Shots not fired, but the Oregon leftists threw the book at him. He's petitioning the Supreme Court; I doubt the Supreme Court will take this up.
The world is upside down.
PEF
Shots not fired, but the Oregon leftists threw the book at him. He's petitioning the Supreme Court; I doubt the Supreme Court will take this up.
The world is upside down.
Oregon Supreme Court Affirms Conviction of Man Who Pulled Gun to Stop Antifa Mob
Shots not fired, but the Oregon leftists threw the book at him. He's petitioning the Supreme Court; I doubt the Supreme Court will take this up.
The world is upside down.
I remember the video of that. On one hand, I don't think the guy should have been charged, much less convicted.
On the other hand, he did brandish in a situation that was forseeable and he helped incite. He could have easily prevented that confrontation. It was one of those "stupid games" things, especially in a state like Oregon. Consider that if he were in several other states, he would be going to prison for even having carried the gun.
Also, per another thread running, pulling the gun is one thing, pointing it is escalation.
On the other hand, he did brandish in a situation that was forseeable and he helped incite. He could have easily prevented that confrontation. It was one of those "stupid games" things, especially in a state like Oregon. Consider that if he were in several other states, he would be going to prison for even having carried the gun.
Also, per another thread running, pulling the gun is one thing, pointing it is escalation.
Please elaborate on how he helped “incite” the thugs. Of course, the other state laws are of no consequence.
I guess in Portland the best defense for a mob attack to let yourself get killed?
I will never voluntarily set foot in Portland.
I will never voluntarily set foot in Portland.
a walk down memory lane as PJmedia’s perception of the event is being romanticized
At a Black Lives Matter rally in Portland, Oregon, on 7 July 2016, Strickland pulled a Glock 26 pistol and pointed it at protesters. Portland police reported that Strickland's pistol was equipped with "an extremely large magazine" and had a round in the chamber. The police also reported Strickland was carrying five extra magazines for the pistol, all loaded.
Prosecutors successfully argued before Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan that concealed carrier and independent videographer-journalist Michael Aaron Strickland, 37, did not have reasonable fear of his own life when he pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and attempted to withdraw from a Black Lives Matter and Don’t Shoot Portland demonstration.
According to Oregon Live, Strickland was found guilty of 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and second-degree disorderly condu
Journalist Michael Strickland will serve 3 years probation and 40 days in jail on weekends for waving a gun in a crowd during a Don’t Shoot Portland protest last Summer. Strickland has maintained he felt threatened by the crowd. He does have a concealed carry permit. In addition, Strickland must do 240 hours of community service to be completed by June 1, 2018. he does not need to report to jail until august 1, 2017. He will pay the court $100.00 for each misdemeanor and $200 for each felony.
![336404]( "336404")
Yes i see clearly where he feared for his life...
At a Black Lives Matter rally in Portland, Oregon, on 7 July 2016, Strickland pulled a Glock 26 pistol and pointed it at protesters. Portland police reported that Strickland's pistol was equipped with "an extremely large magazine" and had a round in the chamber. The police also reported Strickland was carrying five extra magazines for the pistol, all loaded.
Prosecutors successfully argued before Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan that concealed carrier and independent videographer-journalist Michael Aaron Strickland, 37, did not have reasonable fear of his own life when he pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and attempted to withdraw from a Black Lives Matter and Don’t Shoot Portland demonstration.
According to Oregon Live, Strickland was found guilty of 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and second-degree disorderly condu
Journalist Michael Strickland will serve 3 years probation and 40 days in jail on weekends for waving a gun in a crowd during a Don’t Shoot Portland protest last Summer. Strickland has maintained he felt threatened by the crowd. He does have a concealed carry permit. In addition, Strickland must do 240 hours of community service to be completed by June 1, 2018. he does not need to report to jail until august 1, 2017. He will pay the court $100.00 for each misdemeanor and $200 for each felony.
Yes i see clearly where he feared for his life...
Curious. What is an "extremely large magazine."
Interesting that you also highlighted he had a round in the chamber and was carrying reloads.
Without re-litigating, I note that a single image is never dispositive....
I'll elaborate on my original post.
The image above by JustCuz is deceptive, as it does not show the full context of the encounter. Strickland was convicted because his actions were found to be objectively unreasonable. It is undisputed that four individual were approaching Strickland aggressively, telling him to leave a public place, and he was know to the demonstrators. The demonstrators were wearing bandanas and closing on him.
The extra magazines and the "extremely large magazine" (whatever that is, I cannot see it in the photo above) are irrelevant to the elments of the crime of which he was convicted.
I am sure this will not go to the S. Ct. because it is a rather routine conviction and affirmation.
So...when a hostile crowd is closing in on you, and you are backing away and they continue to follow, what is one to do in Portland?
The image above by JustCuz is deceptive, as it does not show the full context of the encounter. Strickland was convicted because his actions were found to be objectively unreasonable. It is undisputed that four individual were approaching Strickland aggressively, telling him to leave a public place, and he was know to the demonstrators. The demonstrators were wearing bandanas and closing on him.
The extra magazines and the "extremely large magazine" (whatever that is, I cannot see it in the photo above) are irrelevant to the elments of the crime of which he was convicted.
I am sure this will not go to the S. Ct. because it is a rather routine conviction and affirmation.
So...when a hostile crowd is closing in on you, and you are backing away and they continue to follow, what is one to do in Portland?
One of my wife's relatives in Portland is extremely liberal with a masters degree in electrical engineering and is a computer systems engineer. He was moving from an apartment to a home he bought in a politically correct liberal area. He borrowed a Chevy Suburban from a coworker to move. The Suburban had conservative window stickers and bumper stickers. He was totally aghast at how people on the street treated him while he was moving. It didn't open his mind, he is still extremely liberal.
July 2016 Strickland restrained by police on the scene...https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-blogger-arrested-pulling-gun-protesters-article-1.2704818
2017 Strickland arrested with 121 cartridges on his person...
www.oregonlive.com
web.archive.org
katu.com
sorry not into the judge by public opinion nonsense which this clown and his defense has been regurgitating on firearm blogs, social media, ad nauseam!
2017 Strickland arrested with 121 cartridges on his person...
Guilty: Man who pulled gun out at 'Don't Shoot PDX' protest
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan on Friday found Michael Aaron Strickland guilty of felony and misdemeanor crimes for pointing a gun at 10 people during a "Don't Shoot Portland" protest in downtown last summer.
www.oregonlive.com
No Prison For Journalist Who Displays Gun During A Protest - KXL
PORTLAND, Ore.? Journalist Michael Strickland will serve 3 years probation and 40 days in jail ?
web.archive.org
Dozens gather for #BlackLivesMatter protest in Portland
PORTLAND, Ore. (KATU) -- A 36-year-old man was arrested Thursday after pulling a gun on a crowd of protesters in downtown Portland.A large crowd rally for Black Lives Matter had gathered near the justice center around 8 p.m.The protest remained peaceful,
katu.com
sorry not into the judge by public opinion nonsense which this clown and his defense has been regurgitating on firearm blogs, social media, ad nauseam!
So he’s doing his job as a journalist, they don’t like it and gang up on him. He’s afraid he’ll get his butt kicked but you don’t think he should be able to draw his gun and without hurting anyone and go home uninjured? Have I got that right?
Or did he steal your prom date back in high school cause it sounds like you really don’t like him.
Or did he steal your prom date back in high school cause it sounds like you really don’t like him.
The current legal system operating in Oregon is reminiscent of the stories of legal proceedings in the USSR during the cold war. That's not surprising if one considers the Marxist nature of the "protests".
Yes, Mike Strickland knew he was entering the lions' den but then again, that is the job of a journalist.
Yes, Mike Strickland knew he was entering the lions' den but then again, that is the job of a journalist.
OR 166.190 [formally 163.320]
Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury.
166.220
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon...
Any person over the age of 12 years who, with or without malice, purposely points or aims any loaded or empty pistol, gun, revolver or other firearm, at or toward any other person within range of the firearm, except in self-defense, shall be fined upon conviction in any sum not less than $10 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. Justice courts have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court of the trial of violations of this section. When any person is charged before a justice court with violation of this section, the court shall, upon motion of the district attorney, at any time before trial, act as a committing magistrate, and if probable cause be established, hold such person to the grand jury.
166.220
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon...
Journalists in riots isn’t about promoting public information but boils down to a singular objective...$$$$
Just about any job you can name has a remuneration component to it but to say that it is the singular motivation is just plain cynical, especially when speaking of independent journalists.
Also, you quote the statutes but studiously avoid the exceptions concerning self-defense. That's a bit disingenuous since it is what the entire debate centers on.
Also, you quote the statutes but studiously avoid the exceptions concerning self-defense. That's a bit disingenuous since it is what the entire debate centers on.
Here's a different article. Just jump straight to the video.
A grand jury indicted him, and from what I can see in the video, the way he was waving the gun around - I saw no evidence of an imminent threat - he was in the wrong. But you be the judge.
Very lucky he did not negligent fire and kill someone.
A grand jury indicted him, and from what I can see in the video, the way he was waving the gun around - I saw no evidence of an imminent threat - he was in the wrong. But you be the judge.
Very lucky he did not negligent fire and kill someone.
Evidence not admitted at trial (objected to by the state, excluded by the judge) was that Strickland had been previously assaulted by the protest organizers. He had a prior (victim) relationship with the main characters pointed out in his video. And these angels of anti fascism had violent records.
Now, usually past record should be inadmissible. Like in the recent Rittenhouse case, he didn't know the prior criminal records of his attackers. But here, Strickland knew his aggressors had previously assaulted him.
So compare this to a domestic dispute. A wife who shoots her husband out of the blue is investigated differently than a wife who has been regularly abused by her husband. When there is a personal history, past record should be admissible.
This is all beside the fact that:
1. Strickland had a legal right to be there.
2. any reasonable person (who was aware of ANTIFA actions in Portland) would have been in fear for their life.
Now, usually past record should be inadmissible. Like in the recent Rittenhouse case, he didn't know the prior criminal records of his attackers. But here, Strickland knew his aggressors had previously assaulted him.
So compare this to a domestic dispute. A wife who shoots her husband out of the blue is investigated differently than a wife who has been regularly abused by her husband. When there is a personal history, past record should be admissible.
This is all beside the fact that:
1. Strickland had a legal right to be there.
2. any reasonable person (who was aware of ANTIFA actions in Portland) would have been in fear for their life.
Thanks for such an enlightening post. It's good to be able to hear the other side from that promoted by the mainstream media.
I always thought that the 2nd amendment would be the primary target for liberals, but recently it has become clear that the 1st amendment is the one they want out of the way first. If they can succeed in silencing anyone who they disagree with they will have won.
I always thought that the 2nd amendment would be the primary target for liberals, but recently it has become clear that the 1st amendment is the one they want out of the way first. If they can succeed in silencing anyone who they disagree with they will have won.
When the law is applied equally without prejudice to everyone, then there is "Rule of Law", though that doesn't necessarily address whether the Law is just.
When the law is applied whimsically depending upon whom it is being applied to, there is no "Rule of Law".
Which begs the question: What are people who wish to be considered "law abiding" to do, when there is no "Rule of Law"? I will say that it doesn't seem reasonable under those circumstances, to keep pretending as if there was.
When the law is applied whimsically depending upon whom it is being applied to, there is no "Rule of Law".
Which begs the question: What are people who wish to be considered "law abiding" to do, when there is no "Rule of Law"? I will say that it doesn't seem reasonable under those circumstances, to keep pretending as if there was.
Thanks for sharing your side of your story. You can understand why it was a lopsided discussion without your testimony.
I always saw the incident as self defense and the charges as a biased agenda driven criminal proceeding. Welcome to the forum
I always saw the incident as self defense and the charges as a biased agenda driven criminal proceeding. Welcome to the forum
It's a shame that people get arrested for defending themself. I guess having a bodycam might keep you out of trouble.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
