I have conflicting feelings over this. I know that open carry is a thing in Texas, but who crossed the line, if anyone?

Am somewhat familiar with the City of Olmos Park. It's a small incorporated community on the NE side of San Antonio, popular with attorneys for its proximity to downtown SA and the Bexar County courthouse. SA has a number of similar communities, each with its own city government (mayor & city council) and tiny police force. (I spent a couple of years on the council of a similar community on the NW side of SA; we had a police chief & two patrolmen whose principal duty was to enforce the speed limit on the only road through town. Traffic fines were a major source of revenue, since our speed limit was 30 mph and all around us it was at least 45 mph.)
I don't know Mr. Grisham nor am I at all familiar with his organization, but I'll offer an opinion anyway. Mr. Grisham seems to have deliberately challenged the Olmos Park officials in the hope of provoking an aggressive response, perhaps for the publicity, maybe hoping to generate new members for his group. I don't really know his motivation. But to openly challenge a peace officer with a badge & a firearm on his home turf was not a smart thing to do. I have good friends who are retired LEOs: a Texas Ranger, an FBI agent and an SAPD officer. They all retired honorably, but they didn't live to their 70s by being stupid. I suspect the citizens of Olmos Park would support their police chief in his efforts to neutralize any outsiders who showed up openly displaying firearms.

Sounds like an over reaction that grew out of a lack of appropriate and sufficient training, leaving the officer in a position of not knowing which decision to make and ultimately making the wrong one.

This is a situation that the court has to decide here. IF it is a fact the people arrested were carrying weapons LEGALLY, then the cop was in the wrong. But like I said, the COURT has to decide this one.

I am a former Washington County Deputy Sheriff, and this sounds like a case of excessive force due to the officers failure to correctly access the situation at hand.

Texas has changed A LOT in the last ten to fifteen years. It has become more "progressively liberal" and the idea that most people have of the "Texas way" is becoming a thing of the past. I've lived there in the early 80's and recently again. I traveled all over Texas for work and believe me, the WHOLE state is changing.

People think Texas is this "Red" state and it is not. There are more problems with lib big cities and out of control cities and their police departments. I support law enforcement, but I don't support those tyrannical departments that violate citizen's constitutional rights.

WITAF is happening in this country? When a liberal openly and purposely breaks the law and the media is completely silent about it. It's almost if its not on the news, then it all good. Since when is rioting and looting not against the law but, protecting one's self from that activity can get you arrested? This police chief needs to be held accountable for injuring an innocent person! The police chief needs to be jailed for assault that ended with injury! dang-it!

I totally disagree with the police actions from an ethics and lawful perspective. But Grisham is provoker, looks for conflict, and uses his military service to shield him and hide behind. He has no credibility with me.

I don't open carry or 2 reasons. 1. Your advertising that you are armed. 2. A criminal will target you first and possibly get the jump on you. If a law enforcement officer stops me, I let them know that I'm armed by giving him/her my licenses, insurance and registration whither they ask for it or not. This doesn't apply to long guns.

As a retired law enforcement officer (25 Years Honolulu Police Department, four years as a
Special Deputy US Marshal - District 22, ten years as an investigator, VP and Security Manager of the largest bank in the state of Hawaii ) I have some experience and an opinion about this issue. First; I want to get this out of the way: Opinions and ass-holes - every one has got one. Second; there is a big - huge - difference between some lone guy staggering down the sidewalk or street obviously agitated, carrying a shotgun, rifle or pistol, yelling in a disorderly manner at no one in particular while displaying the most basic precautions of firearm safety and just generally being stupid. Opposed to an organized group of individuals obviously demonstrating in a public place while engaging in a lawful Constitutional and state law recognized activity. Thirdly; The approach demeanor on both sides of the issue dictates a response by law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, there is an unwritten law of "Contempt of Cop." If the members of this group automatically reacted to the police presence and approach by raising their hands or putting their hands behind their heads, you would almost literally see every danger antenna immediately shoot up from each officer at the scene. I'm here to tell you, when uniformed police officers show up en-mass with the police chief in attendance, what ever happens at the scene is dictated by the chief. The fact that the chief personally tazed one of the group balking at the command to "get on the ground," starts a whole new phase of policing, the rewriting of the probable cause definition and the suspension of all Constitutional Rights and a new one added on. Once the chief gets involved directly in a confrontation, all bets are off that your Constitutional rights are going to be respected - at least until everything gets sorted out at the station, the hospital or the findings of the medical examiner. The matter of "Contempt of Cop" is a real phenomena and is brutally depicted in a video clip involved an arrested in Minneapolis. Fourthly; Even and without equivocation, "even" if an officer commands you to cease what you are doing and commands you to do something - like get on the ground - just do it. I does not work to argue the situation at the moment. You may be embarrassed, you may have your feelings hurt, you may have a good law suit, but being right sometimes winds up being dead, seriously injured, or worse, handcuffed, taken to a station and held pending charges, arrest processing and having to appear in court later to answer for your perceived indiscretion only to have the court dismiss the charges against you. Now that's not the end of it. When you get arrested, the arrest is recorded in the local, state and federal systems. The so-called FBI arrest records are notoriously incomplete or lacking in arrest information. In the past, the record depended on what department decides to send the FBI data card to the Data Center. Now, I believe its automatic and digital depending on the technical advancement of the department. Regardless, the data record only - ONLY - shows an arrest, it does not show dispositions of those arrests. So don't be a martyr and get arrested to prove a point, in the long run, it doesn't help you at all except some faux admiration of your friends for "taking the bullet." So, if you get arrested for a home invasion self defense incident where you had to do a bad guy, you get arrested initially for Murder or Manslaughter (Homicide is only a definition) and your arrest is digitally sent to the FBI Data Center. Five days later, after being indicted by a grand jury, you are released with no charges as the offense was investigated and determined to be excusable in self defense. The FBI record not only shows you have an arrest for Murder or Manslaughter, you were indicted for the crime! Try to get through NICS with that on your record without having to jump through some hoops. Fiftly; (if there is such a word) Even though you've been put through a process, it may take some time and it may take multiple appearances in court, but eventually, the matter will be cleared up and the true facts known. The problem is, its already happened to you and you are the damaged goods. Law enforcement officials have what is called "Qualified Immunity" which gives them some protection of suit if they are found to have performed "under color of law." You on the other hand, have suffered indignity, the loss - probably - of your firearms. The color of law thing has to be determined before you can get any redress for any alleged Constitutional violations committed against you by any law enforcement official. Probably Cause issues are handled in the state courts. Constitutional Rights and violations of Civil Rights issues are handled in the federal courts. BTW: Judges, prosecutors, politicians and pretty much anyone employed by the "government" have some level of this immunity - go figure. And last: Everyone knows now that you and your group has suffered this indignation and blatant violation of the Constitutional Right, reinforced by state law and it makes the sixth page of the local news rag. Then what happens? Well, the matter losses interest by the media, but still generates a lot of opinion by the community. If the issue hits social media and it almost always does, more opinionated, uninformed jack-offs get into the mix. Pretty soon, it gets the attention of an anti-gun group or a bunch of clueless, tennis-shoe wearing alleged moms from a small town in Kansas (nothing against Kansas, folks) to petition their local government and bring about a "cause." This cause is immediately embraced by the local government and elevated to the state. The state now enjoins the cause through their Attorney General and the matter is brought to the state legislators who immediately pass a bunch of laws about background checks. The publicity over the new laws is now encouragement to the Congressional representatives and now it becomes a matter widely discussed by clueless congressmen and women who are scouring the planet looking for victims to hold up to C-SPAN and say, we need to put a stop to this and legislate mandatory universal background checks. So they pass the bill which for some reason gets by the sitting president and becomes law. Then you, the lone martyr of the Texas take-down want to buy a gun to replace the one the police still have from your arrest four years ago and get declined - because you've been arrested in a violent confrontation with police and charged with possession of a firearm (dismissed) resisting arrest (dismissed) and disorderly conduct (dismissed). Now I ask this questions, Who is the winner in this and if there is a winner, what did they win? Just sayin' . . .