Temple Police Department Violated Their Own Orders During My Arrest

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

Every government body in this country – from the federal government to local school boards – operates at the whim of the people. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers rightly noted that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This consent does not extend to those who are elected to the offices in which they serve. It extends to every single government agency, department, and service. And, yes, it even extends to the police forces.

Last weekend, a group from Dallas – DontComply.com – organized the Come and Take It Temple rally. The event was attended by as many as 420 people at its height and averaged about 275, not counting the police officers. Most attendees were armed with openly carried rifles or shotguns, which is legal in Texas. The event was designed to draw attention to the fact that it isn’t against the law to openly carry these firearms so long as it’s not done “in a manner calculated to cause alarm.” Court precedent shows that this section of the Disorderly Conduct statute in the Texas Penal Code refers to pointing at or threatening people with the firearm. Mere possession of a weapon does NOT constitute “a manner calculated to cause alarm.”


The event highlighted what I think has become a major rift in trust between the police and the community they service. According to Cpl. Chris Wilcox, the Temple Police Department only had 44 officers dedicated to the rally. He went on to justify that number as the same used for the annual Bloomin’ Temple Festival. BUZZ!! Wrong! I’ve been to the Bloomin’ Temple Festival and I’ve NEVER seen the kind of police presence there that I saw on June 1st. Maybe there were 44 officers dedicated to a single block, but to try and get away with saying only 44 officers were used is not just a lie, but a grossly disrespectful way of speaking to the community.

I have sources within the PD that told me every officer was called into duty on June 1st, the day of the rally. The police department also had the SWAT or tactical team on standby all geared up for the duration of the event. There were snipes, spotters, and photographers on the roofs of the police station and downtown federal building. There were officers on foot, on bikes, in marked cars, and in unmarked cars. There were also plain-clothed cops, detectives and agents they sprinkled into the group (they were easy to pick out). And in addition to the police officers, agents from the BATFE and FBI were on hand to monitor our peaceful demonstration as well (I personally recognized one FBI agent).

Police officers, along with federal agents, lined the roof of the Temple Police Department building.

Police officers, along with federal agents, lined the roof of the Temple Police Department building.

George Washington once said that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The Temple Police Department was in full force that day. For a city that our previous mayor called “pro-gun” I found it the height of hypocrisy that so many police officers were on hand to control the masses of peaceful gun owners. I’ve been to open carry rallies in Austin that didn’t have that many police officers on hand. It was just really embarrassing and I’m highly disappointed in our city and police leadership for wasting so many resources that day.

After the event, I got to wondering why the police department has become so anti-gun so I submitted an open records request for the Temple Police Department General Orders Manual (GOM). The GOM is equivalent to what we in the military call an SOP (standard operating procedures). Last week, I finally got a copy of it and finished reading through it on Friday. What I found was quite shocking.

The first thing that jumped out at me was the “Philosophy of the Temple Police Department.” According to the document, “the basic goal of the Temple Police Department is to protect life, property and to preserve the peace in a manner consistent with the freedoms secured by the Constitution.” [emphasis mine] It continues to say that “knowledge of the law and the ability to understand those ideals the law is designed to accomplish is the cornerstone of law enforcement. Compassion and discretion will play an important role within the philosophy of a law enforcement officer.”

Officer Steve Ermis and Sergeant Thomas Menix must not have read this chapter of their manual. When Officer Ermis stopped my son and I on the side of the road back on March 16 while we were hiking down largely empty country roads, the first thing he did grab my weapon – my property – without asking. I remained calm as he asked me what we were doing and why I was carrying a rifle. I even remained calm when he tried to take my personal property without asking or warning. But, when I asked him why he was disarming me he immediately stomped down on my foot, aimed his service pistol at my head, and threw me into the hood of his patrol unit. That’s when I got heated and turned my camera on.

Nothing in that encounter seemed consistent with the “freedoms secured by the Constitution.” Perhaps the authors of the GOM were only referring to the Constitution before amendments were attached. For the rest of this post, it’s important to watch my video again. This video comprises the every second of recording my son and I got on the road that day. It is not edited in any way either at the beginning, anywhere in the middle, or at the end.

According to the Temple Police Departments GOM, there are three kinds of duty-related contacts between officers and citizens: interviews, stops, and arrests.

Interviews are what officers use to engage the community “in order to gain a more thorough knowledge, and become an integral part of, their assigned districts and community.” These are important and necessary elements to gaining the public trust and confidence. If the only contact a police force has with the community is when they are affecting an arrest or writing a ticket, they separate themselves from those they are tasked to serve. Officers are encouraged to engage the public in a “conversational and not confrontational” manner when conducting these interviews. The manual makes clear that interviews are not stops or arrests and that citizens have the right to “fail to respond to the officer, refuse to identify himself, and walk away from the officer.” There is no requirement for someone to speak to an officer if they are not accused of a crime or a potential witness to a crime.

I hear all the time that had I just done what I was told I would never have been arrested and would have been on my way in five minutes. My critics say that since I didn’t satisfactorily answer the officer’s questions, he had every right to think I was up to something. However, that isn’t what the GOM says: “Negative inferences shall not be made based on a citizen’s refusal to cooperate in the interview.”

I’m sure there are some saying that since they were responding to a call for service the interaction can’t be considered an interview. It was a stop. Really? From the GOM:

Stops are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may stop and question a person when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in past, present or future criminal activity. [emphasis not mine]

The question then becomes, what is reasonable suspicion? In State of Texas v Hernandez, the court found that “the officer in light of his experience and general knowledge had specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts would reasonably warrant the intrusion on the freedom of the person stopped for further investigation” is what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Officer Ermis is a 25-year veteran of police work in the State of Texas. He is also co-founder of Deuce Tactical, a small gun store and instructor of CHL licenses. So, it’s rational to say that the officer had a working knowledge of Texas laws regarding firearms.

As the officer approached me from behind, it was obvious that I wasn’t engaged in illegal activity and, as there were no calls of crimes in the area, there was no reason to believe I had done anything illegal. In order for the officer to effect a legal stop, “the totality of the circumstances – the whole picture – must be taken into account. Based on that whole picture the detaining officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.” This is a quote directly from the GOM of Supreme Court caselaw U.S. v Cortez. IT’S IN THE MANUAL! It even goes on to say that the officer “must be aware of specific suspicious conduct or circumstances to justify the stop.”

There is nothing suspicious about walking through the country with a rifle or shotgun. I even spoke to a guy at the Come and Take It Temple rally that lived on the road on which I was arrested. He said he instantly recognized where I was arrested because he lived 3/4 of a mile down the road. He found it odd that the officer did what he did because he frequently walks down that same road WITH A RIFLE and never had any problems. He even told me the only rifles he has are ARs, just like mine. He also confirmed the presence of feral hogs and coyotes in the area. So, a man walking with his son in that particular area of the country where I was stopped was not out of the ordinary, suspicious, or even curious.

At one point in the video, Sergeant Menix tells me that I’m required to identify myself and provide my CHL. The GOM says “officers should be familiar with Penal Code Section 38.02. A person is not required to identify himself unless he is under arrest.” Government Code Section 411.205 says “if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license…and the license holder’s handgun license.” Let me be clear about this: AT NO TIME WAS I ASKED FOR IDENTIFICATION UNTIL I WAS ALREADY IN HANDCUFFS. And since I wasn’t under arrest, according to PC Section 38.02, I didn’t have to provide identification. If I don’t have to provide identification, I don’t have to display my CHL. Granted, I would have provided ID and CHL if it were asked of me, but I was not asked.

Finally, if the officer had made a legal stop, he was required to release me as soon as I “eliminate the officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement.” This would have happened the minute the officer asked me what we were doing and I told him we were hiking. This would have been evident by the hiking boots, cambelback and water containers we had with us that morning.

As I was trying to explain to the officers that they can’t just drive around disarming people with guns unless they were doing something threatening, Officer Ermis strikingly suggested, “Oh, I felt threatened.” The fact the officer exited his vehicle and approached me without his gun drawn aside, this statement is laughable on its face. The General Orders Manual states, “reasonable suspicion for a valid frisk is more than a vague hunch and less than probable cause…An officer who conducts a frisk must be prepared to articulate the specific factors which gave him ‘reasonable suspicion’ that he was in danger.” This statement summarizes the SCOTUS opinion in Terry v Ohio. The manual further clarifies, “a mere statement that the officer feared for his safety is not sufficient.” [emphasis not mine]

At the point where the officer placed me in handcuffs, I was technically “under arrest.” The GOM cautions officers, “in order to arrest, there must exist facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable, cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed. This is most frequently called ‘probable cause'”. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure defines “arrest” this way: “A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.” [emphasis mine]

To bring everything back full circle, the moment I was placed in handcuffs I was legally under arrest. However, in order to effect an arrest, there must be probable cause. In order to have probable cause, there must be “facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable, cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed.” In order for those facts and circumstances to be present, there should have been a crime. What was that crime?

“An officer must be faithful to his oath of office, the principles of ethical police service and the objectives of the Department…The public demands that the integrity of its law enforcement employees be above reproach, and the dishonesty of a single employee may impair public confidence and cast suspicion upon the entire Department…An employee must scrupulously avoid any conduct which might compromise the integrity of himself, his fellow employees or the Department.”

This was taken directly out of the Code of Conduct in Chapter 301 of the Temple Police Department GOM. The following is part of an affidavit for probable cause that was submitted and sworn by Officer Steve Ermis in reference to my arrest. It was sent to me by a watchdog group that obtained it through the Open Records Act. It may be difficult to read, so I’ll transcribe it below.


I wrote about the dishonesty of the TPD over a month ago. At the time, I was surprised that I would still be facing false charges over a month later. Now, another month and a half has gone by and it appears that these dishonest officers are still donning the uniform they have already soiled with their false oaths and fraudulent reports.

Ermis’ report states that “as Officer Ermis approached the subject the subject began to become angry and irate and yelling that he had broken no law and officer was not going to take his gun.” He goes on to accuse me of “moving his hands around rapidly and in front of his chest area where the loaded rifle was. As officer Ermis reached to control the loaded rifle the subject at this point started physically trying to pull back from Officer Ermis attempting to keep officer Ermis from taking the rifle or physically maintaining control of the subject.”

This is an abject, unadulterated lie. “The public demands that the integrity of its law enforcement employees be above reproach.”

What boggles my mind is that I was there when I was arrested. Officer Ermis was there when he arrested me. Yet, this write up couldn’t be further from the truth and reality of what happened that day. I’m actually a little surprised that the County keeps moving forward with this case in spite of having watched (I assume) the evidence. I’m sure that the daschcam footage shows what really happened to me that day. I’m sure it shows that there was no “yelling that I had broken no law.” It shows that I wasn’t moving my hands rapidly in front my chest – or anywhere for that matter. I know that it will show that when officer Ermis grabbed my rifle, my hands remained calmly at my side and that there was no “skirmish,” as CPL Chris Wilcox reported to the Temple Daily Telegram.


And yet, this charade continues to cost me legal fees and the citizens of Bell County tax dollars. And who knows who else is in jail or now has a record because some TPD officers have lost their way and forgotten their Code of Ethics. Let me remind them:

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession…law enforcement.

The fact that Chief of Police Gary Smith allows these officers to wear the uniform is reason enough that he needs to go. The fact that leaders between him and Officer Ermis cover for these lies highlights that our City Council must immediately do a cleaning of the house. There is a trust deficit in this city between the citizens and our police department. Notice I said “our police department” and not “the police department.” When officers consciously go out of their way and forget they are charged “to protect the innocent against deception” and instead actively engage in that deception, I would argue that those officers have lost their authority to act under the color of authority.

16 Comments on “Temple Police Department Violated Their Own Orders During My Arrest

  1. Master Sgt.. I’ve watched your arrest video several times as well as your city hall video. I too am an OIF VET who have been disrespected by these out of control so called law enforcement officers. They can uphold the law, by whe an injuried OIF vet retutns from overseas, these poeple have a gang like mantality. This obvious is the the law enforcement we need for our city & state. These people are the worst representives of law enforcement ever.

  2. To the Commanding Officer(s) of Ofc. T. Taylor #502 Badge#115999, Public Integrity, and Internal Affairs:
    I am writing this letter to resolve an incident dealing with Ofc. T. Taylor on February 8, 2014. I was driving from San Antonio, TX as a volunteer parent driver for a Not for Profit & Faith Based Corporation) cheer and dance program. In the vehicle there was my wife and 4 program participant’s ages 11 thru 15 years old.
    Being in Texas I have learned that many police departments are notorious for racial profiling, and show blatant signs of prejudice in terms of minorities. I am law abiding citizen, and the day Ofc. T. Taylor stopped me I was abiding by the speed limit law of 65 miles per hour. I made sure the speed was set at 65 by using the cruise control on the 2014 Towne Country minivan rental. When the officer rudely advised me that I was going 78, I replied. “Sir, that is not possible, and explained that I was using cruising control. Ofc. T. Taylor ignored me and placed his hand on his gun, and replied, “Sir, you were driving 78!” He then began in very rude and demeaning manner asking me about my glasses. I replied, “I replaced them with my contacts,” and as I reached for the contact case Ofc. T. Taylor began asking me another question without looking at the contact case. I never got a chance to bring out my contact case, and he kept placing his hand on his gun as if he was going to draw. My wife and the children were afraid, one of them asked, “is he going to shoot us?” Another kid asked, “why did he say were going 78 and I saw 65 on the cool light up dial thingy?” My wife tried to asked the officer did he have an issue with us, and Ofc T. Taylor began threatening everyone in the car, by saying, “ SHUT UP!!! HE WAS SPEEDING!!!, HE IS NOT WEARING CORRECTIVE LENSES!!!!, and then he asked, IS THIS YOUR CURRENT ADDRESS?” I advised the officer that I had been there about 3 or 4 months with my wife and children. My wife and I have had our issues and worked it out, so we are now back together. The officer walked off not listening to anything I said, and came back with his three fraudulent tickets, and throw the ticket book at me and while he explained the 3 fraudulent tickets. He then said, “SIGN THESE, AND BY SIGNING THESE YOU AGREE TO SHOW UP IN OUR COURT!!!!” I advised him to just give me the fraudulent tickets, he then placed his hands on his guns, my wife screamed along with the kids, and he threatened. “I WILL TAKE YOU ALL TO JAIL IF YOU DON’T SIGN RIGHT NOW!!!!” My wife and then replied, “Honey please sign the ticket (in tears) it is obvious this man does not like black people, and this is racial profiling at its best, I am calling our lawyers right now. Ofc T. Taylor ripped off the fraudulent ticket, and threw it in the car at me and ran back to his vehicle.
    We are asking that this issue be looked into so that it can be resolved without any more prejudice.

    US v DeBerry, 1996 (cannot be stopped over a legally carried firearm): (But note: “At least as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, police do not have to have any degree of reasonable suspicion in order to accost a person and say they want to talk to him. … But the law is well established that if the officer asks rather than commands, the person accosted is not seized, and so the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not attach.”)

    Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47, (1979)-Texas had a statute making it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer upon his request. The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.”

    The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]

    Brendlin v. California, 000 U.S. 06-8120 (2007)-Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality

    Florida v. J.L., 529 US 266 (2000)-An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a concealed weapon is not in and of itself enough to stop and frisk the person

    “Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise: Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” [Watson vs. City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 535 (1963)]

    Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). – Qualified immunity will shield an officer from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that the officer violated a right that was clearly established.

    Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)-The Court held that there is a two-step process in determining if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity. The process must occur in sequence. If the answer to either of the following questions is, “no” then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.
    1. Was a Constitutional right violated on the facts? If yes, then;
    2. Was the right clearly established at the time of the incident?

    This is how you handle the police – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyJFD6BhQFY

  4. Sad, but not surprising. I was stationed at Hood from 98-00, once I was pulled over in Harker Heights for not having a seat belt on, when the cop came to my window and saw the seat belt he stated that I must have put it on when he was turning around, then wrote me a ticket. In court he said that I wasn’t wearing my seat belt when he came to the window (my first experience with a court that had a city lawyer on hand for traffic court, learned a lesson that day)… if they’ll lie about a seatbelt they’ll lie about anything.

  5. Well sir, welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist Amerika. There was a time and not so long ago guns were seen all over the place. Back then crime was minimal. When more and more restrictive gun laws started appearing crime rose. Where I used to attend high school just across the Sabine river you could drive through any high school student parking lot and see numbers of pick up with rear window gun racks loaded with shot guns, small and large caliber rifles. They were parked on school property and no one even cared. I could sit in my front yard in plain view of all my neighbors and clean my rifles, shot guns after a hunting trip and no one cared. Those days are dead and gone and they will never come back. While I applaud your efforts and your service I have to tell you it is a lost cause. The destruction of the country I was born into is nearly complete. All that is needed now is some civil uprising or another Katrina type natural disaster and martial law will be upon us and gun confiscation will run rampant. You however will be ordered to the streets in support of tyranny unless you leave military service. Sad as it is for me to say this, this is direction this country has been moving in for well over 3 decades now. I pray you win your case. I pray you put Temple and the county and the individual officers in a financial hurt locker the likes they have never seen. I pray it wakes them up. But I fear even if you win your case the officers are already so corrupt with power they will never see the true light of day. Good Luck in your case and God Speed.

  6. Christopher Grisham,
    First and foremost, I would like to give you my thanks for your service and apologize for the way you were treated. The fact that this is how we Americans treat our servicemen and women disgusts me, let alone how we treat our law abiding citizens. It sickens me to think that in this country, to openly carry a gun means you are ‘suspicious’. It makes me wonder what we have come to as a people?…and further makes me think that the terrorists are winning this ‘war of terror’, when we have turned on each other, rather than those who would actually do us harm. It saddens me to come to this conclusion.

    That aside, I wish you the best of luck that justice be done and you are cleared of all charges. No one deserves to be treated as such, but least of all a soldier such as yourself.

  7. I am deeply concerned that the county has not dropped charges on you. The police may not like the law. However, they must follow the law.

  8. Hello,

    The part of the video that really was shocking (even though the entire video is immensely shocking in itself) was the part where the Officer said he is ABOVE the LAW. If anything, he is held to a higher degree (to the letter) of the the Law!

    There is corruption all over our great nation! From taking kickbacks to giving special favors, taking bribes and allowing illegal activity to flourish and entrench within our body of government (both local and national).

    I believe further “digging” into “All involved” from a political standpoint must be released for all the world to see!

    United We Stand, Divided, We Fall!

  9. You would think that with so many armed, law abiding citizens, there would be a need for less police presence.

    PLEASE keep updating us!

  10. Hope you win. I can’t even start imagining the stress this has caused you and your family.

  11. Found something very interesting while doing a quick reference to this type of lying behavior in which it is proven without any doubt of the officer’s decision to perjure him/herself.

    On September 5, 2007, the State of Washington published the first opinion holding that a police officer who lies should be terminated as a matter of public policy.

    In Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, the sheriff terminated Deputy LaFrance for untruthfulness and erratic behavior. An arbitrator agreed that LaFrance had repeatedly been untruthful but was not convinced that termination was the proper form of discipline; the arbitrator therefore ordered him returned to full duty.

    Eventually the case found its way to the appellate court, which concluded that the arbitration award was unenforceable as against public policy.

    1 It relied primarily on the sheriff’s conclusion that LaFrance was not fit for duty due to Brady concerns about his ability to testify. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor must release information favorable to an accused upon request;

    2 therefore, if LaFrance were to testify in a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be legally and ethically obligated to disclose his history of untruthfulness to defense counsel.

    “Put simply, LaFrance’s proven record of dishonesty prevents him from useful service as a law enforcement officer. To require his reinstatement to a position of great public trust in which he cannot possibly serve violates public policy.



  12. At what point do we pull together under our constitutional rights, and demand as a unified voice for these changes?

    When government and tyranny attempt to destroy the constitution and the rights of the people, when local and federal government continue to purposefully ignore the constitution and bill of rights, at what point do the people of this country rise up and remind government at all levels that they are not the law, but here to service us?

    I remember an important part of our history that was the core reason why our founding father created the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it all started in 1773. I am very afraid that our country is headed for a new “1773” start with ongoing eroding of our coveted Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    We live in an age where a higher government controls our own government, we have a president who is not a legally born US Citizen and has committed several felonies which can be proven, yet our congress and senate are too scared to uphold their oaths to do something about this.

    I see the same thing with Temple Law Enforcement and see it in many other law enforcement organizations which continue to commit crimes against the people they swore to protect, and yet no action is taken to remove these criminals from these positions of power, why??

    • Birther, please. Stay on topic.

      I’m the daughter of a retired cop, not a big fan of guns, and I still support CJ and his fight for justice. As he so eloquently stated at the end of the original video to his sobbing son, “they’re not bad guys unless they get embarrassed”. It is a shame that CJ and the people of Temple have to pay for hard-headed men who cannot admit when they’ve made a mistake.

  13. LOL, I’m with KJ above…CJVille has a nice ring to it.

  14. When you file your suit and become rich, also demand that they rename Temple, CJville. By then you should own it.

  15. If they have nothing to hide they would produce.

    Sadly as our nations leaders have become corrupt beyond comprehensive measures, so have our city leaders. I am grateful that you are willing to sacrifice and stand firm for justice. There are many of us. As I have heard it told…if we lose Texas we are forever lost as a nation.

    Keep up the fight…when you are tired and weary you are about to win. You win we win. The second annual Take It Temple will be even bigger. Our children know what is at stake here.

    It may seem like these officers are getting by with something…it will be short lived. You sleep at night…these poor excuses for peace officers will fall and fall hard.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.