Update on Portland Crime of Self-Defense Case ~ Mike Strickland

By Jeff Knox : Opinion

Mike Strickland Defending his life from BLM mob
Mike Strickland Defending his life from BLM mob
Firearms Coalition
Firearms Coalition

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)-  We're seeing a new round of activity in the comment sections on articles about Mike Strickland's felony prosecution and conviction for brandishing a gun during a PDX-Black Lives Matter event in Portland. You can read my original report on this here, and Mark Walters' commentary on the subject here.

Much has changed since those reports, so it's time for an update.

For those who didn't, and won't bother to, read the original story, here is a recap.

Mike Strickland was a video journalist specializing in catching “progressives” behaving badly, and posting those videos on his YouTube channel called “Laughing at Liberals.” He was well known among “liberal” activists and politicians in the Portland area, and roundly hated.

On July 7, 2016, the same day that a BLM supporter murdered 5 police officers in Dallas, Strickland was videoing a PDX-Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Portland. He was recognized by some of the protesters, and a group of them converged on him, pushing and threatening him. Organizers admitted during the trial that Strickland's likely presence had been discussed before the event, and it had been decided that if they saw him there, they would make him leave or make him regret not doing so.

As the group closed on him, Strickland began backing away, asserting his right to be there and to record video, but the group got more aggressive and threatening, to the point that Strickland raised his shirt and placed his hand on his legally carried pistol. This created a pause in the assault, but it was only momentary. The crowd continued to close and Strickland continued to back away.

The men Strickland was facing had seen his sidearm. They knew he had the gun and had heard him warn that he would use it, yet they continued to press. One of the prime instigators, an overweight Antifa activist who Strickland had had run-ins with in the past, circled around and tried to close on Strickland's left flank. At the same time, some in the main group began to aggressively surge forward. That's when Strickland drew the gun, turning first toward the Antifa guy rapidly closing on his left flank, then back toward the main body of aggressors.

At no point did Strickland actually point the gun at anyone though, instead keeping it in a low-ready position, with his finger clearly indexed outside the trigger guard, he ordered the aggressors to “Back off.”

Strickland had backed up almost a full city block from the time he exposed his handgun to the time he actually pulled it. He then backed another block up and over to an area where police had gathered, and reported what had happened. The police ordered him face-down in the street and arrested him.
Strickland was initially charged with misdemeanor threatening and disorderly conduct, but those charges were quickly upped to multiple felonies after prosecutors realized who Strickland was.

He was eventually convicted on 10 felony counts of Unlawful Use of a Weapon, 10 counts of Menacing, and one count of Disorderly Conduct.

Though the potential penalty for Strickland's conviction could have been more than 50 years in prison, the judge opted for a much lighter sentence.

Strickland was sentenced to 40 days in jail, 240 hours of community service, prohibited from videoing public events for at least the rest of the year, and, since 10 of the charges were felonies, he lost his right to possess firearms and ammunition for the rest of his life.

Many have suggested that Strickland was at fault because he could have run away, or shouldn't have been there in the first place. Certainly he could have chosen to skip the protest, or leave as soon as someone suggested that he do so, but that's not how things are supposed to work in this country. Covering these sorts of events was Strickland's job. It's how he made a living. He did try to avoid confrontation, and backed away, but the aggressors kept after him – while they ignored other reporters in the same area.

Had Strickland been a black reporter at a Nazi rally, would people be blaming him for drawing his gun?

The judge declared that Strickland was not in danger, and had a means of egress, but his adversaries were threatening and trying to box him in, even after he had first warned them, let them see the gun on his belt, and even after he had drawn it. These were not peaceful protesters. These were thugs demonstrating a willingness – even a desire – to do violence. This type of thuggery is why it's becoming common for reporters to hire off duty police to escort them at events where Antifa or BLM are involved.

Strickland was in a no-win situation for just trying to do his job. He obviously didn't want to hurt anyone, but neither did he want to be hurt himself. In a perfect world, police would have come to his assistance, but police weren't in the immediate area because they feared the protesters.

The relatively light sentence meted out by the judge, shows that he knew Strickland wasn't a threat to society. He also knew that the trial had been a sham, and the conviction was contrary to established precedents. The liberty community was beginning to boil over the case, and the judge knew that a harsh sentence would generate significant backlash. By going with a sentence that was much lighter than it could have been, the judge was hoping to throw a wet blanket on the public's outrage over the case, and to make the idea of pushing an appeal less appealing.

He accomplished the first objective. Many reporters from the rights community lost interest in the case after the sentence was announced. That has resulted in less financial support for an appeal.

As to the second objective, Strickland is again in a very difficult situation. By the time an appeal can have any impact, he will probably have served out his sentence, and will only be working to clear his name and restore his rights. While those are worthy goals, the other side of the equation is that even if a new trial is ordered, exoneration is not guaranteed, and Strickland could end up with a much harsher sentence, even if he is only convicted on one or two of the charges, not to mention that it will cost tens of thousands of dollars to try, and even if he were to win everything else, financial restitution is not likely.

The prudent thing for him to do would be to just do his time and move on with his life. It's easy for keyboard warriors to talk about the courage of one's convictions, but it's different when it's your neck in the noose.

Even with the risks involved, Strickland has chosen to move forward with an appeal. He's serving his jail time on weekends, and has, with the assistance of the Oregon Firearms Federation, assembled a legal team that has begun the process of collecting transcripts and gathering evidence. This will be a long and expensive battle.

You can help by donating to Strickland's legal fund at the Oregon Firearms Federation. Go to the OFF website and make a contribution.

© 2017, The Firearms Coalition

Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is Director of The Firearms Coalition, www.FirearmsCoalition.org, and a regular columnist at www.Ammoland.com, Firearms News magazine, and other publications.

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

  • 273
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    39 Comment threads
    234 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    33 Comment authors
    DavidAlanDonald L. ClineEdward JamesWild Bill Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    David
    Guest
    David

    1.those eleven states should get court order to melt all crime guns used in Crimes by Criminals too.? True? This Guns are to melted in steal mill plants place they melt liquid Steal like water too. Agreed!

    Edward James
    Guest
    Edward James

    I was pleased to hear that Mr. Strickland received a relatively light sentence. Not sure appealing it is the right strategy, but thats for him to decide. But arguing the question of whether or not he has a right to carry (and optionally brandish) a concealed weapon at a public demonstration is hopelessly naive. While I am sure he had that right at the time, exercising it was incredibly foolish. Given the current law-enforcement ‘climate’ here in the Peoples Republic of Oregon, the police officers charged with keeping order at these demonstrations are in an incredibly difficult position. The single… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Oh, dear. Another anti-left apparently ‘pro-gun’ person who seems to think that faced with exactly the kind of threat the right to keep and bear arms was intended to defend against, the bearer should voluntarily give up his right and either be beaten to death or gin up some kind of brute squad to protect him from the brute squad who intends, and has stated their intention, to take him out. For your information, Mr. James, the Portland Police are the problem, not the solution. They were encamped a full block away from the demonstration-turned-riot and should have been right… Read more »

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Given the situation in Portland, as it seemingly exists, how much faith would YOU place in the local PD?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ok, Still waiting on Jim’s Response, but I have a feeling he wont get it so here I go. This entire comment will be devoid of satire. Ok, Jim, for someone who talks so much of binary thinking, being held to higher standards, and independent thought I have a little information for you. If you want people to agree with you, start from a position of truth instead of a lie. What I am about to post will be quotes from you, quotes on the law in Oregon, and a simple, straightforward examination of the case based on tenants that… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Vanns40, Wild Bill, InMyImage, and Donald L. Cline. I turn this over to you for tonight whenever the comment above (Made at 7:49PM Eastern standard time) clears moderation. I spent a week setting this up for our good buddy Jim after his first response to me. Quite honestly, I don’t believe he has the integrity to admit he was wrong and messed up, even though that is what reading the law as written shows. He backed the wrong horse. It can happen to anyone, but it is what he chose to do with it that has led him here. Sure,… Read more »

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Having read your lengthy post, some others too, the following comes to mind. By the way, I’m not learned either in the law in general or in Oregon law in particular. That being said, taking your quotes from/references to Oregon law, it seems that both the trial judge and the prosecutor are way the hell and gone, being far from shore, on very thin ice, if there be any ice under them at all. Could an action for malicious prosecution possibly be brought here? I wonder.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Alan Trust me, you are fine. I’m only as learned as I am on Constitutional law and a spattering of State and Common Law as I am since I have taken the time to read and study. I’ve been doing it and focusing in those areas since about age 12, even debating and arguing case law against a lawyer I had for a teacher. Many afternoons He and I would pull down law and case law books and go through them for the fun of it. At 14 and 15, I won about half the arguments made and it taught… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Currently, as of 5:20PM September 19th, 2017 eastern Standard time there is no reply to this, though one may be in moderation and not yet have posted. Jim, has been posting since 8:44AM Eastern time this morning. I will go ahead and say this was up at least by around noon, so that has given him 5 hours to respond. As of Yet nothing. Perhaps he has learned his lesson. Perhaps he is waiting until activity dies away to post a response to attempt to get a “Last word” in. Or maybe he will lash out, though at this point… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Right here is an example why I doubt either your honesty or your reading comprehension (and I am trying real hard to believe it is the latter). 1. The fact that you argued against the video evidence Arguing against video evidence????? Wut? I SPECULATED (look it up if you need to) that perhaps the Judge ruled that the sixth, seventh, eighth different video did not show anything new. Fact of the matter is that I do not why he ruled the way he did and neither do you. You have strong opinions here and are passionate and that is cool,… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Jim 1. Don’t believe I ever said I didn’t read the transcript in any of my statements. I have read it. However, if you can find the comment where I said that I did not read the transcript then I am more than happy to own up to it. Please cite the date and timestamp of the comment, I will verify it, and publicly admit to it. So feel free to get back to me on that as quickly as possible. part two. Have you or have you not argued that Mike Strickland was not in a position to… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Damn dude – you are to the point where you can’t see the forest through the trees now.

    You very much are arguing your opinion as am I.

    Look up the definition of the word analogy. After reading the definition, perhaps you will then understand the NFL example. It’s a pretty good analogy actually. How you think it is a diversion is mysterious to me.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ok Jim, lets talk about forest through the trees.

    I’ll give you a very straightforward test.

    What was the judge’s reason behind his ruling(And please quote him)?

    It should be easy since you have been trying to argue the same point since you started here.. Lets see who can see the forest through the trees. But, there is a hitch. It entirely destroys your arguments based on the letter of the law, at a state level even. Are you ready to take that chance?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    I’ve been holding this one in for a while.. Want a hint? Three numbers.

    Three
    Twenty-nine
    Seven

    =D I’ll be be waiting…

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Hut Hut

    see, you like football analogies too

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Not Even Close. Try another guess, I see the big comment hasn’t posted yet, so you still have a little time.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    that has been discussed at length already.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Oh Really?! Well, since you are acknowledging it and you know exactly what it is, you have no problem standing on it’s validity then? Just remember, I gave you an out. I gave you your chance to walk away.

    Oh, I’m loving this. My next comment will be rather long, so it may take a while to post due to moderation which I am sure it is going to trigger. Have fun, and don’t say I didn’t give you fair warning… =D

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Yes – it has been. If fact that is where this whole entire convo began. You being dismissive of mine (and others’) contention that Mike did not meet the elements under the law. The issues of imminent deadly threat, was he trapped or did he have means of egress are the two big ones.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Yeahhhhhhhh Jim. You really aren’t going to like when the big comment clears moderation. You might want to wait for it before commenting further because you are digging that hole deeper and deeper.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    And now that it has posted, I keep wondering where on earth Jim has talked about the case at the Supreme Court of Oregon declaring that there was no Duty to Retreat within the state of Oregon under the Law or Constitution on this thread. Funny, Just can’t seem to find it “Discussed at length” anywhere here despite his claims. He did mention something about unsubstantiated claims of Internet Chat Room Research, but he wouldn’t reference something admitting to know all about it without citing it would he? Especially not if he has held a contrary position to that Law… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    For those curious, the “NFL Analogy” is a non sequitur trying to compare two different ideas and compare them equally.

    For Example…
    A reporter actually doing what their job entails (Witnessing and reporting, versus a journalist who only needs to write an article after the fact with second hand evidence.. Slight distinction there)

    and

    a amateur being required to play football to talk about it(Jim’s example)

    Notice the difference? anyone want to help Jim out?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Here’s the actual case number for those who are inclined to objectively follow it. You can see that the “gag order” was lifted.

    Case Information

    16CR41718 | State of Oregon vs Michael Aaron Strickland

    Case Number
    16CR41718

    06/08/2017 Order

    Judicial Officer
    Ryan, Thomas M

    Comment
    to discontinue state’s protective order and order to seal

    Court
    MUL Criminal

    File Date
    07/08/2016

    Case Type
    Offense Felony

    Case Status
    Appeal

    And this is interesting. His lawyer withdrew. Anybody know what that is about? It looks as though another may have stepped in, but it doesn’t say who – which is usually does.

    06/12/2017 Notice – Amended Appeal

    06/19/2017 Notice – Withdrawal of Attorney

    06/22/2017 Letter – Appearance

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Indeed, it has since been lifted. Though the judge was reluctant to do it. Good Job. Now would you like to move on to over such evidence, perhaps in the transcripts you seem to hold as being nigh religious value? Perhaps these topics? How one of the star witnesses for the prosecution was on video giving a pep talk with the Black Panthers to urge rally goers to use their guns to shoot cops, admitted to a conspiracy to beat up Strickland at the protest, and was taken apart in court by the defense? The cops Verified just about all… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ok, so here is the promised portion. Does anyone here know of any self defense case where not a single shot was fired, where a finger did not even get put into the trigger guard, where the victim was facing what is tantamount to LIFE imprisonment? 50 years after all was what he was threatened with. The only saving grace there if you can call it that was that Judge Thomas Ryan was a freaking coward who reluctantly gave a minimum sentence because of public support for strickland including one person in attendance at the trial and sentencing noting that… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Given all the hyperbole and conjecture masquerading as fact in the threads regarding Strickland, I am skeptical of all these claims, will you please provide sources and/or citations where all these claims are coming from. The transcripts are word for word recital of what actually was said in court so they are reliable – much more so than the visceral howlings of comment threads. I will gladly take a look at these claims if you can source them. And please, good sources only. If the sources are YouTube rants or other comment threads then don’t bother. Next, you do seem… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    So basically, If I can show you that what the rest of us have been saying this entire time, that the judge violated the Law and man handled this case to get his own desired outcome, then you will admit to being wrong and ignoring factual evidence? Perfect. =) How about if I just quote Oregon’s laws to do it? After all that is where this really must start before we can worry about court transcripts. PS. I get what under seal means. It is also different from a Judge trying to restrict what video evidence is admissible in court.… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ok, back to reality. As most of you now know, we have a crybaby in the mix who has decided to spam the living daylights out of this article. In spite of being called out multiple times over issues of factual evidence that directly disproves him, Jim while refusing to answer the majority of those issues is hoping that by posting as many comments as he can, that we will all suddenly forget about his stupidity over the last week prior to today. It’s funny that he brings up the issue of “My not knowing anything about him.” Truthfully, I… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Just stahhhhhp already Rev. We disagree and that’s OK. You do not a damn thing about me so just quit with the elementary school name calling. At this point, I half expect you to call me a poopy head. Do you really believe that the only way to “cover” an event is to do what Stickland does? If so, send your memo to all the journalists across the globe that successfully cover events from across the street or by walking in front of or behind a crowd. Your contention is like saying the ONLY way to cover an NFL game… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    The difference being that I’m not arguing opinion. You have yet to argue on factual evidence. Prior to today each point you have tried to make has been sent down in flames thanks to the video evidence we do have, the actual actions of the judge, and the proceedings during the trial. It is nobody’s fault but your own that you disagree with reality. Secondly, Get back on topic. Nice little attempt to distract there with the NFL, but ultimately an investigative reporter who records video and the posts it online and discusses the content within it kind of needs… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @Vanns40 This is a state level matter. The 9th Circuit has nothing to do with this. Appellate are good and if there were errors in law during trial then they will vacate the conviction and remand the case down for a retrial (assuming the prosecutors chose to retry). @WildBill and others: I was rather plain is stating that it was a guess on my part. Judges make the sort of rulings I was referring to every damn day. If there are twenty pieces of evidence on the same thing they will admit a couple and not the rest because they… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    1. Jim dismissed the idea of using the full en-edited video footage because it would have been “redundant” 2. Jim blamed the victim, who was assaulted, and then pursued by the thugs after he moved his location 3. Jim ignores the fact that several protestors were armed(legal definition) 4. Jim favors limiting arguable evidence to “courtroom transcripts or similar” from the very same kangaroo court that was intentionally stacked against him. 5. “I think there is a lot of conjecture being passed off as fact here.” Quite frankly, this is the only major factually correct statement Jim has uttered here.… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    See this? ^^^^^ This right here! This is exactly why all the visceral, pseudo intellectual howling you do in this thread doesn’t carry any evidentiary weight. You listen only to respond, you rebut without understanding, you misquote and mischaracterize everything. You are a propagandist spin doctor and I will not play this game with you. If you want to discuss and debate things then I am happy to do so. If you just want to spin you can do so by yourself.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Keep Digging buddy. =D

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Vanns40

    Do you think Jim is not aware of the fact that the Ninth Circuit court is in fact an “Appellate” court? I mean, I get that the name “Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals” is kind of hard to figure out, but seriously?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Dude – you are being mindlessly pedantic. See my “unable to see forest through the trees comment again”. The Ninth is FEDERAL any opinions on whether the 9th is fair or not are not relevant to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    The Ninth has jurisdiction over the states within it’s Jurisdiction. Appeals processes at the state level can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme court of the united states, or do you think that the states are not bound by the constitution as well? Nice try, but bad argument. You are about to really not like me.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Whatever one’s opinion of the 9th being fair or not, is completely irrelevant to this case at this point. It was an attempt at whataboutism by whomever originally posted it. It would be years before this matter reached the 9th if it ever does which is unlikely. The Oregon Supreme Court is likely as far as this would go and even that is iffy

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Oh, so you are acknowledging that it could proceed up to the Ninth Circuit now, and then on to the United States Supreme Court? Nice little flip flop.

    Of course, it is entirely up to the City of Portland if it stops at the Oregon Supreme court. And you are going to love this. You are about to see me citing the Oregon Supreme Court. Should have waited before you kept going.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, You write, “If there are twenty pieces of evidence on the same thing they will admit a couple and not the rest because they are redundant.” The prosecutor has to stipulate that the evidence that may be duplicitous does, in fact, prove what the defense says or the defense get an easy appeal.
    Yes, Jim it is an easy case when one sticks to the facts and the law.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Not following your train of thought here. Where does “duplicitous” evidence come into play here? And stipulating to duplicitous evidence is a contradictory statement. A quick, basic example of what I mean by duplicate, redundant evidence. Say twenty people see somebody do something. In court, you will practically never see all twenty people testify that they saw the same thing. Two or three will testify to introduce it into the record and the other 17 go home.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Oh, do you not know that the prosecutor is to stipulate that all the other witnesses (or what ever class of evidence) proves the same as the previous witnesses, so that the judge can dismiss them, without giving the defense a winning appealable issue? This also keeps the jury from seeing a whole line of people all testifying to what the defense contends. It is a prosecutions trick. It is a way that the prosecutor garners favor with the judge. That is why you are seeing all those witnesses go home. Never been a prosecutor, huh?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    You seem to be missing the point. Redundant witnesses will often be dismissed. Depending on what it is they have to offer (everything is case specific), statements from them may be entered into the record. If the additional witness does having something new or different to offer then they are not redundant (by definition). If a prosecutor tries this as a means of shielding evidence then that is why we have an adversarial system. The defense counsel objects. Then either the witness stays or it is the basis for an appeal.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, YOU seem to be missing the point. You keep yapping the basics in an almost correct manner, while missing the the way it works. then presuming no one knows anything but you.
    Throughout this entire conversation you have been, at best half correct, on every point. It is almost as if you never read a book, but got all your information by listening to the professor’s lecture. You are an arrogant ignoramus.
    If the judge dismisses so called redundant witnesses, do you know which of the defendants Constitutional Rights is being violated?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @Wild Bill The answer is five-nines of the time is that nobody’s constitutional rights are being violated because the testimony IS REDUNDANT. If the testimony, has something to add then, by definition, it IS NOT REDUNDANT. If there is disagreement over whether a witness is redundant or not then the lawyers argue it out and a judge rules. All rulings by judges are subject to judicial review. If a judge screws up, then an appellate court overrules them and the process begins again. Go watch a trial stemming from a bar fight or a car accident. I bet you’d find… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill Jim really does not know, Bill. But then again he is after all the one self projecting by leveling claims of “Internet Chat Room Research” at us. For those unaware, a defendant has a right to obtain and present witnesses in court for their own defense. This is called the Sixth Amendment. There is no stipulation as per maximum number that the defense may issue, even if testimony is similar to previous testimony. The judge, by dismissing or disallowing any number of defensive witnesses is in violation of the Sixth amendment, where as the prosecution, or the… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, The defense is still entitled to present all of its evidence and every single witness, every one. So once again you are wrong. The way around the defense’s presentation of many many witnesses is for the prosecutor to stipulate that the witness will say what the defense says the witness will say. I do not need to go watch a trial. I have done this in trial. Maybe you should go watch a trial. You bringing me to the verge of insulting you.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Yes, the Sixth Amendment. You get four gold stars, today. It is almost as if Jim had not read anything on the subject, but got it by word of mouth. Every point he makes is half right. He drive straight up to a proper conclusion, and then takes a hard left.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Go back in your comment line. You claimed the Judge would have been using a Gag order to limit “redundant video.”

    Of course, that is what everyone has been trying to point out to you. When it comes to unreliable witness testimony vs. Video, video does not lie. For example, Mike Strickland’s Full video destroys the testimony of the Prosecution’s witnesses.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    You have serious issues with reading comprehension.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, You have serious comprehension issues.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @Wild Bill See my reply about needing a time out. Before you come back, refresh up on the difference between comprehension and disagreement. What Rev does shows a lack of reading comprehension or purposeful mischaracterization. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. What you and I are doing is disagreeing. I understand everything you have said. I just do not think you are correct in much of it and I have tried to have a dialogue about why. But since your decorum has failed in the last hour it is time for a recess. Come on… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Jim,

    When telling other people they have issues understanding what you have written, please remember that ammoland is not youtube. You can’t go back and suddenly delete your own comments if they start casting you in a bad light.

    What you wrote is still there, even as you are now trying to flip flop. Well, it’s been a full week and you haven’t figured out the solution to all this yet.. Can’t say I’m not surprised.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Jim, you give no orders. Rev got that whole 6th Amendment Rights portion perfectly. You thought that there was no rights violation. If there were no violation of the 6th Amendment Rights, then there would be no appeal. You get an F for the answer, Juvenile Jim.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I mean that is Stickland’s entire brand of “journalism”. He goes to demonstrations, marches, whatever of groups he disagrees with and then spins them up so he can film their reactions.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Of course you know that Strickland’s brand of journalism is as relevant as his brand of cigarettes.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill

    By brand of Journalism Jim means a “Journalist who covers things that Jim believes to be important in a possibly critical or negative light”

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Opps the first line should be “convicted” Does anyone know how to turn off the spell check? It has rewritten all of my convicteds into convokeds.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I would absolutely draw my weapon and shoot auto-correct if I ever encounter it.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, Yes. Both, how he has done his job in the past and his brand of cigarettes are irrelevant to the case.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Correct. It is irrelevant under the law. I don’t think I said it was relevant under the law. We were discussing whether we thought it was necessary to conduct oneself like Strickland does in order to report on an event. I say no – it is not. In fact, it is atypical. Although Rev doesn’t appreciate my NFL analogy I still think it works as an illustration that reporting does not require being in the face of those you are reporting on. Another analogy is that a reporter does not have to be face to face with looters to report… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, I think that analogies are more deception than illustration. Under the rules of evidence analogies must be true in all aspects. So analogies don’t get used much. I don’t need an analogy. Lets agree not to use them, here.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill

    Thats why it was a non-sequitur. Trying to claim a reporter doesn’t need to play football, they can video tape in from the sidelines and compare it to Mike Strickland, who was…. Videotaping it from the sidelines… Not wearing black mask team colors….. Ahhhh, there it is… As was pointed out. Horrendous analogy.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, You know that anyone’s brand of journalism is not relevant, so why do you mention it?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I already spoke to this in another reply. We all have been co-mingling some case specific stuff with some general opinion discussion and it can becoming confusing which mode we are in sometimes.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    That may be true in Oregon. In my state, they are called District Court judges. For example, I live in the 4th Judicial District of Idaho. If Oregon refers to them differently then mea culpa.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Yes, he had the right to be reckless and put himself in a bad position – that has never been in question. Look, I am not defending what some in the crowd did. They were absolutely wrong as well. But the “self-defense” defense often breaks down under just these same sort of circumstances. A person who instigates a fight with a biker gang or something that is clearly dangerous to them and then use it as a pretext to draw and shoot. Stickland would have gotten convicted in most places across this country – at least any jurisdictions that have… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Jim Sorry, the only idiot here is yourself. Here is why. Attendance does not qualify as instigation. When it is known before hand that you are going to attend and the protestors acknowledge that they have plans of using violence to keep you away, that is not instigation(though it is intimidation on the part of the protestors). “Look, I am not defending what some in the crowd did” No, you have been, the entire time you have been here you have done nothing but defend them and ignore factual evidence which is contrary to your idiotic opinions because you… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Well, he can not be convoked of being ” … a f’n idiot…” Nor can he be convoked of having “… broke every commandment of situation awareness.” You admit that, “They [the crowd] were absolutely wrong as well.” Instigation was not proved by various videos I don’t think that you have practiced in enough courts in this country to say what those courts would do, but even if true you can not use a poll of trial level courts to obtain a conviction in this man’s individual and particular case. Common sense is irrelevant. The prosecutor must prove beyond… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Opps the first line should be “convicted” Does anyone know how to turn off the spell check? It has rewritten all of my convicteds into convokeds.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    One fair point you make, and it is one we all are doing, is that we are mixing and matching our convos with parts of strictly legal matters and with parts general discussion and opinion. Much of what I said if the aforementioned comment belongs in the general discussion category. In that context, it is all relevant and I reiterate every bit of it. We are held to a higher standard. It is entirely up to us to know the law and keep our heads. If we/you/I ever pull a weapon it is exclusively our responsibility to do so legally.… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Kind of like what the law actually says based on a persons actions and not a judges personalized “interpretation” is an important distinction?

    Or how about what the law defines as the aggressor in a conflict?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Having a felony (any felony) is indeed a barrier to future employment, but that is not a court sanction. It is a choice of those employers. Hell, even misdemeanors can make gaining employment more difficult. This is something that has pissed me for a long time. I am a big proponent of expungment and/or those arrangements where a felony convictions get downgraded to misdemeanors upon successful probation, restitution, etc. Oregon is a pretty forgiving state in terms of regaining voting and gun rights and I think Stickland can make a strong case for restoration of both. I am not sure… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Hi Revelator I see you are reveling most in your own delusions of grandeur and echo chamber. I am no troll. I very much do think Stickland screwed up and bears responsibility for his actions and choices. I also think some in the crowd behaved badly. I guess I am capable of nuanced thinking apparently unlike you who is trapped in a binary mode, on or off mode. It is very telling that rather to switch immediately to ad hominem, name calling mode rather than offering anything intelligent. Carry on with your pseudo-intellectual, echo chamber evangelizing. There are folks in… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    No Grandeur. There is also nothing nuanced or delusional about simply agreeing with the truth. I’m not responsible for others agreeing with my position. Since in fact I am not basing my argument off of opinion, but opinion off of factual evidence and the law, they are not agreeing with me, they are agreeing with factual evidence and the law. You only see it as an echo chamber because so many disagree with you. You speak of Ad Hominem, but you instantly throw out “I guess I am capable of nuanced thinking apparently unlike you who is trapped in a… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    So, in other words, Rev is right and the rest of the world is wrong …. always. Why? Because Rev says so and he (she?) does internet research in chat rooms. Oh, and the actual court room transcripts of every word spoken in the trial is irrelevant because my chat room research says it is. And that Judge, you know the guy who has spent his entire professional life in the practice of law, that guy…that guy is wrong too because I say so and I don’t like his rulings and my internet blog sites back me up. I have… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    First rule…

    Factual evidence is right. Evidence proves fact, fact proves truth.

    People sometimes happen to agree with fact. That has been the basis of my argument against you since September 12th. Wait for the big comment.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I guess I have a higher standard of who I would call a hero. What kills me about this case and so many others like is the extreme binary thinking. Either Stickland was a hero and did everything right or he was a sociopathic thug who did everything wrong. I don’t play that game. I see fault all the way around. I think Stickland screwed up badly and he definitely made some very, very poor choices in getting himself into that situation. However, some in the crowd behaved badly as well. You know – it is OK to be critical… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Neither binary thinking nor mediocre thinking gets one to the correct answer. How do you get beyond the fact that Strickand had a Constitutional Civil Right to be in that public place, at that time; had no obligation to leave; and the crowd had an obligation to leave him alone, but did not meet their legal requirement?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    If I follow you, then I think I agree with your general premise. Sometimes, things are black and white (aka binary) and we should recognize those situations when they do exist. They are fairly rare but do exist and we should not dismiss them reflexively on an assumption that black and white doesn’t exist. Now, if you contend, that the Strickland matter is black and white then I cannot agree. I address this in greater depth in another reply to you, but briefly: with rights come responsibilities and rights have never and will never shield a person from the consequences… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    And with that, Jim reveals the error in his entire mindset that has resulted in this tiresome verbal combat: He believes that a RIGHT is a mere privilege to be issued or denied at will by, in this context, and HOA. In fact, a homeowner has an absolute unassailable right to post a political sign on his front yard regardless of HOA ‘rules.” Where the conflict arises is in the contract signed when one buys a home in an HOA. The home owner agrees he will not post political (or other) signs in his front yard. Yet the home owner… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Donald Cline, I am guessing that Jim is a younger person. He does not understand the concept of Rights because unlike older people, he has not lived with freedom and Rights. His concept of limited rights (mere privileges, really) have been conjured up by courts, embraced by politicians, and enforced by bureaucrats for the purpose of controlling the population. He does not understand that there is no profit in allowing him to live as a free man.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Sigh – no, I do not confuse rights with privileges. I have learned one thing (the hard way). You all are unwilling or unable to understand analogies. In the future, I know not to use them. Argue with this if you wish – label me whatever – call me stupid – at this point I don’t care. I am just going to lay it out here for you all to play whatever games you wish with it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT! Don’t believe me? Just go try it. Pick any enumerated or implied right you… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Donald L Cline Spot on! @ Wild Bill SDS… Snowflake Derangement Syndrome. (See under, “Nobody is agreeing with me and I’m offended! I’m going to pout and call them nincompoops and whine about how smart I am and make sure everyone knows that all these realists just refuse to understand and accept what I am trying to teach them!”) @ Jim Calm down.. Take a Time out. None of us are going to join you in fantasy land. We are quite happy here in what is commonly known as reality. You are welcome to join us in reality again… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, You write, “… rights have never and will never shield a person from the consequences of what they may do while exercising those rights.” I don’t know who taught you this, Jim, but it is completely, and one hundred percent… wrong! A Right is a shield behind which one can step and be touched by no governmental authority. A Right is complete, infinite, and inviolate. The concept of limited rights is a modern concept invented long after the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Limited pre political Rights is a concept promulgated by judges, politicians, and bureaucrats to deprive you… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I see where you are going with this. And this is the fundamental misunderstanding many folks have. In a theoretical sense, you are correct. A right would be inviolate. However, it is not. And we all have human stupidity to thank for that. I reiterate what I said about a right not shielding you from the consequences if you chose to exercise that right in a ill-conceived manner. The classic example: Yelling fire in a crowded theater. The free exercise of religion is another one replete with examples. There are religions that believe in repugnant things. If a person tries… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill Dead give away here. Notice Jim Brings up Free Excercise of religion? The First Amendment clearly states “No law prohibiting free excercise thereof” shall be created. The only time that that right is ever limited is when it attempts to infringe upon the unalienable rights of life(Human sacrifice as an example) or Liberty/Freewill(Forced indoctrination and admittance into a religion.) Other than those two areas, Free Exercise extends to any and every facet of life. It is not limited to private, whether you are in public, whether it is offensive to others. Free Exercise means Free Exercise. For someone… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Binary Thinking, AKA, sticking to factual evidence instead of making up reasons to support one’s own (Jim’s) convoluted opinions. Currently, the only sociopathic thug is the crybaby spamming posts because all those mean people posting facts won’t let him have his way! How dare they question the idea that a Journalist who is covering a BLM protest should stay home because BLM would be offended if they were there in person! The audacity! The sheer cheekiness of it even!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, By binary thinking, I believe that Jim means one end or the end of the same spectrum. I work in mediocre, meaning in the middle, to make light humor of his logical. Not my best work.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill He is trying to argue that we must accept a “Gray Area” in the law. He is doing this because when you look at the law in black and white, when you read the letter of the law, everything is as clear as day right down to what type of judgement or sentence is required. Without that “Gray Area”, a judge cannot “Reinterpret” a law for a particular case, or in this case Jim cannot reasonably make the claim that Mike Strickland was the bad guy because the evidence and the law are solidly against him. Well,… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    I’ve made a lot of comments throughout this thread, but I wanted to finish up tonight with one specific one: I’m not an attorney (though I played one in Court against a Dept. of (in)Justice attorney representing the Illegal Revenue Service and caused him to lose his first case in a 12-case winning streak) and I do not give legal advice. But it is my lay opinion that Strickland went WAY BEYOND the requirements of the law in attempting to avoid having to shoot anyone. In my opinion he should be regarded as a hero for that reason alone. But… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    You know, the more and more this case is discussed, I’m starting to draw correlations between certain people, and court cases from the past. Does anyone else remember or know about the Gary Fadden trial? It just seems to me that the same people trying to shout over and over that Mike Strickland should have gone or stayed home, that he is the villain here…. Well, they strike me like the prosecutor holding the rifle used to defend Fadden’s life up over his head as if it would magically erase any and all other evidence defending Fadden’s actions on the… Read more »

    The Thinker
    Guest
    The Thinker

    So, here’s what I am lead to believe, after reading the story, and reading the comments 1) the fellow has a right to free speech, this included his journalism work 2) the fellow has a right to assemble peacefully in any public space as long as the space has not been closed by lawful order 3) the fellow, with lawful permit, had a right to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection 4) the fellow had NO RIGHT to exercise the above three rights AT THE SAME TIME 5) the fellow had NO RIGHT to protect himself from an assured… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @The Thinker

    Concise, precise, and with just enough Satire to make a cognitively comatose snowflake think you are agreeing with them.

    Definitely worthy of the name on this post.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Congratulations everyone. We have a new resident idiot troll here. Allow me to introduce you to “Jim”. Apparently, Jim is attempting to follow the lines of other disproven commentators pushing the idea that Strickland could have left, or “Egressed”. Despite ignoring that Strickland was in fact assaulted initially, his Camera equiptment was attempted to have been forcefully removed from his person, and after moving to a new area was followed and had hands laid upon him a second time, Jim seems to believe that Mike Strickland has “Dirty Hands.” Strickland’s Crime according to Jim? Why, he showed up at a… Read more »

    Eaglesnester
    Guest
    Eaglesnester

    Have been following the comments on this thread. It is hard to believe that there are so many stupid people living in the United States today. Oh wait they vote. Could it be that the state of the US today is because of the mass terminal case of stupidity we are currently seeing from left coast to left coast. We see activist judges both federal and local actually ruling against the Constitution of the United States and codified federal law. We see the police violating citizens rights time and time again. We see police being ordered to stand down in… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    The scary part is not that they vote, it is that they procreate.

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    Reporters are unarmed. The second he put his gun on he stooped being a reporter. Do you see Fox news, CNN, Washington Times reporters carrying weapons even when they are in real war zones in Afghanistan or Iraq? No you don’t. Reporters do not carry weapons. He is no journalist.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ohhh……… So the second you choose to work as a Journalist, you relinquish all your rights to be able to defend your life from a pack of rabid indoctrinated fanatics who decide they don’t want to be filmed spewing racist hatred?

    Well, tomcatt14, Americans favor individual liberty. Since you don’t, you’re no American. Why don’t you get out of this country if you already aren’t.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    @Rev: Email me: [email protected]

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Trusting you, since I know your record Vanns.

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    Yes, by carrying a weapon you are a potential combatant, not an impartial observer. You can be targeted as such. Therefore reporters do not carry weapons. Carrying a weapon can make you part of the story and not able to report on it. I know you think all reporters are not fair and balanced but you cant be if you start firing at one side. Sometimes that means paying with there life to get the story.

    http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/current/journalists-memorial/

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    +1

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @t14, One is always a potential combatant. Carrying a weapon does not mean that you have taken sides. Do you even know what the word “impartial” means.
    And as to Jim: You are a + nothing. You are a D- understander and applier of the law to the facts.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @ Wild Bill And now with the elementary school name calling. You need a time out. Come back when you settle down. I will discuss and debate with respectful people. You have mostly been that up until the last 30 minutes or so.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    So based on tc14’s comment and Jim’s plus one…

    “Sometimes that means paying with there(Their, as in the reporter) life to get the story.”

    Both Tomcat14 and Jim believe reporters should be murdered, their wives, Husbands, children, parents left without them for the rest of their lives.. Personally, this tells you all you need to know about the “Firearm freedom loving” and “Card Carrying Republican” Jim that you need to know.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    Jim thinks that he is in charge. Elementary name calling? I hardly think an elementary school person would know the word poltroon, so that they could apply it to you.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Yeah – that is exactly what I meant. That reports SHOULD be murdered (<—-satire). At this point, I have to point out to when something is not literal because you are too much of an obtuse dick to figure it out on your own. And this is yet another example. why you are not credible. You take straight forward statements that a child would understand and contort it around in your diseased brain to something outlandish. Then you peacock around like you scored points. Guess what? Any idiot can lie. But this is yet more emerging proof that EVERYTHING you… Read more »

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    @Wild Bill, You are incorrect sir, From the Geneva Convention seciton on Non-international armed conflicts: “When military medical and religious personnel are members of the armed forces, they are nevertheless considered non-combatants. According to the First Geneva Convention, temporary medical personnel have to be respected and protected as non-combatants only as long as the medical assignment lasts (see commentary to Rule 25).[14] As is the case for civilians (see Rule 6), respect for non-combatants is contingent on their abstaining from taking a direct part in hostilities.” You may ask why I am dragging up the Geneva Convention. Well the United… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Jim

    Sorry, you were the idiot who chose to agree with an individual who stated reporters should be ready to die instead of defending themselves.

    That is entirely on you. You don’t like the consequences, then pay attention when you “+1” a comment. And seriously, you have been being a big enough crybaby to make wild bill look like he was born with the patience of Job. Per me, I just enjoy making you jump on command without you even realizing you are doing exactly what I want you to. =)

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @tomcat14 in response to wild bill

    Again, you are trying to intentionally compare a warzone in a foreign country to the soil of the United States, and now using a foreign treaty as well.

    So please, Where in the Constitution can treaties of any kind over rule Constitutionally protected rights on US soil? Where in the constitution does it stipulate that foreign laws or treaties may over ride the Constitution itself anywhere within the United States?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @tomcat14, The situations contemplated by the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with this inside CONUS, civilian law enforcement case. The Geneva convention is inapplicable to civil war and civil law enforcement.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    So, tomcat14, lets juxtapose…

    Do you also think that it is ok for a 12 year old black girl working for a school project as “A day as a reporter” covering a KKK rally should offer up her life to get a story if a KKK member, say Dylan Roof decides to murder her and her unarmed father because they are covering him in what he thinks is a bad light?

    Or are you such a hypocritical liar you can’t hold yourself to the same standard and say yes like you were perfectly happy to do in your comment above?

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    @The Revelator, No I do not believe reporters should be murdered. Where did you get that Idea? I never said anything close to that. I said reporters are unarmed observers. And sometimes in the course of their job they die covering a story. The same thing happens with aid organizations. They are unarmed and sometimes in the course of there mission they die to help those in need. @The Revelator pt. 2 I have no idea what you are trying to say there about a black girl. A black girl dose not need to go to a rally to be… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @tomcat14 since common sense isnt your shtick, I’ll lay it out. Part one: ” I know you think all reporters are not fair and balanced but you cant be if you start firing at one side. Sometimes that means paying with there life to get the story.” The idea that to hold a job title or occupation you give up any constitutionally protected rights. You seem to have no problem with a reporter being murdered while “Gettinga story” compared to if he was carrying a firearm where you continually try to equate it with being a combatant in a warzone… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @Bill Really? Now you are peacocking around because you know an unusual word.. Merely, swallowing a thesaurus doesn’t strengthen your argument or change the fact that you have started acting like a child. I am tempted to just respond in kind but I will not. There is no point in furthering this. I’ll be hear if/when you regain your composure and want to discuss. Otherwise, just carry-on your bro-mance with Rev. Your self-congratulatory preening is rather amusing.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Better to have read a thesaurus than use baby talk, Mr. “I’ll be hear…”Take your own “time out”, you counterfeit intellectual.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Sorry, nothing says that you cannot carry as a reporter. Anyone who makes income covering and reporting on a story is a journalist even if the media they report for is not traditional. Independent freelancers don’t have a crew with them to help, or watch their backs. Additionally, a major corporation would never allow their journalists to carry because of the potential liability issues.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @tc14, You don’t know that reporters are unarmed. “The second [that] he put his gun on he stopped being a reporter.” Where do you get that? That is so untrue, that it is not worthy of commenting on. Reporters in real war zones are in real war zones with the permission of and under the protection of the the Commander. They follow his rules. If the commander says no weapons, then no weapons. If the commander says you will carry a weapon and help defend the perimeter, then that reporter would carry and weapon and help defend the perimeter or… Read more »

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    In response here is what the Pentagon had to say: “The U.S. Department of Defense considered the issue before allowing about 600 journalists to embed with the troops during the Iraq war. Military officials warned reporters if they were caught carrying a gun they would be sent packing–again for fear of compromising the neutral observers rule. “The larger issue is if you carry weapons into a war zone, you are a combatant,” says Lt. Commander Dan Hetlage, a Pentagon spokesman.” Embedded reporters with the US military were specifically ordered not to have weapons by the highest levels of the DoD.… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Yep. This is a pretty basic thing. You cross the line between journalist and combatant/partisan once you go in armed. You may still choose to arm yourself but don’t be surprised or butthurt about the consequences from your choice. The foremost of which is that the others will stop seeing you as a journalist and it goes downhill from there. Real media may travel with security but it is rare they arm themselves up.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Nope, You are wrong again. You do not cross any line when you exercise your constitutional rights. You have a Right to go to a public place, and remain unmolested.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill

    No wait, Paraphrase Jim.

    You may still choose to state your opinion online in spite of factual evidence or written law proving you wrong, but don’t be surprised or butthurt about the consequences from your choice. The foremost of which is that the others will stop seeing you as a rational, sober, credible person and it goes downhill from there.

    I LOVE IT!!!!

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    @ Wild Bill Nope. Go out onto a public space and block a door or stand in a public road blocking traffic and you most definitely will be “molested” because your right of assembly has not impinged on somebody else’s rights. I am done arguing about this. Just go try it. Pick your “inviolate right” of choice and then go try exercising it in an ignorant manner. Get back to me with what you discover. HINT: it won’t be that you find your “right” shields you.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill

    Apparently Jim does not understand the concept of unlawful detention connected to the unalienable right of Liberty, hence you cannot interfere with someone elses free movement, IE blockading traffic.

    Another non sequitur on Jim’s part. Let’s hope he is not an english teacher, cause I have not seen anyone this bad at analogies in a long time. On a side note, isn’t he now stating he wishes violence against your person?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, I don’t think that he understands Breach of Peace, either. Either his analogies accidentally fallacious or intentionally deceptive. He would not be the first “well wisher”!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Just go give orders to someone else, powerless poltroon. The only purpose of the concept of Rights is to shield you from government action. Lots of homeless people block doorways and roadways. Push one out of the way, some time, or run one over with your car and see what happens to you,
    You are not done. You will be back with more of the most obtuse hypothetical examples that you can think of.

    The Thinker
    Guest
    The Thinker

    Reporters are often armed

    you just don’t know it!

    Same as Senators and Congressmen! Sen’s Boxer and Feinstein BOTH had CCWs and BOTH carried EVERYWHERE…. you just didn’t know it.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Too bad a certain Female reporter and her friend were unarmed. We got to watch the news become the news documenting on what can happen when honest reporters go unarmed.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Something else that everyone needs to consider when thinking about whether or not it is worthwhile for him to appeal this decision is the fact that not only does he lose his right to possess firearms but in addition when attempting to get any job in the future is now going to have to list the fact that he’s been convicted of a felony which WILL have a significant impact on the likelihood of him being able to get decent, comparable employment in the future.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Or the fact that a US Citizen is being told they cannot work as a reporter because a government official doesn’t like the way they cover certain topics.

    sounds a little 1774’ish don’t you think?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    that is not what the court said. He can absolutely work as a reporter (if he actually has the skills). He is barred from doing his brand of crowd provocation and filming the reactions. He was more provocateur than journalist.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    The point was that with a felony on his record he most likely could not get a comparable job. He would be able to freelance all he wanted, but any major news outlet would most likely be hesitant to accept any work he produced because the felony would be brought up as dismissive by any talking head who didn’t agree with him.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Pretty Close InMyImage. But yes, I did mean that he is not allowed to work as a reporter. Notice, I said reporter, not journalist. When the judge issued his original mandate stating that he could not attend, blog about, or video any future protests he was telling Strickland that his career as a reporter is over since actually doing his job would place him in violation of a court order and probation. That is without getting into the issue of being hired as a felon. Of course, the mantra of “Never let facts get in the way of a good… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Strickland, had a right to be present in that public place. That is not provocation. He had a right to remain unmolested. The crowd had an obligation to leave him alone.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    In spite of the fact that he did try to set up to video “from a distance”, was assaulted, moved his location, and was assaulted a second time.. Sure……. The only “Provocative” thing Strickland did was attend the protest itself. Never mind the fact that Jim is so obtuse that he fails to realize exactly how big of a hypocrite he is being right now! Not only is he condemning those he is falsely claiming to be “Provocateurs”, he is on ammoland spamming comments intended to directly provoke people with opposing political views to his own! Wait, what? He has… Read more »

    Donald L.. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L.. Cline

    I want to know exactly what you mean by “his brand of crowd provocation.” Is setting up a tripod with a video camera on it what you consider to be ‘crowd provocation?’ Or is “crowd provocation” because he has video’d this idiots before and published the videos for the world to see? I can’t imagine what a videographer could do to “provoke” a crowd of ignoramuses short of setting up his video camera and then throwing a handful of Chinese firecrackers into the crowd, and I haven’t heard anyone suggest Strickland did anything like that.

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Be it a BLM mob, or any other mob, as opposed to a peaceful gathering, the time for these mobs go be dealt with, as opposed to being bowed down to is very long overdue. Re this, one wonders as to what we get for the significant amounts of money spent on The forces of Law and Order, so called aside from the writing of parking tickets and speeding citations, along with a whole lot of bureaucratic baloney. If these demonstrators were doing nothing improper, simply exercising their rights to speak out, then what was the problem with another citizen… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Alan, Yes, we all have a civil right to be in public places, and we have a civil right to be left alone. Demonstrators, peaceful gatherings, individuals, a convention of life insurance sales persons, and mobs all have an obligation to leave us alone. If they don’t then, they have, at minimum, breached the peace. And why are the police and their political bosses not doing their jobs? Are we all, now, provocateurs because we step out side of our homes? How long until we are provocateurs even staying in our homes?

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    Why are the police and their bosses, aka politicians not doing their jobs? That sir is a very good question, one to which I do not have an answer except perhaps to reference which way the political winds might be blowing, or seem to be blowing. The foregoing brings to mind a particular term and the explanation or description thereof. The term is “Stump Jumper”, describing an undistinguished animal usually seen perched on a convenient stump, judging which way the breeze might be blowing, which would advise the creature as to which way it might jump.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Got this one right.. Good job.

    The Thinker
    Guest
    The Thinker

    the Judge just ruled against the Constitution…. the right to gather peacefully, and the right to free speech.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    I’ll put it stronger than that: The judge perjured his oath or affirmation of office to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Oregon, the Rule of Law, and the rights of Oregon citizens. Perjury is a crime. The judge should be prosecuted.

    SPARTACUS
    Guest
    SPARTACUS

    Strickland knew he was going into trouble. He decided to go,
    where he would likely be confronted by unreasonable people.
    He also decided to bring his gun. As Concealed carriers, we
    are unfortunately held to a higher standard. If he was going as
    a journalist, he should have chosen to go unarmed.
    He could have stayed at home, and completely stayed out of it.
    What would law enforcement think of any concealed carrier, if we took our
    gun to a bad section of town, and voluntarily started stirring up trouble?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Spart, He had a right to be there. He had a right to remain unmolested. The crowd had an obligation to respect his rights. There is not some other standard for those persons that carry a concealed fire arm. He was not stirring up trouble. Your analogy is false.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    So, if your job was to go into a bad part of town you’d leave your gun at home! That line of thought is ridiculous.

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @VAN… I probably had one of the few jobs where they were happy to see you coming into the bad part of town… when I went in it was to turn the lights BACK ON.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @SPARTACUS This Line of Reasoning is old news SPARTACUS. Or is this “Eric”? Sorry, but neither the factual evidence, nor the law and individual rights go along with that line of thinking. So tell you what.. You carry concealed, or so you claim, and you choose to step outside your house. You don’t have to carry concealed to protect yourself…. You should just stay home with all the doors and windows locked because if you go outside you are just asking for someone to come mug or assault you, and if you have a gun on you then you are… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Everyone Else reading this Notice, Spartacus’ last statement. “What would law enforcement think of any concealed carrier, if we took our gun to a bad section of town, and voluntarily started stirring up trouble?” This is his attempt at automatically blaming the victim for being the cause of his attackers’ aggression. This is a lie which has been debunked elsewhere looking at factual evidence, the letter of the law, and good old fashioned common sense. Word of advice. Don’t be gullible, don’t fall for it. You don’t want to get tangled up in helping someone perpetrate a lie. Your reputation… Read more »

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @REV…Nailed it !!! The best place to debunk their argument is by exposing their fallacious reasoning before they get started. Seriously doubt he even has a CCP.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @oldvet Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter if he has a CCP or not. The position he is attempting to hold is so ludicrous anything else he wants to say about himself. So based on his own logic, if he…… Does he drive a nice car? Then he is just asking to be carjacked, so if he is then it is his fault…. Does he have a House? He’s advertising to people he has expensive items locked up inside and daring them to try and steal it…… And if he does carry and have a firearm Does he own a gun?… Read more »

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @REV…He is always the first one to start talking about shooting.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @oldvet

    Him and many others.

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    @ Rev – Spartacus (sad that he would use the name of someone who fought against Rome for their right to live as freemen) has not heard of the “Reasonable person” standard. I guess according to his line of reasoning I should not even post on here because I think he’s full of sh*t and it might be construed as offensive ergo I am a racist for offending his sensibilities? Does that sound about right? Confusing but truthful when it comes to that mentality.

    Alan
    Guest
    Alan

    People ganging up on and or threatening Strickland were in the wrong. Eng of story.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Congrats Alan, you got this one correct.

    That sums the situation up perfectly according to evidence, while avoiding any unnecessary hyperbole.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Unforas a former photojournalist, we do not have the luxury of deciding to avoid coverevents because there may be risk involved. I was never in a position that caused me to think about carrying and didn’t own a gun at the time, but would have carried if I were going to cover an event where there was potentially personal physical risk. Unfortunately we commonly see evidence of photogers and reporters being threatened when covering protests So if I were still doing photojournalism today, I would most likely carry in addition to wearing a quality bulletproof vest. When I was briefly… Read more »

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Forgive me for not reading and correcting the fat finger mistakes while typing on my ipad…

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    yep – exactly. He could have also simply filmed from some bit of distance like many/most real journalists do. He was absolutely a provocateur in this case and you are spot on in pointing out that we CC folks are held to a higher standard.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, what he could have done is irrelevant. He had a Civil Right to be in that public place. He had a Civil Right to be left alone. The crowd had an obligation to respect his Civil Rights.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill Psst… Don’t know if you know this, but Jim has been pushing the “Egress” notion. What he really means to say is that Strickland should have been filming it while watching the protest on his living room couch. if he thinks that one to two hundred yards is not enough to qualify as distance, do you think he would accept thirty yards, or fifty? Here’s the hint about Jim. He is saying he is a second amendment supporter. That he carries.. But he doesn’t know the first thing about individual liberty when it comes to this case. The… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Rev, He not only knows nothing about fire arms, but know no law either. Strickland had a right to be there and remain unmolested. The crowd had an obligation to leave Strickland alone. That is the basis of all civil society.
    As Jim and the progressive/socialists/Marxists can not get around that, they ignore it. Just like politicians and jurists have not been able to get around the various articles of our Constitution, so they ignore the it. They get away with it because, we have no way to make them follow the Constition and they know it.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Sorry but journalists rarely hang out at a distance in this sort of event. They are normally right in the middle of the crowd taking pics or video, getting short crowd interviews or listening and absorbing what is being said or done in the crowd.

    Do you actually watch the news at all?

    Rokflyer
    Guest
    Rokflyer

    @spartacus, I cannot begin to elaborate on how much I disagree with you, and how warped your sense of exertion of basic rights are. So I will let these other more diplomatic and learned gentleman tell you how dangerous your very line of thought is. I’m amazed at the discrimination in my country against Constitutional Thinkers.

    PASTORGLOCK
    Guest
    PASTORGLOCK

    Maybe with enough encouraging PRES Trump will pardon him. And set a new standard for ccw holders not being persecuted for protecting themselves in the face of harm. Especially when no shots were fired and while defending himself from a terrorist organization like blm.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    And hopefully finally implementing nationwide reciprocity…

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    Maybe you should go back to civics class. The President cannot pardon him, this was a state charge not a Federal one. The President only has power to pardon people convicted of FEDERAL Crimes.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Congratulations, you got that part correct tomcat 14.

    Ready to own up to everything else you got wrong on individual liberty you made this morning at 1:15 Eastern standard time?

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    Site please.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Ok, and since I am guessing you mean “Cite” I shall. 1. Please tell me where in the constitution it says you must give up the right to defend yourself to cover events in the USA as a Reporter.. 2. The examples you cite involve civilian Journalists in Combat Theaters outside of the US, but attempt to correlate them to being the same here at home. 3. To point two, failing to acknowledge that in a Combat theater with ten to thirty or a thousand armed troops are protecting you along with armored transport, and stating a reporter at home… Read more »

    tomcat14
    Guest
    tomcat14

    @The Revelator 1. Please tell me where in the constitution it says you must give up the right to defend yourself to cover events in the USA as a Reporter.. A. No where, the industry as a whole has chosen this is how to conduct itself as to be unbiased while reporting. 2. The examples you cite involve civilian Journalists in Combat Theaters outside of the US, but attempt to correlate them to being the same here at home. A. I could also show how the videographer on COPS don’t carry or your local beat reporter at a baseball game… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Tomcat14 A1. Ok, so where in the constitution does it say “An Industry” has a right to over rule an individual right? Nice try though. A2. Again, with armed protection, riding along, the individuals whose job by nature requires them to carry a firearm. This time however, this is in the US, and again, where is the violation or supression of a right legally enabled?(Apparently you do not understand the difference between being in a foreign country and here in the US where that right is constitutionally protected.) A3. Not an answer at all, until you can tell me where… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    The Governor of the State of Oregon could pardon him. But I don’t think that would serve the cause of justice: Strickland needs to be vindicated and exonerated, and the judge needs to be harshly censured, and the BLM thugs need to serve hard time.

    Tog
    Guest
    Tog

    hope he wins the appeal

    Hardy Spires
    Guest
    Hardy Spires

    I would never go into a state that does not give you a stand your ground defense. These liberal bastions like Oregon abuse the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. In a state with stand your ground rights anybody could have left these Antifa scum laying in their wake. That is why these cowards will not venture into a state where they know they will get what they deserve.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    FYI, the Antifa coward did turn out at the Trump rally in Phoenix recently. They threw two soft drink cans with burning fuses attached at the police line they were facing and the resulting ‘riot’ lasted about five minutes: They fought the Law and the Law won. Now the demonstrators are being allowed to tie up City Council meetings for hours at a time demanding the city spend $50K for an “outside study” to determine if the police “over-reacted” or not. The city council was all set to approve the $50K but got so much pushback from the legitimate citizens… Read more »

    james
    Guest
    james

    Unfortunate he went with bench trial.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Not really, read my comments on the jury voir dire.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    One has to wonder if the original video showing the incident from a third party was viewed by the court? If after watching that video, anyone could conclude that a reasonable person would not be in fear of significant bodily harm or death given the agressiveness of the men leading the charge especially when combined with their words and threats, then I’d significantly question their sense of self preservation or honesty. The fact that he was charged, much less convicted of any crime in the well documented situation that did not relay on his personal testimony or documentation is a… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    As I understand it only a portion of the original was shown in court and the judge has put what amounts to a lifetime gag order on showing the entire video in public. One has to wonder why…..actually, I’m not wondering why so much the gag order as why it hasn’t been challenged. I’m not an attorney nor do I blah blah blah but I believe this case may come ripe for appeal on several fronts. Here’s my take: 1. The judge is guilty of judicial misconduct for not granting a change of venue thereby literally forcing the defendants to… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Vanns40

    I believe that was in reference to Strickland’s video itself, not necessarily any exterior surveillance camera footage, although if that came out its a safe bet the judge would do the same.

    Dead on accurate for both of your points by the way!! I would add in a third point. Strickland has a previous history of being attacked and injured by violent socialist thugs in the city of Portland that would demonstrate a fear for his safety.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @InMyImage Off duty and retired LEO Witnesses pointed out that the initial confrontation happened in the vicinity of two government buildings, both of them lined with security Cameras. You can’t get much more impartial as a third party than that. part of the problem stems from the judge, who at the time was attempting to use gag orders to control what evidence was allowed in court. This has become an increasingly common tactic by activist judges and prosecutors who use it as a means of threatening criminal liability if you attempt to say anything contrary to their rulings. Sadly, even… Read more »

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Didn’t realize there were gov’t cameras with video available in addition to the videos I watched taken by a protester taken from the side and behind where you could clearly see the tough guys advancing on him and clearly hear them threatening him. I just started carrying when I venture out infrequently (bit of a hermit thanks to a spinal cord injury) and have wondered just how I would react in a similar situation. When I saw the video I thought it seemed like a good example for me in a real life situation and sincerely hope he is able… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Unfortunately, very few people know about this outside of the people who were there that day, like the above mentioned LEO’s. The Problem is that it would not be hard to obtain video evidence for a case like this, and it is almost for certain that had a murder occurred where surveillance camera’s might have caught footage the police and court would be asking for all relevant video footage. So why did the judge not do that, allowing the prosecutor to bring up “Testimony” from the protestors stating Strickland was the aggressor? Consider the judges actions throughout this entire case.… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    A judge refusing to admit exculpatory evidence into the record is grounds for remanding on appeal. If Oregon’s appellate court has any judicial credibility at all it will rule not only in Strickland’s favor, but censure the judge in the harshest of terms as well. I think that’s why the judge only sentenced Strickland to 40 days in jail; he figured Strickland and his supporters would let it go at that. Liberal thugs do that: They overplay their hand to make the most cockamamie decisions imaginable, and then hope no one will be principled enough to call them on it.… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    +1

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    This is true, but I am not sure this is what really happened in court. I think the Judge merely ruled that all the other videos were just redundant because they all show the same thing. At any rate, the appellate courts are good and will take a fair look at this.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Really? Just like the Ninth Circus is fair? Surely your comment ranks up there in the top of sarcastic remarks.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    In a day and age where city’s are demanding police departments issue body camera’s because “Video does not lie”, it seems strange that a judge would place video under a gag order to prevent any public viewing AFTER THE TRIAL.. Even more so, opting to silence and seal video in favor of unreliable word of mouth testimony from a violent police officer….. Oh wait, I’m sorry, that is the normal headline for a city like Portland.. We are not talking about police, we are talking about one of the racist idiots who was attacking Strickland, was the first one to… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    All the other videos do not show the same thing; they were taken from different vantage points by different people at different times in the melee. Every video in existence that pertains to this alleged crime is pertinent and cannot lawfully be rejected by the Court. This is why I wonder where the heck the defense attorneys were? Why were they missing in action? They should have challenged every cockamamie order of that judge on the record to establish adequate cause for appeal.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @InMyi, I wonder if so called carry insurance covers it at all. This is not a shooting incident.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Very good point. It would seem to be a significant area of risk for CC which definitely would fit into any evaluation of the various major carriers out there, especially the NRA plan.

    Would be interesting to see if one of the contributors here could get some info on this even if they had to quote “anonymous sources”

    Bill N.
    Guest
    Bill N.

    There was an incident in NY where a plane was diverted to JFK from Philly and a passenger was arrested for having his carry weapon in his luggage, He was arrested trying to get back on to continue to Philly when he declared he had a weapon in his checked luggage. USCCA helped with over 10,000 in legal fees. Hope this helps and I don’t get jumped on for it. The incident was covered in their magazine.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Slightly different Scenario there Bill, but no one is, or should, jump on you for that. By the way, excellent reference to a good “Mens Rea” case.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Definitely expect that situation would be covered by carry insurance, my question was really whether they would cover any appeals after an actual conviction

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Remember that most of the “carry insurance” outfits make a clear distinction that they are NOT “insurance.” They operate under different rules in order to avoid the limitations and liabilities of insurance companies.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Can’t say for sure regarding the carry insurance, but I have experience in using some of that type of insurance and the answer is generally no, they will not. However, if a conviction is set aside and returned to the district court for retrial the insurance SHOULD cover that legal proceeding even if for the second time (because technically it is the same, original trial proceeding). But placing any faith whatsoever in insurance carriers paying what they SHOULD pay is a suckers bet usually.

    Ron
    Guest
    Ron

    What happened to ANY of the THUGS that were threatening him on TAPE? Were ANY of them arrested and if not, why not? Love to see more about the whole story and if anything else was done the day he was arrested

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    There were a shitload of protestors arrested that day, but I don’t know if any of the arrests specifically related to this encounter or not. Very well could have, I just don’t know. But it would have to be for something much more substantial that the yelling at Mike. Absent some other verifiable indication of means and intent, the mere yelling of aggressive statements does not meet the legal threshold. It is a good thing actually. Just think how many folks would be in jail and be felons for off the cuff remarks like “you should be shot for that”… Read more »

    TheGunnyRet
    Guest
    TheGunnyRet

    Might want to check on OR State law on Judicial misconduct and not the discretions and file against the Judge. You can do that against Federal Jurists under US Code. So I would only think there is State Statute as well.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @TheGunnyRet. What? Gunnery Sgts never retire! They just find someone else to “fix”.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Yes, similar accountability is available at state and local levels but there is no judicial misconduct here. Just because you don’t like the verdict or approve of a judge’s decisions do not constitute misconduct. Even mistakes by judges are not misconduct. They are human after all. This is way we have a system of guaranteed appeal. Judicial review by a higher court is fundamental in reviewing all “matters of law” (i.e. legal procedure) and it actually works quite well. This is a rather simple case to appeal. Pretty straight forward arguments and very likely can be decided with just legal… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Baloney. A judge, after hearing voir dire of all potential jurors hears that only TWO believe citizens have a right to carry for self defense. That judge then refuses a change of venue. That judge has now put the defense in the position of only one recourse, let the judge hear the case. Misconduct? Of the grossest kind imaginable, setting up a situation where HE is the only place left to turn. That is NOT justice or how the system is designed to work.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Not sure what you are saying here. It was Strickland and counsel that decided to go with a bench trial sometime during the voir dire process. The judge had nothing to do with that decision. It is not a decision for the judge to make. A felony trial is guaranteed a jury trial unless waived by the defendant.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Except when a judge makes a jury trial an unattainable option through jury pool selection, rebuffs defense councils requests for dismissals of biased jurors, or a change of venue. hence the kangaroo court allegations made here.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    When a judge mislabels a victim as a possible Counter Protester to set the bail at $250 thousand when he knows exactly who he is because of Mike Strickland’s youtube channel criticizing several Portland officials including within the court system….. That’s Judicial Misconduct. When the Judge places gag orders on video evidence that he doesn’t want to be publically seen in spite of the fact that everything was video taped and shows exactly what had happened contrary to what any biased or malicious witness could say to lie about the situation….. That’s Judicial misconduct. When you allow a Jury to… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    “Guaranteed appeal” only occurs in capital murder cases. Nothing is guaranteed otherwise. And here is an interesting ‘Catch-22’ when it comes to appeal of a lower court: The appeal starts out with a presumptive 85% in favor of the lower court’s ruling, yet the purpose of appeal is to mitigate errors of law. And sometimes the Appellate Court won’t even take the appeal if the defense did not take exception to the error of law at the time it occurred. OTOH, the Bar Association will not censure a judge for making the most egregious, obvious errors of law: They will… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Again, perhaps Oregon differs than Idaho, but here you are guaranteed an appeal if you file within 42 days. Your appeal may not last long if you don’t have a strong argument, but you are guaranteed the opportunity to appeal and have it reviewed by a higher court. They may toss it upon first read if it doesn’t have merit, but it will get looked at. I suspect it is the same in Oregon. Perhaps, you are thinking of “guaranteed appeal” in terms or oral arguments to the appellate justices. If so, they you are correct. Not every appellate case… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Do you know if Strickland hired his own counsel? Seems like he did rather than use the PD, but I don’t remember for sure. But, in general, you are right. A bad, lazy or indifferent lawyer can really hose your chances of a successful appeal. Are you an attorney yourself or otherwise work in the court system. You definitely have some inside baseball knowledge. For things to rise to the level of judicial misconduct or bar censure, it has to be SOOOO obvious as to be undeniable. You’re right – bad rulings by judges by themselves are rarely sufficient to… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    The Second comment did not show up on my browser yesterday evening, so it may have been under moderation, otherwise I would have addressed it then.

    For those interested, see the very large comment up at the top of the page quoting Oregon Law. It clearly shows what is an undeniable amount of evidence against the Judge Thomas Ryan’s actions in this case.

    Darkman
    Guest
    Darkman

    Tar and Feathers and a ride outta town on a rail. Sounds like a little Ol Fashion justice is needed here for those who don’t care to follow the Bill of Rights.

    RV Gamble
    Guest
    RV Gamble

    Well…..now that he’s a convicted criminal, he won’t be hampered by infringing gun laws. At least the criminals in N Cal carry, conceal anytime and don’t seem to be paying a penalty with the liberal judges here? Sad!

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    This judge needs to be corrected by the appellate court, and needs it badly. Strickland’s attorneys are keeping him out of prison, except for weekends. That is good. Strickland needs to be exonerated so that he can keep his Civil Rights. That would be good. If the appellate court finds that he was wrongfully convicted there should be some $$ in it for him. That is good. And finally, if successful, his attorneys should be eligible for Equal Access to Justice fees. And that would be good.

    DrSique
    Guest
    DrSique

    One of the things not mentioned that overturning this sham case on appeal would do is remove the precedence that has been established. If this conviction is allowed to stand, even with the light sentence, tyrannical jurists will feel emboldened to continue their attack on the civil rights of law abiding citizens. Their mission to silence and intimidate will advance and any push back will become more difficult to achieve. The far left has been advancing their agenda while conservatives were sitting by, hopeful to just be left alone. We must fight back and regain every inch of freedom lost… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    +1 to both of your comments WildBill and DrSique

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    There is no precedence set until the appellate ruling — and if the appellate ruling goes in favor of the defense, it often carries a rider stating that it is not to be cited in any other controversy.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    +1

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    It very well may be set aside by an appellate court, but you seem to misunderstand what that actually means. It would not mean he is exonerated at all. It just merely set aside the verdict and return the matter to the trial court at which point the prosecutors make a decision about whether to try it again or not. Oftentimes they do not. An appeals court NEVER actually convicts or acquits anybody – only a trial court can do that. Appellate courts review matters of law only.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Which should (but does not) bring the prohibition against double jeopardy into play.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    But they can overturn Convictions, which means that any condemnation of criminal act or intent in a legal sense goes along with that. Overturning a conviction reverts an individual to a pre trial state. The second option the appeals court can issue is to order a retrial and remove the interfering judge from the picture the second time around. Another method would be if the Federal justice system believes a civil right to have been violated as part of the trial proceedings, then the Government can interfere directly with the state case. So in essence, overturning a conviction on grounds… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    It seems this reply to me is meant to challenge or refute what I said when it actually agrees with and restates what I wrote. You spiced it up by speculating that the appeal would be successful in full or in part due to “judicial misconduct”. That is a whole lot of wishful thinking on your part. It certainly is theoretically possible that misconduct is a factor, but it is not at all likely. An error in law by a judge in no way equates to misconduct. In Idaho, a appellate vacate returns the matter to the same court it… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Your first comment was partially right, which was acknowledged. The second Comment is therefore also partially correct, but still attempts to spin away from fact. The line between error and misconduct is mens rea. A judge cannot create or substitute his own opinion for law. When unknowingly done, this may constitute simple error, but a judge when sentencing in a bench trial in place of a jury has the same obligation to look at the exact wording of the law before ruling and therefore judge according to the law. When the Law is in clear, unarguably stated, then ignoring settled… Read more »

    Bud
    Guest
    Bud

    It happened in Oregon and an non elected federal judge made the ruling. That explains a lot.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Bud, Are you sure that it was a federal judge. How did this get into federal court? Why would a federal judge have jurisdiction over this case? In not a federal judge, but rather a local judge, then elect someone else. If a county prosecutor, then elect someone else. But how to fire those cops…

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    This was an elected Judge. We need to be very careful on how and if we judge Strickland. It’s easy for us to make judgements from the comfort of our homes. Strickland has a lot to weigh, namely that he could face 50 years in prison if he gets a new trial and things go horribly wrong. He’s in an anti-gun area both Judge and jury wise. I believe it best if we don’t second guess him, just support him no matter what he chooses to do, he’s one of us.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    It is not a federal matter. The Judge is an elected district court judge. This is basically boiler plate regurgitation of a scripted talking point.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    That was a contradiction in terms, Jim: If he is a “District Court Judge” then he is a federal court judge. If he is a State Court Judge then he is a Superior Court Judge. From all indications I see, he is the latter.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Perhaps Oregon uses different titles. In Idaho they would be called District judges. The semantics are not important. The case is in Oregon’s 4th Judicial District. The transcript (excerpt below) doesn’t specify the judge’s proper title. It refers to them as “judicial officers”

    06/12/2017 Notice – Amended Appeal

    06/19/2017 Notice – Withdrawal of Attorney

    06/22/2017 Letter – Appearance

    06/27/2017 Hearing

    Judicial Officer
    Ryan, Thomas M

    Hearing Time
    08:45 AM

    Result
    Held

    Comment
    Request to modify TSI rescheduling
    Parties Present

    Plaintiff: State of Oregon

    Deputy District Attorney: Molina, Kate

    Defendant: Strickland, Michael Aaron

    freewill
    Guest
    freewill

    what part of “freedom of the press “does that leftist judge not understand?

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    That comment is so off-base. Freedom of the Press has less than zero to do with this. There are plenty of real issues to focus on. Don’t go down non-sequitur rabbit holes.

    Eaglesnester
    Guest
    Eaglesnester

    Shame Shame on the judge. He failed to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. The judge needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    In most State Courts you can be held in contempt if you mention the U.S. Constitution more than once because the judge will warn you against doing it again when you do it the first time. It is a judicial maxim that the U.S. Constitution does not come into play in a State criminal matter until all State appeals are exhausted. (I think that is flat wrong on the face of it, but that is the current procedure.)

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Jeff Knox Glad to see you having updated this finally, and hopefully it will end some of the stupidity on the February article now. Having followed and read up on this case since August 2016, this should be of help to those who do not do in depth research before firing their tongues. That said, I think there is only two issues within the entire article…… “The prudent thing for him to do would be to just do his time and move on with his life. It’s easy for keyboard warriors to talk about the courage of one’s convictions, but… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    As an Addendum, before an inevitable moron tries to pick a fight over my legal explanation, let me give some examples. “Reasonable expectation of fear of bodily harm or loss of life” On a street at night, a man is approaching holding a knife in hand with his face shadowed by a sweat jacket. He ignores your orders to stop and advances towards you. You do not have to wait for him to raise the knife to strike or plunge it into you to draw and defend yourself. At home, a male is climbing in through a window he just… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    I think you are being a little too harsh on Jeff. I certainly did not get the impression that he was suggesting that “The prudent thing for him to do would be to just do his time and move on with his life. It’s easy for keyboard warriors to talk about the courage of one’s convictions, but it’s different when it’s your neck in the noose.” To the contrary, he was suggesting, correctly, that some people would regard that as the prudent thing to do. He followed it up by pointing out that Strickland rightly elected to continue standing up… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    I don’t believe Jeff was saying roll over. As I stated above I think he believes as I do, Strickland is in a very tough position, take this verdict and try and have it expunged later or risk a new trial and the possibility of 50 years?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Vanns40 and Donald Cline. I am not denying that Jeff has pointed out that Strickland has elected to continue pursuing his options. I just went back and slowly re-read the article twice just to make sure I didn’t misunderstand him the first time I read it twice through earlier. Having done that, re-read the paragraph immediately preceding that quote, followed by the quote itself. When you combine that with the phrasing of “The Prudent thing to do….” the way it is written is Mr. Knox is stating his opinion on the matter while criticizing others(Keyboard Warriors) for taking an… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Good reply, excellent points. I’ve thought about this a lot and the conclusion I’ve reached, if it were me…….I can’t reach a conclusion. There are so many variables here including the main one being do I, now, at this very moment, pretty much stay on the outside, with my physical freedom (and a felony conviction ) and use every resource at my disposal to fight this injustice OR, do I risk a new trial knowing for a fact that: 1. During the first voir dire questioning, only TWO potential jurors, out of the entire pool thought it acceptable to carry… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Vanns40 That was a well thought out response, and exactly what I was getting at. For each person the conclusion may be different. For me as I stated to Mr. Knox, it is not in me to bow before any man. Even if they locked me away, I would be doing everything I could to restore my name and make the judges life as close to unlivable as possible by whatever means necessary, interviews, letters, biographies. For me, Patrick Henry’s words(Attributed) “Give me Liberty or give me death” aren’t just words that were uttered over 200 years ago. The only… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    @Rev: I believe you’ve misinterpreted Jeff’s intent. It happens.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Vanns40

    I have already addressed this, in my previous comment from last night. He may not have intended to do so, but if that is the case then it was a very poorly written segment and Mr. Knox is free to clarify that. Intent versus what is written or done are two different things and we must be careful not to use intent as an excuse for action.

    How many times have we heard those on the left offer the reason that their intentions are well meaning and should count when considering their actions and the ramifications?

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    As something of a writer myself, I recognize what Jeff was doing was proving to his less than pro-gun readers that he is reasonable by recognizing what the average precious little snowflake and liberal airhead would say, which we have heard here in several different ways. He was proving to them he was reasonable so they would continue reading long enough to get to his point. Repeating myself, “As something of a writer myself,” I don’t do that often enough: I state the rock-hard principle at the outset and let the average precious little snowflake deal with it. Jeff makes… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Donald L. Cline

    Except…

    We should not engage in the same practices that we condemn in others of different view. Whether the snowflakes will melt or not, I care little about. Just remember, Neville Chamberlain tired to show Hitler how reasonable he was which sold out Czechoslovakia, and endangered Poland which fell shortly after, plunging us into the Second World War. Self justification always has a habit of coming round to bite you in the backside.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    also, Write not right. Windows 10 Autofill claims another victim.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    This is overly dramatic and quite a stretch, “….and denying him a claim to his unalienable right to Life…”. But onto some of the valid points that you, and others, make within this thread. First, this is a state felony conviction that can both be expunged/sealed and also can, and usually do, with restoration of rights upon petition. I know Oregon restores voting rights upon successful completion of probation and some time. Also, Oregon has (going from memory here) something like a 5 year waiting period after which you can have your gun rights restored. If Stickland keeps his nose… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    And lying down and rolling over in the face of abject tyranny is why this judge and other adam henries like him get away with the crap they get away with. No, Strickland should not bend over and take it. He should claim his right to be secure from the Rule of Man our nation was founded to constrain under the Rule of Law.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @DLC, Yep, Strickland had a Constitutional Right to be in a public place, and a Constitutional Right to remain unmolested. The crowd had an obligations to leave him alone. Jim and the other libs can not get past that.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    In my best Morpheus voice, “What if I told you that everybody that disagrees with you is not a “lib” …” It kills me that is the go to straw man you all cling to. BTW: Registered Republican but am really more libertarian. I just have a habit of actually analyzing things and judging them against whatever the law happens to be – not merely judging against what I think the law SHOULD BE. I don’t mind calling out error wherever I see it. And I don’t like trouble makers. I took an early retirement and thought about becoming a… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    In my best Morpheus voice, “What if I told you that everybody that disagrees with you is not a “lib” …”

    It kills me that is the go to straw man you all cling to.

    BTW: Registered Republican but am really more libertarian. I just have a habit of actually analyzing things and judging them against whatever the law happens to be – not merely judging against what I think the law SHOULD BE. I don’t mind calling out error wherever I see it.

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    for some reason, I don’t get the Reply option on some of the actual comments so I will try and address them here. Morpheus is a late 90s movie character and that is a famous line from a germane scene whether he is trying to show the other character that there is another way of viewing things other than what we think we know and see. I don’t think critical thinking and having high expectations for personal responsibility are “liberal thoughts” at all. In fact, I would argue exactly the opposite. Liberals rely more on emotion and typically care less… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I agree. I was not advocating at all that he should forgo his appeal. I was commenting on the over-the-top description in the previous comment. It was grossly overstated.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim if you are not a liberal, why do you express all those liberal thoughts. I don’t think that you measure the facts by the law very well. You write that you do, but you have not demonstrated that so far. Who is Morphus? Why is he relevant, to this discussion?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill

    Morpheous from the movie “The Matrix”

    Laughable at best, since he more closely resembles “Mouse”

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Jim When a judge decides to tell someone when and where he may or may not feel in danger for his life when the situation did not end in a pulling of the trigger, and the person being judged is the one being assaulted, yes the judge is infringing on rights connected to the unalienable right to life. Let me spell it out perfectly for you. There are places in this country that restrict what tools you may have outside your home for self protection. Does your right to life end as soon as you step over the threshold… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    Dude – stop thinking you know what I think and stop misrepresenting what I have said. I never once said that Strickland is “a violent criminal mastermind” nor do I think that. I do think he was an immature idiot that made some bad decisions and does bear some responsibility for his own predicament, but that is a very far cry from “a violent criminal mastermind”.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Jim, Why is exercising his Constitutional Rights making a bad decision?

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Wild Bill

    Because Jim seems to think that exercising rights is deliberate provocation. Also, apparently oblivious to sarcasm and satire since he did not make the correlation between his belief that Mike Strickland provoked violence through attendance. Apparently, your reply is also a symptom of PMS according to Jim. Maybe that means you are a criminal mastermind too with violent feminist tendencies.

    Jimmy-O
    Guest
    Jimmy-O

    My God, that victim did NOTHING wrong. Those thug punks should of ALL be shot DEAD!! This man actually deserves a god damned medal, not a crappy conviction and ruin and take away his 2nd Amendment rights!! This is so wrong on all levels. This country is so fucked up, I am so disgusted with the pukes on the Left.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    And the idiot has arrived. Mike Strickland did the right thing by not firing, in case you were unaware. You don’t have a right to “shoot someone (Or all) dead” just because you disagree with them or find them disgusting. Mike Strickland used the correct amount of force to insure his safety, and that is why what has happened because of the Judge in this case is inexcusable. Ease up on the caffeine, and remember that the things you post online can be presented in court to show “Intent.”

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    I think some folks on here want to go back to the Wild West way of doing things. The guy you replied to doesn’t seem to realize that you cannot fire until someone is actually in the progression of a bodily assault upon your person. If the other person had swung a bat for Mike Strickland’s head (this is predicated on the fact that Mr. Strickland avoided the blow) Mr. Strickland would have had every right to fire his weapon. By that time the intent is clear. As the case was, he was in danger, and was trying to extricate… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    VE Veteran The standard is to use only the amount of force necessary to repel an attack or clear a route to safety. You don’t have to wait until someone actually hits you if they are walking toward you with a knife in their hand and ignoring your command to stop. Likewise, no one is allowed to shoot someone who just sucker punched them and did nothing else, issuing no further attack. This was a point I made back during the Martin Zimmerman incident. Had Martin left it at one punch the shooting would have been unjustified even though Martin… Read more »

    Jim
    Guest
    Jim

    I believe you are right and that is exactly one of the main decision points in the trial. The Judge ruled (and I actually think correctly) that Mike was not in the imminent danger and still had the opportunity and means of egress. There are other issues that I think are good appeal subjects, but I actually think Mike was unnecessarily premature in pulling his weapon. And he absolutely did point and sweep the crowd and did not keep it at the low ready as the author states. Mike doesn’t have clean hands here. I am wondering and do believe… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Jim No, you don’t agree with me. Here is why. The judge cannot rule according to the law whether or not someone is in “imminent danger”. The rule of law is whether or not a person would have a reasonable belief that they were in danger of fatal or grievous bodily injury based on the circumstances. Since no shot was fired, it also removes rulings for negligence. Second, since he was being pursued while trying to remove himself from the area, there is no “Unnecessarily” about the situation. Just because you don’t agree with the factual evidence of the case.… Read more »

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Didn’t you mean “Wild West Gunfighters did ‘NOT’ intentionally pick fights”? If not, then the sentence does not jibe with the very next sentence. Just a typo, I’m sure.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Good Catch Donald, yes there was supposed to be a “Not” in there. My computer has been all screwed up ever since the last big update. I’ve already had to do system restore procedures twice, and for some reason there is an auto correct/auto-fill feature in place now that I have been unable to turn off. It’s aggravating as all get out.

    Good catch again, and thanks for pointing that out so it could be corrected.

    Donald L.. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L.. Cline

    You do not have to wait for an adam henry to swing a bat at your head. You have only to wait until he is within range of your head and cocks the bat ready to swing it. You don’t even need to wait that long if his confederate is flanking you ready to attack from the side or behind. At that point you defend yourself or you are dead, and airheaded boffins in black robes be damned.

    InMyImage
    Guest
    InMyImage

    Deadly Force: In Oregon a person cannot use deadly physical force (i.e., with a firearm) unless he or she reasonably believes that the other person was (1) committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; (2) committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or (3) using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against defendant or another person. UCrJI No. 1108. It is important to note that one felony involving the “use of physical force” is Assault in the Third Degree. Assault III is… Read more »

    hippybiker
    Guest
    hippybiker

    I’m glad I live in Florida. We have a strong stand your ground law that is been continuously reinforced by our legislators.
    I’m going to try to donate something to the fund for Mike.

    george
    Guest
    george

    That was easy, just went to the link in the article and gave, 2nd time I have. I pray that it will help. don’t think about it too much, when someone who you believe is wronged and they ask for help, reach into your wallet and give, if only five dollars, it shows solidarity, which we know we need to overcome this evil.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ George

    Know you didn’t do it for recognition, but thanks anyway. In the long run, that may end up being the best way we have of fighting the often fraudulent litigation by those on the left.

    Donald L. Cline
    Guest
    Donald L. Cline

    Thank you. I hope everyone does. At the risk of repeating myself, this cannot be allowed to stand.

    Gregory Peter DuPont
    Guest
    Gregory Peter DuPont

    Moral of the story: Don’t quit. I hope his appeal picks up speed.

    James Andrews
    Guest
    James Andrews

    Exactly. He shouldn’t have been charged with anything period. He was grossly outnumbered by a bunch of violent thugs. BLM is a terrorist organization!