Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 10:44 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lottery Post member subject of new motion picture

Topic closed. 26 replies. Last post 8 years ago by LOTTOMIKE.

Page 2 of 2
53
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #53163
June 27, 2007
20 Posts
Offline
Posted: November 2, 2008, 7:52 am - IP Logged

If you agree with the courts, then you agree with Mr. Grimes, because he was acquitted of the crime.  Not guilty.

The point is that the guy who was factually guilty (Dustin Swartzlander) got away with multiple crimes because the corrupt prosecutor purposely did not prosecute the guy.  If he did in fact prosecute the guilty man (who has political connections), it would have proved that Mr. Grimes acted correctly in trying to stop the man during one of his criminal acts.

That's why this movie is going to be so important.  Because corrupt people can get away with crushing innocent people by twisting a complicated series of events, and pushing their powers to the very limits to achieve whatever goals they have politically.

"If you agree with the courts, then you agree with Mr. Grimes, because he was acquitted of the crime.  Not guilty."
I guess what I meant to say was I agree with the CCW suspension.  It sounds like technically he was not guilty and should, by law, retain his CCW.  What I think though is this was reckless and should result in some sort of punishment e.g. temporary CCW suspension/fine.

Regardless of these crimes Swartzlander committed (which appear to be non-violent misdemeanors) I don't see a valid reason for Mr. Grimes to be chasing this random person whom he had just been in an accident with.  You have the vehicle, you have a man on foot going into the woods, you have what sounds like a witness...CALL THE POLICE.  Tell them you saw a possible weapon taken as he jumped out of the car.  Chasing fugitives is for law enforcement officers, not parties to fender benders.  I've been out with police as they searched for evidence and fugitives; the important thing for people to do when they see one is call them up fast so they can get after them.

Now Mr. Grimes.  You said you were forced to submit to a breath test.  That is not true.  You can refuse a breath test and you will suffer the consequences detailed in law.  That is the agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles that you made when you first started driving.  That is not the police department getting down on you.  Remember what they drilled into us; driving truly is a privilege.

The situation with the Miranda document doesn't make sense to me.  They said if you didn't sign it you would have to sit in jail until arraignment but if you did you would be turned loose?  I'd like to know more about that if you are willing to share.

I'm upset by the fact that they permanently banned you from using firearms.  I think re-education should be available for people in these types of traumatizing situations.  Unfortunately that is just my disagreement with the law.

    Rick G's avatar - avatar 1766.jpg
    FEMA Region V Camp #21
    United States
    Member #520
    July 27, 2002
    5699 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: November 2, 2008, 9:29 am - IP Logged

    Jim, I'm glad to hear your case is getting the attention it deserves.  Kudos for defending yourself and your rights as a law abiding citizen.  

    Posted 4/6:  IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit:  555, 347 (str8).


      Shawn67's avatar - Lottery-061.jpg

      United States
      Member #45970
      September 1, 2006
      4763 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: November 2, 2008, 1:13 pm - IP Logged

      Wow, very interesting story. I'm glad this is getting out.

        Avatar
        NY
        United States
        Member #23835
        October 16, 2005
        3474 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: November 3, 2008, 2:36 am - IP Logged

        "If you agree with the courts, then you agree with Mr. Grimes, because he was acquitted of the crime.  Not guilty."
        I guess what I meant to say was I agree with the CCW suspension.  It sounds like technically he was not guilty and should, by law, retain his CCW.  What I think though is this was reckless and should result in some sort of punishment e.g. temporary CCW suspension/fine.

        Regardless of these crimes Swartzlander committed (which appear to be non-violent misdemeanors) I don't see a valid reason for Mr. Grimes to be chasing this random person whom he had just been in an accident with.  You have the vehicle, you have a man on foot going into the woods, you have what sounds like a witness...CALL THE POLICE.  Tell them you saw a possible weapon taken as he jumped out of the car.  Chasing fugitives is for law enforcement officers, not parties to fender benders.  I've been out with police as they searched for evidence and fugitives; the important thing for people to do when they see one is call them up fast so they can get after them.

        Now Mr. Grimes.  You said you were forced to submit to a breath test.  That is not true.  You can refuse a breath test and you will suffer the consequences detailed in law.  That is the agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles that you made when you first started driving.  That is not the police department getting down on you.  Remember what they drilled into us; driving truly is a privilege.

        The situation with the Miranda document doesn't make sense to me.  They said if you didn't sign it you would have to sit in jail until arraignment but if you did you would be turned loose?  I'd like to know more about that if you are willing to share.

        I'm upset by the fact that they permanently banned you from using firearms.  I think re-education should be available for people in these types of traumatizing situations.  Unfortunately that is just my disagreement with the law.

        "I think re-education should be available"

        Training and (re)education are great, but some things you can't fix, and this looks like one to me. The administrative opinion that he "displayed an inappropriate suspicion of others" seems well supported by Grimes' own version of events, and that's not likely to be affected by education and training. Whether he actually pointed it directly at them or not, his own version admits to drawing his weapon on three people. Two of those are because of minor traffic accidents, and the third is due to the mere approach of an unknown person while he was in an excited state.  In the first he clearly admits to drawing his weapon immediately after being rear-ended, but before having any other interaction with the other driver. In the second he admits to discharging his firearm in an attempt to stop a fleeing suspect, then keeping his weapon aimed in the near vicinity of that person. The direction in which he fired may be relevant to his criminal trial, but isn't relevant to the administrative ruling. He then aimed his weapon in the near vicinity of the third person, despite having no reasonable reason to believe that person intended any harm. In fact, he took note of the slow and deliberate approach. Claiming he believed that an object he didn't see clearly might have been an explosive device is just the icing on the cake if you want to argue that he displayed inappropriate suspicion. If he's truly surprised that the authorities decided he shouldn't be carrying, he's still not thinking objectively.

        Where education and training might be useful is his tactics, which suggest that the "training" he refers to was inadequate or didn't take. Either you have a legal right to fire in self defense, or you don't. If you do, firing a warning shot is wasteful (of reaction time and available ammunition) at the least, and suicidal at the worst. In turning his weapon on the approaching stranger he clearly turned his back on the person he claims to have considered a risk. Even if he no longer considered that risk as significant, it demonstrates a significant lack of tactical judgement. Despite considering a possible risk from the "trailers" he could see and from an approaching stranger, he apparently chose to hold his suspect in a spot that offered little or no cover to him, but good cover to anyone approaching through the woods. This presumably only a short distance from the vehicle he had already used for cover moments earlier.  Many statistics have been used to claim that a weapon actually reduces your safety. In the hands of those who lack proper training that's certainly more likely. The state may be doing Grimes a favor by removing his weapon, and they're quite likely doing a favor(s) to others.

          grengrad's avatar - nw rogue.jpg
          Raleigh
          United States
          Member #49057
          January 17, 2007
          172 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: November 3, 2008, 11:15 am - IP Logged

          "Liggett responded with more profanity, saying things about my mother that he couldn't possibly have known (and most of them weren't even true)."

          I like that way you write.

           

          I am sorry you have gotten the short end of the stick in these situations.

            Avatar
            Columbia City, Indiana
            United States
            Member #2978
            December 9, 2003
            381 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: November 3, 2008, 2:57 pm - IP Logged

            "I think re-education should be available"

            Training and (re)education are great, but some things you can't fix, and this looks like one to me. The administrative opinion that he "displayed an inappropriate suspicion of others" seems well supported by Grimes' own version of events, and that's not likely to be affected by education and training. Whether he actually pointed it directly at them or not, his own version admits to drawing his weapon on three people. Two of those are because of minor traffic accidents, and the third is due to the mere approach of an unknown person while he was in an excited state.  In the first he clearly admits to drawing his weapon immediately after being rear-ended, but before having any other interaction with the other driver. In the second he admits to discharging his firearm in an attempt to stop a fleeing suspect, then keeping his weapon aimed in the near vicinity of that person. The direction in which he fired may be relevant to his criminal trial, but isn't relevant to the administrative ruling. He then aimed his weapon in the near vicinity of the third person, despite having no reasonable reason to believe that person intended any harm. In fact, he took note of the slow and deliberate approach. Claiming he believed that an object he didn't see clearly might have been an explosive device is just the icing on the cake if you want to argue that he displayed inappropriate suspicion. If he's truly surprised that the authorities decided he shouldn't be carrying, he's still not thinking objectively.

            Where education and training might be useful is his tactics, which suggest that the "training" he refers to was inadequate or didn't take. Either you have a legal right to fire in self defense, or you don't. If you do, firing a warning shot is wasteful (of reaction time and available ammunition) at the least, and suicidal at the worst. In turning his weapon on the approaching stranger he clearly turned his back on the person he claims to have considered a risk. Even if he no longer considered that risk as significant, it demonstrates a significant lack of tactical judgement. Despite considering a possible risk from the "trailers" he could see and from an approaching stranger, he apparently chose to hold his suspect in a spot that offered little or no cover to him, but good cover to anyone approaching through the woods. This presumably only a short distance from the vehicle he had already used for cover moments earlier.  Many statistics have been used to claim that a weapon actually reduces your safety. In the hands of those who lack proper training that's certainly more likely. The state may be doing Grimes a favor by removing his weapon, and they're quite likely doing a favor(s) to others.

               You surprise me, Floyd.

               By your account, the fact that Liggett tried to run me off the road is entirely insignificant and shouldn't have raised my suspicions. That I was already half-way out of my vehicle when he collided with me is, apparently, a routine event in rear-end collisions, and should not have caused me to believe he hit me intentionally and may have meant to cause me harm. 

               I've had extensive firearms training in long arms and small arms alike, both as a civilian and during my years in the Navy; I reacted exactly as I was trained to react. All I did was to prepare for a possible threat; I did not raise the weapon or threaten Liggett in any way, shape or form, and when no threat was presented, I holstered my gun. I believe I exercised remarkable restraint by choosing to leave the scene for the sole purpose of defusing a situation that was quickly escalating toward physical violence. Liggett was determined to start a fight. If I hadn't been armed, you can be assured that I would not have left the scene. That is NOT to say that I would have fought Liggett; I wouldn't have, because he's about half my size and weighs maybe 90 pounds.

               Regarding the Swartzlander incident, I reacted exactly as any police officer would have done, with the notable exception that I didn't actually shoot Swartzlander. In fact, Tice said in his statement that he believed I was probably an off-duty police officer, due to the manner in which I controlled the scene, and he testified in court that he didn't believe anyone present was in any danger. Police training dictates that if a subject produces an object which can't be readily identified, the assumption must be made that the object could be a weapon. That's why so many police officers are seldom charged with shooting unarmed subjects. The police can shoot an unarmed man forty-one times because they believed at the time that the submarine sandwich the man was holding may have been loaded. "Not my fault," they say, "just doing my job." I'm not certain what degree of lethality pastrami would have against five cops wearing flak vests, but all were allowed to return to work after being awarded medals for bravely removing this obvious threat to society. Swartzlander made it very obvious that he had no intention of hanging around until the police arrived. He began to run through the woods, and then came back to his vehicle to retrieve something. Whatever it was, he didn't want the police to find it, and it was important enough to risk returning to his vehicle.

               There is no state or federal law against firing a warning shot in a rural area and, like I said, it was a preemptive decision. There was no danger to bystanders. Please understand that Swartzlander was not running from me, he was trying to flee from the police. Swartzlander called his girlfriend at the scene and told her he was going to jail, and if the cops had taken my statement at the scene, that's exactly what would have happened. Instead, they refused to take my statement; out of nine police officers who responded to MY 911 call (Tice told the cops that I had asked him to call the police), it never occurred to even ONE of them to ask me why I had summoned them, what had happened, why I drew my weapon or whether my mother or I needed medical attention. If you need help and call the police, don't you have a reasonable expectation that they would ask, "What do you want," or "Why did you call us?" They told me I was NOT being arrested, and then removed me from the scene and threw me in jail without telling me what I was being charged with. That meets the statutory definition of kidnapping in this state. In addition, the police dispatcher typed into her computer, "Shots fired due to other driver leaving the scene." The cops KNEW Swartzlander was fleeing the scene even before they arrived, and they KNEW he was on probation for Driving While Suspended (that's in Swartzlander's deposition and in Officer Hutsell's deposition). The cops told him, "We're not going to violate your probation because we feel you've been through enough today." 

               There is much, much more to this story than what I'm able to present here on the forum. For example, I can't post the diagram of the Swartzlander crash, so you can't see the stream in the woods that would have impeded his northern flight. He couldn't go west, because there's nothing there. If he cuts back to the east, he'll encounter my truck, where my injured mother is still sitting. I'm almost directly south of his position, so that leaves only one path - east, back toward the road where my truck was parked. The keys were still in the ignition and, given his erratic behavior and determination to flee the scene, I could not be sure he wouldn't have simply stolen my truck, with my mother still inside.

               The focus here seems to be that I shouldn't have believed Swartzlander might have had an explosive device. I'm very, very sorry that I saw what I saw, but if I had seen a baggie of illegal drugs, would you assume that I couldn't have known that unless I'm a doper? I'll freely admit that I do indeed have a fully articulable suspicion of others who threaten me, and if Clouse was going to charge me with a crime in the Liggett case, he should have done so then, rather than waiting two and a half years. 

               For some reason, my detractors don't seem to care that we've reached a point in this country where we can be snatched off the street, thrown in jail and tried for invented or imaginary crimes. I'll post the applicable statutes later, but the law says that I CANNOT be charged with any crime under the circumstances. Further, Indiana is a "must issue" state, meaning that carrying a concealed weapon is a fundamental entitlement, not a privilege. The only way they can legally take my gun and my right to carry it is to convict me of a felony, and they haven't given up on that. Shortly after my acquittal, Donnie Griffith received a late-night (11:30 pm) phone call from a state police officer, who berated and screamed at him for "changing his testimony." The cop told him, "Now we're going to have to find something else to charge Grimes with." When you consider Ezell's comment to me, "Before I can reinstate your license (as required by law), I'll have to call the prosecutor and find out why you were acquitted," and couple that with Clouse's comment following my trial, "Jim Grimes will NOT be the one who gets away from me," (mine was the first jury trial Clouse has ever lost), my future as a free man looks rather dim. I'm sure Ezell did call Clouse, and that they engineered the case against me together. It took seven months for them to work this out, and they had to break more laws to do it.

               In order to fully understand the dark forces at work here, you'll have to see the film. Other people have come forward with their own stories of Noble County police corruption and prosecutorial misconduct, and they've agreed to relate their tales on-camera. Some are even more terrifying and more sinister than my own. When you see Noble County's version of "criminal justice," I'm sure you'll thank your lucky stars that you're not a resident. The corruption here is so blatant, so routine that they don't even bother trying to cover it up anymore, because they truly believe that no one can do anything to stop them. In the movie, you'll see where the state police actually falsified the evidence against me, and that Clouse and the Noble County Gestapo, which serves entirely at his behest, broke several state and federal laws in their attempts to send me to prison.   

            Come, Pinky; we must prepare for tomorrow night...

            Jim

              Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
              Chief Bottle Washer
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #1
              May 31, 2000
              23273 Posts
              Online
              Posted: November 3, 2008, 8:30 pm - IP Logged

              Jim,

              This is why I'm so happy that your story is being made into a motion picture.  Not only for the personal injustice that was done to you, but because this same exact thing can happen to someone else.

              People want to focus on the gun, but it's not really about the gun.  (Especially since you handled yourself so well in each situation.)  It could be about anything -- coincidentally being at the scene of a crime, being falsely accused of something, getting wrongly picked out of a lineup -- anything.  The "object" at hand isn't the point; the point is that there are certain points in the government, police, and court system in which really bad things are able to happen, any people caught in that trap become powerless.

              The government is supposed to be OF the people and FOR the people.  It is not supposed to CONTROL the people, because by definition that is no longer freedom.  This is government run amok.

              What Mark Archer is doing by making this film is the role the media SHOULD be playing, but they have become part of the same system.

              We have seen some of these same control tactics used in the lottery; for example when the Tenessee Lottery changed to a computerized drawing system, even though a wide margin of people greatly oppose it.  The lottery, as a quasi-government organization, is supposed to represent what THE PEOPLE want, not what one lottery executive wants.  If she can't give the people the type of lottery drawings they want, then she has no business being the chief lottery executive.

              There are so many reasons why this is important.

               

              Check the State Lottery Report Card
              What grade did your lottery earn?

               

              Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
              Help eliminate computerized drawings!

                Mom2Rock's avatar - herbiewinking
                New Member
                Hillsboro
                United States
                Member #63387
                July 27, 2008
                9 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: November 4, 2008, 5:50 pm - IP Logged

                This incident does indeed sound like a movie.  I cannot imagine the he** you lived through, or the anguish and disgust you have endured. 
                I highly doubt I would have had your restraint  - that is admirable... as is your determination.

                I would love to meet you and shake your hand.  I know my husband would as well.

                "If I found Jesus in a bag of Cheetos - I'd probably just eat him"

                  Avatar
                  NY
                  United States
                  Member #23835
                  October 16, 2005
                  3474 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: November 6, 2008, 2:38 am - IP Logged

                  "By your account, the fact that Liggett tried to run me off the road is entirely insignificant and shouldn't have raised my suspicions."

                  There's a saying that you should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Your description could easily indicate a driver
                  who is drunk, a really bad driver, or a garden variety a-hole, all of which are more common than a driver who does such things intentionally.
                  There's nothing in your description to suggest any real reason to believe those actions were intentional. You say that you couldn't stop when
                  he pulled out in front of you. Why are you surprised that he failed to stop in time when you pulled in front of him and stopped only a short
                  distance in front of him?

                  "Liggett was determined to start a fight."

                  Your description shows that he was probably determined to be obnoxious and uncooperative, but that's all it shows, and that happened after
                  you started the conversation by asking him if he was stupid. I've got no criticism of that, but why would you expect a civil response to your question?

                  <snip lots of irrelevant rationalization>

                  "Further, Indiana is a "must issue" state, meaning that carrying a concealed weapon is a fundamental entitlement, not a privilege."

                  Perhaps you're confused about what "must issue" actually means. The state *always* has the right to deny a license to some people. Had you been
                  convicted, the state would have been *required* to revoke your permit, but acquittal doesn't mean they don't have the option of revoking the permit.
                  In Indiana an applicant will be denied if there is "documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that he or she has a propensity
                  for violent or emotionally unstable conduct." That reasonable belief is far different than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a criminal
                  conviction.

                    LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                    Tennessee
                    United States
                    Member #7853
                    October 15, 2004
                    11338 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: November 7, 2008, 12:29 pm - IP Logged

                    hope you been doing well jim.glad this is finally getting attention and people can hear your side of the story.

                      TigerAngel's avatar - tiger andfairy.jpg
                      california
                      United States
                      Member #23475
                      October 13, 2005
                      659 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: November 8, 2008, 3:46 am - IP Logged

                      I'm looking forward to the movie.  Jim, I think you had the cool of a cucumber and the restraint of a saint.

                      Around 1980 I was a passenger in a rented little Ford Fiesta traveling on a freeway in Conn. We were rammed a few times from behind and then pushed along  at top speed (faster than the Fiesta could go) by a carload of hopped up hooligans.

                      Had my elderly mother been present and injured by them I think I would've wanted to shoot them all.   My driver was a seasoned Viet Nam Veteran who never traveled unarmed.  I will never forget that incident.  Luckily it ended with them driving around us and away,  laughing and with only some fingers being exchanged.  I was really glad we had the gun however,  just in case things had escalated. 

                      I heard a story recently happend in Texas I believe.  A guy was in a police station and noticed a map on the wall full of pushpins.  He asked what they were for.  They told him, "Oh, that's where all the registered gun owners live."  It's not going to be long before they come for the guns.  Be sure you have a cheap crappy gun to turn in ;-)

                      Blue Angel  "if you can hold it in your mind, you can hold it in your hand"

                        LOTTOMIKE's avatar - cash money.jpg
                        Tennessee
                        United States
                        Member #7853
                        October 15, 2004
                        11338 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: November 8, 2008, 4:08 am - IP Logged

                        Jim i think for the second movie we could get me,you and jeff and we could put us all in a feature about corrupt state lotteries.back a few years ago i sat back and read all the stuff that you all had going on up there and thought i was lucky because my state was ball drawn and at the time seem to be doing everything right.well i know you've heard by now how horrible the year 2008 has been for the now RNG controlled state of tennessee and how for weeks the RNG was broke and certain numbers had no way of being drawn.some really surreal things have happened the last few years to where i don't doubt anything anymore these days.in fact i just got through watching a movie where the homeowner had an intruder break in his house in the middle of the night and the homeowner chased the guy out of his house and shot the intruder in the yard.well the homeowner called the cops and then was arrested for murder because the intruder was not in the house when shot.its scary how much rights the dang bad guys have....