get a little Bacchanalian. But for this BES Scottish Policy Group blog, and as an alternative to the ritual madness of the BES Annual Meeting, I thought I'd pay a visit to the more contemplative Janus. "Isn't this a little early?" you cry. Surely the time for reflection and promises never to eat/drink/play Cluedo ever again is the appropriately-named January? However, at this year's Annual Meeting I'm handing over the Chair of the Scottish Policy Group to Ruth Mitchell, and so this feels like a good time to look back on what we hoped the group would achieve for the BES and its members, where we currently stand, and what goals we might set ourselves for the next few years.
I had a quick dig in in my SPG files to find the original concept note put forward to the BES Policy Committee (in May 2011! – tempus fugit) for the development of regional policy groups. The aims included improving the BES Policy Team's awareness of policy developments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, increasing both the Policy Team's and BES members' ability to respond to these developments, and assisting policymakers through the provision of appropriate, timely and evidence-based advice. This initiative was in part prompted by the realisation that many of the policy areas relevant to the BES (including biodiversity, climate change, and agriculture) had been devolved from Westminster to the Parliaments and regional assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the BES were to engage on these issues at a genuinely UK level, it needed a mechanism to keep track of developments away from Westminster.
The Scottish Policy Group has been able to act as a general test case for this approach. And in getting established we have been lucky in a number of ways, not least by having a very supportive BES Policy Team, and considerable advice and help from Scottish Environment LINK (particularly Andy Myles and Rea Cris). In addition BES members in Scotland have really responded with interest to the group's establishment and ongoing work; we now have 90 folk on our mailing list (all BES members), including an increasing number of early career researchers, which I think is essential if any SIG is going to have momentum and survive long-term.
So has it worked? I would certainly say we've increased the Society's awareness and responsiveness with respect to key areas of Scottish policy development, in particular biodiversity policy. I wonder sometimes whether the Policy Team might occasionally like a holiday from e-mails arriving from north of the border. The challenge can be to choose which policy areas to engage with, not least because we realise we have only a limited capacity and manpower available, but I also think we're in the process of developing the capacity of BES members in Scotland to respond to policy developments; for example, we're currently engaging with the recently-initiated review of protected areas. The group is also trying to provide communication channels by which BES members can themselves get more engaged with the policy-making environment in Scotland, for example through our Pie And A Pint events. As to the final goal of assisting policymakers to access good quality evidence and advice, I would say this is a work in progress and needs to be linked to the development of a comprehensive expertise database within the BES, an activity which is currently underway.
In terms of general reflections about the whole process, one of the critical things about the groups is its developing autonomy and internal impetus. Andy Myles from Scottish Environment LINK argued strongly in an early Pie And A Pint event that names matter: it was important to call the group "Scottish" because this immediately demonstrates it is "of Scotland". The legislation is generated by and delivered in Scotland, and the group operates in a similar way and this may be important in giving us legitimacy when talking to Scottish policymakers. I also hope this has benefits for the BES beyond simply the capacity for covering policy developments in Holyrood. It is perhaps good for the Society to have a core of activity specifically in Scotland (which can feel like a long way from events in Charles Darwin House), although I'm conscious that we've focussed very much on Edinburgh events and need to start thinking about moving north of the Firth (once the bridge is open again). The other general reflection, and its one that we repeat like an SPG mantra, is that things can be done differently in Scotland. Routes of communication to policymakers and MSPs are much more direct and simple, but this cuts both ways. It provides opportunities for understanding and linking into policy making, but achieving a higher profile and recognition also means as a group – and as researchers – we may be under more direct scrutiny.
So overall I think we're in a good place and it's a good time for me to hand over the Chair to Ruth (good luck Ruth!). There's still stuff to do to deliver the Society's original aims, but we've got a very solid foundation to build on and I hope some of the lessons we've learnt in Scotland can help with similar initiatives in Wales and Northern Ireland. For those of you not coming to the meeting, feel free just to get in touch by e-mail to find out more about the group, or check out the Scottish Policy Group page on the BES website. For those coming to Edinburgh for the annual revels, several members of the Scottish Policy Group committee will be around throughout the Annual Meeting, as will Jackie Caine and Ben Connor, the BES' Policy Manager and Officer, respectively. If you're at all interested in SPG activities – irrespective of whether you're based in Scotland – then please come to chat with any of us. Alternatively you'll find us in the Royal Dick bar of the Summerhall arts centre, 19:45 on Monday 14th December, or at our workshop on the Tuesday lunchtime.
Understanding China's political will to further conservation and sustainability
Publications | 23 January 2023
A study about China's government shows the role of political will in the future of our world
READ MORE about Understanding China's political will to further conservation and sustainability
Calling ecologists working in the UK's Overseas Territories
Policy | 18 January 2023
If you are an ecologist working in one of the UK's Overseas Territories, you could help inform the new UK Overseas Territory Biodiversity Strategy.
READ MORE about Calling ecologists working in the UK's Overseas Territories
Frog pathogen has different impacts on species according to new study
A new meta-analytic study investigates the lethal pathogen causing biological disruption for frog species worldwide.
READ MORE about Frog pathogen has different impacts on species according to new study


"Pear Fit" MouseGlider XLarge will fit most xlarge pear shaped mice that are currently available and may be used with or without a mouse pad.
Kensington PilotMouse Optical Wired and Wireless.
"Kensington PilotMouse Optical Wired and Wireless is the registered trademark of Kensington Technology Group (KTG) in the U.S. or other countries."


a regular decision candidate just got a ding so I'm guessing today might not be a good day to get an email?
anyone get any news yet? I have nothing so far.
kh86 wrote: anyone get any news yet? I have nothing so far.
No news, but a subtle change to my status. Now it just says my complete date, and the line about how the date may change along the way is gone. A sign of life? I'm excited to hear something, hopefully tomorrow.
if you didnt receive a notification last night for AJD, you probably got in. i received a rejection last night.
denfrank17 wrote: if you didnt receive a notification last night for AJD, you probably got in. i received a rejection last night.
Sorry to hear bud. Did they give you information about being rolled into the regular JD admission cycle? How's it work?
yes they said i was also considered for the regular pool. but i don't think i received much consideration since i only submitted my GMAT to the AJD program. i know Northwestern is a top 10 school, but i was honestly surprised by my rejection. I have very unique work experience and had a great interview. Oh well. dems da breaks. times is tough!
denfrank17 wrote: yes they said i was also considered for the regular pool. but i don't think i received much consideration since i only submitted my GMAT to the AJD program. i know Northwestern is a top 10 school, but i was honestly surprised by my rejection. I have very unique work experience and had a great interview. Oh well. dems da breaks. times is tough!
Sorry to hear that, denfrank. Thanks for the info.
Sorry to hear that denfrank and hope everything works out for you.
I just got in also. I'm so excited!
got placed on hold...*sigh* more waiting. Congrats to everyone that got in.
kh86 wrote: got placed on hold...*sigh* more waiting. Congrats to everyone that got in.
wtf is the purpose of placing an applicant on hold? classes start in about 8 weeks.
yea not really sure how this is gonna play out. Was anyone else placed on hold?
salangto wrote: I'm on hold, too.
damn.....i'm on hold as well.
I'm in. 3.8ish and >170. Congrats to the other admits, and I'm pulling for the rest of you.
Wow I'm in, pretty excited!


text:
Q: R - strtoi strange behavior to get week of year I use strtoi to determine the week of year in the following function:
to.week <- function(x) strtoi(format(x, "%W"))

It works fine for most dates:
> to.week(as.Date("2015-01-11"))
[1] 1

However, when I'm trying dates between 2015-02-23 and 2015-03-08, I get NA as a result:
> to.week(as.Date("2015-02-25"))
[1] NA

Could you please explain to me what causes the problem?

A: Here is an implementation that works:
to.week <- function(x) as.integer(format(x, "%W"))

The reason strtoi fails is by default it tries to interpret numbers as if they were octal when they are preceeded by a "0".  Since "%W" returns "08", and 8 doesn't exist in octal, you get the NA.  From ?strtoi:

Convert strings to integers according to the given base using the C function strtol, or choose a suitable base following the C rules.
...
For decimal strings as.integer is equally useful.

Also, you can use:
week(as.Date("2015-02-25"))

Though you may have to offset the result of that by 1 to match your expectations.

A: you can slightly modify your code like this
to.week <- function(x) strtoi(format(x, "%W"), 10)

and use base 10.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The Scent Work Games presented below are suitable for any breed at any age from 6 weeks on, but I recommend strongly that these games be a regular part of your puppy's development. All of these games stress reliance on his nose, not his eyesight.
To avoid confusing your dog, I recommend you choose one word which indicates food or dog toys (I use "SEEK"), and a completely different word for objects with human scent or people themselves (I use "FIND IT"). In this fashion, the dog is always clear about WHAT he's looking for with his nose and will not confuse food scents with human scent. One of the most common problems with using food to teach scent discrimination or tracking is that you must ultimately teach the dog that the food is not what you really meant at all!
WHICH HAND? This is the simplest of all games. With food or a toy in only one hand, present both closed hands to the dog. Ask him, "Which one?" You may improve upon this game by insisting he touch with a paw or scratch lightly at the correct hand before receiving his treat, or simply have his nose bump your hand. If he gets it wrong, show him the correct hand but DO NOT give the treat! Just try again. Add lots of dramatic flair to this – dogs love a good show.
HIDE & SEEK This is a doggy favorite best played at night or in a darkened house initially. Partially open closets are great (closed closets may not allow sufficient scent to escape), as are shower stalls/tubs with the curtain drawn, standing behind an open door, crouching behind a bush, standing very still near a tree (dogs, like all predators, distinguish movement much better than stationary objects) or sitting on a picnic table or laying across your car's trunk, or wherever!
To add to the dog's eagerness (or in the event that you are unable to sneak away or can't leave the dog), have someone hold the dog. They should be verbally exciting to the dog, asking, "Where did she go? What is she gets lost? Can you FIND her?" and release the dog with a FIND IT command.
Give the dog a chance to work it out, but if he passes you more than twice, give him a "clue" by making a noise AFTER he's passed you the third time. A good clue is a distinctive but brief sound, such as clearing your throat or a short whistle that does not allow the dog to find you by using his hearing, but helps him target the general area you are in for further investigation with his nose. However the dog finds you, tons of praise is to be heaped upon his head, and of course a treat or two never hurts. Toy motivated dogs will delight in a game of fetch or tugging as a reward.
As the dog gets more skilled at HIDE & SEEK, you can increase the difficulty of the game by throwing a blanket or tarp over yourself, not moving until the dog actually touches you, or even hiding in an area that the dog can smell you, see you (or part of you) but cannot get to you. This is useful for teaching a scratch or bark alert if desired (commonly used in drug work/search and rescue training). ALWAYS praise the dog generously for his brilliance.


Just in time for the new school year, the community of St. Joseph Cockeysville launches a state-of-the-art new website, donated by Baltimore Consulting – the Hunt Valley IT resources firm of St. Joseph parishioner and school parent Michael Crowley.
Cockeysville, MD, August 29, 2012 – St. Joseph School in Cockeysville launched a comprehensive new website (www.sjpmd.org) this week to kick off the new school year. The parish and school website can be found at www.sjpmd.org, and utilizes a state-of-the-art content management system to make it easy to update and disseminate information to current and prospective parents. The time and resources needed to design and implement the system were donated by parishioner and school parent Michael Crowley, of Baltimore Consulting in Hunt Valley.
"Parents have a real need for current and quick access to school information. Weather notifications, athletic events, school gatherings, and interactions with school staff are all part of the academic experience, and the system being utilized should facilitate all of these. The previous website was outdated," explains Michael Crowley, St. Joseph School parent and co-founder of Baltimore Consulting, a Hunt Valley-based IT services firm.
"I knew that our firm could take this to a whole new level and create a system that allowed the school and parish to function more efficiently, as well as help in attracting and recruiting families to the school and parish communities. I talked it over with the team, and we agreed that donating a new website to St. Joseph's was an incredibly worthwhile cause," Mr. Crowley continues.
The new website includes a flexible and user-friendly content management system, an interactive calendar, search features, detailed and targeted content, and social media capabilities to enhance the school's communications efforts.
"We are very thankful to Mr. Crowley and his colleagues at Baltimore Consulting for their top-notch professionalism and generous donation of their talents to breathe some much-needed new life into our website," notes Mr. Terrance Golden, principal of St. Joseph School. "With the new system, it will be much easier for our staff members to update news and events, so busy parents can get all the information they need in a timely and efficient manner. Plus, it looks awesome, too," Mr. Golden says.
St. Joseph School in Cockeysville is a Catholic parish school serving children in Grades Kindergarten through 8. Welcoming families of all faiths, St. Joseph School offers an excellent academic program built on a solid, faith-filled foundation. Tuition assistance is available. For more details, call 410-683-0600, Option 3.
Baltimore Consulting was founded in 2004 in Hunt Valley, Maryland. The company provides leading edge technology and consulting services to business entities throughout the region. They are well versed in the latest software development technologies and platforms, have a combined 40 years worth of technical and consulting experience, and have the unique ability to handle complex issues with unparalleled clarity and precision. For more details, call 443-541-3354 or visit www.baltimoreconsulting.com.