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.

  • 272 thoughts on “Update on Portland Crime of Self-Defense Case ~ Mike Strickland

    1. 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 most acute threat they face is the possibility that somebody in the crowd might be armed. Mr. Strickland is lucky he didn’t end up shot by the police at the demonstration he attended. The police don’t have time to figure out who’s threatening who, nor should they care. If they had arrived on the scene at the very moment Mr. Strickland was pointing his gun in the direction of his attackers, they would almost certainly be justified in shooting him on the spot. In fact, I suspect that would be the required procedure.

      Theres no question but that Mr. Strickland’s right to attend, and make video recordings of these events, has been repeatedly violated by thugs who also attend, and who are looking for any excuse to intimidate and assault otherwise peaceful participants. He needs to recruit people willing to stand with him and physically protect him if threatened. He should also have at least one person in a position to surreptitiously record video of his interactions with those around him, so those who do interfere with his rights can be identified and prosecuted. Last but not least, he should go to the Portland Police, explain what he’s doing, and ask them for a protocol for requesting their help if he is threatened.

      The fact is, Mr. Strickland’s work has and will continue to provide irrefutable evidence as to the identity of the chronically violent element on the Left who’s goal it is to incite violence at these demonstrations, and in particular, provoke violent confrontations with police. I would think that a respectful request for their help managing this situation would be well received, once they are assured he has no intention of bringing weapons with him as he covers these ongoing attempts by the Left, and the racist/terrorist organizations known as “Black Lives Matter” and “ANTIFA”, to provoke violent conflict in the public spaces of this nation.

      1. 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 there containing the riot and controlling the area, not leaving the rioters free to attack someone they didn’t want recording their activities.

        Mr. Strickland was fully within his rights and the judge that convicted him and gave him a ‘light sentence” (designed to send the message that the exercise of fundamental rights will not be tolerated in Portland) should be disbarred for malfeasance and perjuring his oath of office.

    2. 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 were not discussed. As previously disclosed, I have been sitting on this from the beginning, saving it while leading you around by the nose hairs. Lets face it, I pretty much put a leash and collar on you and walked you around the room to let you build yourself up to this(Remember I talked about moral superiority that you were attempting?). Was it nice? No. Was it merciful? No, it was down right vicious of me to do that. What I am about to do is completely obliterate any credibility you were hoping to have here, every last bit of being an “Intellectual” thinker, and every last piece of moral superiority you hoped to have here. And what is more, I’m going to do it completely devoid of all opinion because I know it is going to burn your buns that you let yourself be outsmarted by a “Binary minded punk.” Just being honest for the sake of Full Disclosure.

      You, in your first days here, roughly September 12th, 2017 did state your position in agreement with the Judge Thomas Ryan’s ruling that Michael Strickland did not engage in lawful self defense because he had other options. To which I quote

      Jim on September 12, 2017 at 12:30 PM did say
      “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.”

      It was the Judge’s opinion that Strickland Could not feel endangered based on the circumstances, those of which are
      1. Being outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by people who had sticks in hand, masks on many of their faces, one holding a burning object, and shouting threats.
      2. Being advanced upon by said individuals ignoring repeated statements that Strickland was armed and to stay back, continually shouting at him while trying to flank Strickland.
      3. Having been assaulted once already, having changed locations, and having been pursued by said individuals above.
      4. Having had a history of being violently attacked and physically injured by protestors(Of whom the DA did not press charges. AKA Skye Fitzgerald)

      Both you and the Judge have stated that because Mike could have left the rally, the entire situation was his fault, and therefore there is no claim of self defense(In your best Morpheous voice of course. Sorry, couldn’t resist a little bit of satire/sarcasm)

      Now let us look at what the law has said.
      First of all InMyImage is up, the man definitely did his homework for this case and was spot on.
      To quote him…..

      InMyImage did say on September 11, 2017 at 11:23 PM
      “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.”

      Citation
      https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_instruction/or-ucrji-no-1108-limitations-defense-of-person-deadly-physical-force/

      The key clause of this statute falls under provision A in regards to this case. To that end, in the same comment InMyImage also pointed out.

      “It is important to note that one felony involving the “use of physical force” is Assault in the Third Degree. Assault III is basically the act of being assaulted by more than one person, which makes a normal intentional or knowing misdemeanor assault a felony. ORS 163.165(e).”

      So we have now established that the judge is already at fault with the law since the video of the Protestors who where holding what legally qualify as “Clubs” or “bludgeons” were shouting to “Get him!” along with testimony at trial admitting to a plan to use violence against Michael Strickland. But it goes further.

      On March 29th, 2007(03-29-07), the Oregon Supreme Court did rule that individuals are under no authority to have a “Duty to retreat” when faced with violence. In the case of State of Oregon v. Sandoval the Court ruled that..

      “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to “retreat”, “escape,” or “other means of avoiding” a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.”

      and they further went on to say…..

      “The court’s analysis did not focus on or even consider the words of the statutes that we now recognize to be pivotal.” and “We conclude, in short, that the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of ORS 161.219: The legislature did not intend to require a person to retreat before using deadly force to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force by another.”

      So, the entire impetus for the Judges ruling, and the basis of your argument that because Michael Strickland Attended the rally, had the opportunity to leave and go home, or stay at home, is at odds with every level of a reading of the law and legal precedent within the state of Oregon. A judge may not rule out self defense because there is an avenue of retreat anywhere in the state of Oregon because it is at odds with the State law and Constitution. The fact that it does not state “Stand your Ground” also has no bearing here because the Supreme Court of Oregon was explicitly clear. Your entire argument was based from the very beginning on a lie, which despite having been pointed out amply enough to you, you have attempted to further and refer to others as binary thinking, or lacking in intelligence for refusing to agree with you. Those who have actually studied the case, and the law itself know what we are talking about. It’s not binary, it’s just based on fact. The judge screwed the pooch. Period. Jim(you) stepped into it by not taking the time to actually look up the case, instead opting to BS your way through it argument to argument with whatever he felt might give him an upper hand.

      The truth is, every single part of your stupidity is entirely your own fault.
      1. The fact that you argued against the video evidence
      2. The fact that we had to get you to admit there was a gag order on the video at all(Twice before you finally got it right)
      3. You’re failure to look up the actual law while attempting to as you put it “seize grandeur” on the back of the law despite not knowing square one about Oregonian law.
      4. Repeatedly bashing the victim in spite of his actions by the very definition of the law been completely legal.
      5. Getting offended at others for calling out the Judge for Violating the law at every step of the trial from indictment to sentencing.
      6. Talking about how righteous you are compared to all us buffoons when you felt that no one in the room was smart enough to oppose you.

      Indeed, it is your own over inflated ego that led you to this point. Personally, I doubt you will read the entire comment. I also doubt that you will have the courage to reply directly below this. Instead you will spam another comment to push this down further along the line and hope people miss it. You think I don’t know you? I’ve read you like a book this entire time. Like you said, “Some people aren’t capable of Conversation. They are just here trying to get an echo chamber.” Take a look in the mirror buddy, and as you do think on this.

      I personally don’t care if you read this entire thing or not. I do however know that there will be other people who will, and I also know that you know that from this point on they are going to be laughing at Mr. High and Mighty Jim talking about how smart he is as he made an irreparable fool of himself. I could care less if you are a Republican or a Democrat. What matters to me is that you based your position on a lie that you wanted to become the accepted truth. By your actions I know you, and no claim of being a gun owning card carrying whatever can salvage that for you.

      As a final piece of advice, I wish to paraphrase Mr Mark Twain. “You never have to remember anything when you tell the truth.” Next time, don’t base your entire premise on a lie and build up from there.

      I believe that is Checkmate, and goodnight.

      1. 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, I baited him, played the part of the idiot to string him along, but he chose to follow. His actions from here will define him. Enjoy

      2. 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.

        1. @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 me that original intent, straight reading of the law, and factual evidence always win over Opinion.

          As for Judge Thomas Ryan, the law was clear and he by every definition violated it to achieve the ruling he issued. Vanns40 brought up the Voi Dire issue, InMyImage raised the case of Defense by way of felony definition, Wild Bill pointed out 6th Amendment violations…. It has not been just me, so please don’t give me the credit. All I have been doing is playing games with a few trolls who needed a lesson on not misjudging the intelligence of others.

          I will say that since the Sandoval Case happened in 2007, Portland as a city has had a long history both before and after of trying to find ways to get around state and constitutional law for reasons of political ideology. An action could be brought for a civil rights case I believe because of the issues surrounding the sixth amendment and the way the Jury selection was handled, the judges actions limiting the defense to opt for a bench trial by way of default, as well as a few other small details. The kicker though is that the Attorney General’s office in the Justice department would have to start the proceedings, and combined with the turmoil there and the bias in the news media preventing any widespread and honest coverage of this case I doubt that will happen. The question of should it happen is a resounding yes. The only thing that will change these situations is if we give some teeth to punishment of judges who violate or ignore the law whether for ideology or empathetic reasons(Siding with a non deserving party in civil suits), hold them liable both criminally and civilly, and allow victims of judicial miscreants(Fraudulent DA’s included) to have their assets open to suit.

      3. 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 anything short of an apology to the group and admitting he messed up is just going to reflect poorly on himself the more he tries to argue his opinion.

        Time will tell.

      4. 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, but you have no first-hand knowledge of the trial. You admit not reading the transcripts. You are mostly regurgitating stuff you are finding on the internet from other partisans. Nothing wrong with that per se except when you start substituting your internet chat rooms that are brimming over with Constitutional scholars and legal experts (<–satire) for what really happened. You need to get over yourself.

        2. The fact that we had to get you to admit there was a gag order on the video at all(Twice before you finally got it right)
        There was no "gag order" and we already covered this. If you still think there was then you still don't know what a gag order is. You implied/believe that a "gag order" excludes evidence from trial. It does no such thing.

        3. You’re failure to look up the actual law while attempting to as you put it “seize grandeur” on the back of the law despite not knowing square one about Oregonian law.

        4. Repeatedly bashing the victim in spite of his actions by the very definition of the law been completely legal.
        Again, just your opinion. It seems law enforcement, DAs, and a Judge disagree with you about being "perfectly legal". Opinion, no matter how passionate, do not make reality. You are clearly a partisan (that is not an insult) and you are lobbying vociferously that you think he is innocent. OK-fine. But your opinion has no legal weight. Neither does mine. I asked you to source some of your claims about all this outlandish stuff you claim the Judge did (sans just more opinion articles). You have not. As such, anybody objectively evaluating your claims has cause to be suspect of them/you. So, I ask again. Do you have any sources (except other echo chambers). The trial transcript would be the most reliable one since it is a word for word recitation of what ACTUALLY was said and done in court. Next best, would be actual legal filings since lawyers cannot lie in official filings? If you do, please share them. If any of what you claim is even half true (this is not a given) then his conviction very well may be vacated and a new trial will (probably) happen.

        5. Getting offended at others for calling out the Judge for Violating the law at every step of the trial from indictment to sentencing.

        You confuse my hesitation to accept your evangelizing and recitation of chat room legal analysis as anything other than that as being offended.

        6. Talking about how righteous you are compared to all us buffoons when you felt that no one in the room was smart enough to oppose you.

        You should just stop thinking you know what others are doing. You are trying to do to me what you have done throughout – speculatively ascribing motive to the Judge, the witnesses, the DAs, the police (basically everybody). You have no first hand knowledge of anything. You were not present for any of the events you claim to know so much about. You did not witness (or read the transcript) of the trial. You probably have not read a single filing in the case. Again, this is the fundamental problem here. You are marketing your opinions as something far more than they really are.

        Until you can provide some sources for all your outlandish claims, there is nothing I can debate with you. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it real. Provide sources and then we can revisit this because until then it is just your narrative. It is simply not objective, verifiable, or complete and is therefore non credible at this point.

        1. @ 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 feel threatened since you agree with the judge? Do you deny that he was ganged up on by multiple individuals, some of whom were armed, some of whom donned masks, and one of whom can be seen on video rushing strickland before breaking away as strickland begins to go for his gun? If so, then yes you are arguing against video evidence.

          2. Lie number one occurs here(as in pertaining to your response.)

          Did you or did you not say at 5PM on September the 18th in reference to the “Order of seal” being lifted?
          “Here’s the actual case number for those who are inclined to objectively follow it. You can see that the “gag order” was lifted”

          Hmm, So there was never an order sealing the video to prevent it from being seen, but you made a comment to show it was lifted? Care to explain further?

          3. You combined your response to points three and four that you quoted me on, so lets look at that.

          As was quoted, Oregon Statutes pertaining to Jury instruction, the state constitution, and common law
          legal definition was given regarding the definition of felony assault and the laws on use of force for self defense in the state of Oregon. This was linked to an outside source with the proper Oregon code numbers. Further, The Oregon Supreme court was cited From the Sandoval case in 2007. These are Not OPINIONS. What is an opinion is your belief that these are opinions. They are settled law, whether you like it or not and my opinion was not weighed into it.

          Ok, second part here, you demanding court numbers. Fine. I can do that. However, if you can’t take a supreme court case by name with the date given and look it up your ownself, do you honestly expect to be taken seriously? I thought the law Codes would be enough for you to type in and see “Yep they are there.” Since that seems to be an issue for you, and since you want to order a transcript for what I am citing here you go. Oh, and it was heard before these justices, De Muniz (Chief Justice), and Carson, Gillette, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, and Walters.

          Supreme Court of Oregon.

          STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Leonard Contreras SANDOVAL, Petitioner on Review.
          (CC 01CR0641;  CA A119980;  SC S53457).
          Decided: March 29, 2007

          5. Still loving this. You are still hoping that by saying everything I have put up is opinion that it will discredit it. In this case you use the term evangelizing, but you are still hoping for the same effect. So how is citing directly to criminal code, legal statutes, or Supreme Court decisions “evangelization that is subject to suspicion”? Oh, thats right. It directly conflicts with your opinion that the judge “gave the right ruling of the law”, in spite of the FACT that he ignored Oregon Law which he himself is subject to.

          6. And caught another lie… The Irony of hypocrisy is hilarious.
          “You have no first hand knowledge of anything. You were not present for any of the events you claim to know so much about. You did not witness (or read the transcript) of the trial.”

          Aside from waiting to hear you cite where you claim I stated I did not read the transcript, boy that claim of not witnessing the trial in person…. Gee that sounds familiar! I seem to recall a certain person saying that it is possible for Strickland to report on things…. Many….. Differen’t….. ways… “Oh Crap! Wait! Football! Yeah football, you don’t have to be on the field in a jersey and helmet playing to know or report on the game!” Sound familiar? Isn’t it funny that the same person who would tell the rest of us that we don’t understand the situation that you are talking about because Mike Strickland was at fault for attending the rally in person would then turn around and tell us “How dare you talk about this case to me when you weren’t even there in person!” after his entire argument was made flatter than Tom Brady’s footballs from one little quote of a state Supreme Court case. How’s that for an Analogy! ROTHFLMAO

          Since this is you’re “Oh crap, I screwed up again” moment for this latest response I wish to offer you a quote by Mark Twain in the offhand chance that I maybe didnt share it with you before.

          “The great thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said.”

          You keep letting yourself get caught in these contradictions and lies because you have to keep adapting to each little bit you are fed. Thats why I have been able to lead you around like you are in a collar and leash as stated previously. Every time that little fishing lure is dangled in front of your face you sit up at attention and go “I Gotta bite it!!” as if on command. Having said that, I will now reiterate exactly what I said about the transcript you so desperately want to prove you are right with..

          The minute Judge Ryan stated his reason for his ruling and the case before him was based on “Strickland having an opportunity and means of ‘Egress’, and therefore not entitled to a ruling of self defense.”, a point to which I quoted you as having stated your 100% support and agreement with directly under this very article, the transcript of the case becomes irrelevant. My having read the transcript becomes irrelevant. Your holding the transcript up as a shield to try and restrict what is allowed to be said becomes irrelevant… Why? Because the minute judge Thomas Ryan made that ruling he was in violation of Oregon Constitutional law, settled Constitutional Law which was decided by the Oregon Supreme Court in 2007, and in which neither you nor judge Ryan’s opinion on whether or not it is correct matters in the least.. Period. That is not opinion, it is not up for discussion whether you like or agree/disagree with it. The Sandoval Case ruling under which all courts in the State of Oregon are subject to pertaining to state Constitution and legal statute is to quote “Under no circumstances in a case of self defense may a ‘Duty to retreat’ be implied or demanded pursuant to a lawful claim of self defense.” Again, to be clear, that is not my opinion so if you have a problem with it take it up with the Supreme Court of Oregon.

    3. 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.

      1. 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?

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

          1. 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

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

            3. 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 since the moment he started posting here… Whoops.. Looks like he did.

      2. 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?

    4. 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

      1. 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 of Strickland’s account of events, though they didn’t see the first assault(Again, video doesn’t lie)

        Another witness for the prosecution happened to be a multiple offense FELON who had a documented history of Lying, and shocking to all, was caught lying on the stand in court for this very trial.

        After the Judge Thomas Ryan’s attempts to Gag order the video to prevent it from being used in court, and being forced to lift the order after(More on this at the end. Hehe), the judge in the last seconds of the trial chose to admit a witness for the prosecution to counteract the defenses’ use of force witness without allowing the Defense to know about or to be vetted(see Voi Dire, and yes it pertains to witnesses not just jury’s) by the defense team. As the judge closed the trial, despite all the evidence stacked against the prosecution, the judge took only minutes to Find Strickland Guilty after the Shifty move he pulled with that final witness.

        Care to talk about any of that Jim? Maybe the “Witness” who was one of the attackers and was videotaped, and then later fingered by the cops as one of the people who claimed victim status by the police?

        In fact, here is a challenge for you. I want you to link to the full video here. That means the start to finish video that is now unsealed showing the initial confrontation. I want you to point to the exact time and second that Mike Strickland is trying to instigate an attack as you claim… My bet is you can’t do it! Prove me wrong.

        1. 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 the prosecutions case “Was a Cluster F….” and that the judge’s ruling to allow a “Surprise Witness” after the state had rested to be beyond weird. There is more behind this, but I’m not giving Jim any wiggle room right now. He hasn’t figured out yet that my tactic is slowly feeding out information, letting people who argue opinion instead of fact dig their own holes.

        2. 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 to understand what “under seal” means. Sealed evidence is not kept out of court. It usually means that (for many reasons) it is to be restricted to in-court use only – i.e. not some public consumption. It is beyond routine that they are lifted once a trial has concluded (unless they involve CHS identities, but that is another topic all together).

          I am happy to examine any and all claims you make above if you can source them. But, my whole point all along has been that if the Judge made all these egregious errors like you all claim then Strickland’s conviction will probably be set aside for possible retrial. Of course, it is possible that the Judge erred and, as such, Strickland deserves a new trial perhaps with a different judge. I want him to have a new trial if the trial court erred even though I think he is a flaming idiot. But all these unsubstantiated claims are not compelling without some actual evidence. So far, all I hear is a whole bunch of passionate opinions. Opinions are not evidence.

          Link me up with some sources if you wish to continue discussing any point by point matters. I am not holding my breath that you will, but I welcome the opportunity should you chose to.

          1. 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. Gag orders are meant to protect the credibility of an investigation, or jury selection, but they have found increasing favor with activist judges and DA’s who are trying to make them stick outside of their constitutional bounds. You already acquiesced to that argument when you said “Well the judge may have been limiting redundant video.” care to explain that one?

    5. 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 know enough and most of you do as well. This is the same pattern we pay witness to over and over again on televisions across our nation when we bother to turn it on. You’ve seen it when you watched a speech by Barrack Obama. You’ve heard it when listening to Hillary Clinton whine about how it is everybody elses fault she lost. Its crossed the lips of every socially advocating snowflake in hollywood that feels they are so important you should just believe everything they say as gospel!

      1. Deny
      2. Dismiss
      3. Destroy

      The three D’s ladies and gents. Deny first that there is full video evidence. When full video evidence is pointed out(Strickland’s) or an outside source for it to be obtained(The Government Buildings in the area) dismiss such evidence as “redundant.” Finally, character assassination. Maintain and push the idea that the victim is the villain, an evil mastermind with nefarious purposes. Mix in healthy doses of Straw man arguments, charlatan offense at the idea of being criticized for doing so when caught red handed, and a whole lot of alligator tears about why other people won’t just let you believe differently. Finally, claim to be a CCW holder and firearms rights supporter because you feel that should automatically silence any critique of your own incessant stupidity from people who have CCW’s or support the second amendment. Chill and serve

      That recipe gives you the Character known as Jim. Our wonderful little troll. Well, Jim, here is your sign. You have every right to be an idiot. You have a right to write about it online. However The rest of us in the real world also have a right to call you out for it. We have a right to call you out for posting a blatant lie. We have a right to point to a video which happens to completely obliterate your opinion and the judge’s entire reasoning behind the case. We have a right not to buy into your crap. Tough cookies, get over it. I’m not even going to tell you to shut up. I’m simply going to sit here and continue to laugh my butt off watching your futility in posting, hoping that you will somehow convince rational minded people to believe your lie, and to keep posting responses in complete and utter satirical condescension as I chuckle mirthfully. Trust me, I can keep going all year.

      So to the guy who thinks others don’t know what kind of person you are… Got you to trigger didn’t I? =D

    6. 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 is by suiting up and being on the field when so that you could talk to the O lineman when, in fact, the best way to cover a game is from the booth or the sidelines. How many news crews have you seen cover a riot or something from a helicopter or a news van some distance off? Hint – a lot. It is not necessary for them to be running with the rioters as they break windows to capture the story.

      1. 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 to take video… Duh! Seems like you have a problem with that though, as you have insisted Strickland should have been a good little boy and stayed home, then maybe reported on approved video given to him second hand.. After all, thats what you mean by another way to “Cover” the story. Even more laughable is the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a “Journalist” and a “Reporter.” But that is understandable after all since you have been unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy, or fact and your sad, laughable opinion.

        So please, continue to tell me to shut up all you want. You think that helps you out? You think that is making it look any less like a whiny little crybaby who is offended the mean people who keep pointing out contradictory evidence is in any better situation because he is now stomping his feet up and down trying to tell others to shut up? Boo… Freaking …. Hoo…. Oh Dear! What ever will the rest of us do!?

    7. @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 are redundant. This happens more in jury trials because they don’t want to unnecessarily prolong the trial and bore the jury. I plainly said that “MAY HAVE BEEN” what happened here. If there are indeed videos that show something different than those that were admitted into evidence than that is appellate gift on a silver platter and I would expect the appellate court to vacate the conviction and order a new trial. Strickland’s attorney(ies) are all over that one if it is true. This case has stirred a lot of passion, but in reality is not a complicated case at all. Trial judges don’t like to get overturned so are not likely to purposefully do something so blatantly wrong as you suggest that would almost certainly get tossed on appeal. I think there is a lot of conjecture being passed off as fact here. For instance, a gag order on the video evidence. The video is all over the damn internet. If there is a gag order, it is the worst gag order in the history of the world. In you would, please source that claim. I would like to follow up on it. Please only objective sources like actual court transcripts or similar and not just advocacy sites that have a dog in the fight

      1. 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. The laughable part however is the sheer level of obtuseness he exhibits being blind to the fact that his quote is exactly what he is doing! Time to take a look in the mirror princess.

        1. 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.

      2. @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?

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. 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

            2. 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.

      3. @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.

        1. 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.

          1. @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?

            1. 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.

            2. @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?

            3. @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 that dozens of people saw the fight happen or the accident happen. You will also find that all of them will not testify – because they have nothing new to add. This is an easy concept and one that is readily observable.

            4. @ 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 state may issue that the state has a number of witnesses testifying to the same AGAINST the defendant and have them admitted as one.

              That is what Wild Bill is getting at(I believe). It is straightforward, but does not help Jim in his argument. Should have dug deeper Jim. It just isn’t turning out to be your week.

            5. @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.

            6. @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.

          2. 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.

            1. @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 back when you are ready.

            2. 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.

            3. 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.

    8. 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.

        1. @ 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”

          1. 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.

          2. 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 on looting. It would be more effective to report on looting from some stand off distance. Same thing here. If Stickland intended to actually report on the march then his decision to crowd surf was a poor one.

            1. @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.

            2. @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.

        1. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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 brandishing or menacing laws. Maybe not convicted of a felony per se, but convicted none the less. Having a right to do something does not make it a good idea. His colossal failure of common sense cost him dearly. And, the fact of the matter remains that covering this Don’t Shoot PDX march did not require him to go into the crowd – that decision was entirely a function of his brand of provocation “journalism”. Journalists can cover an event from across the street or by walking behind or in front or ………

      He was a f’n idiot who broke every commandment of situation awareness. This whole thing irrates the living shit out me precisely because it is this sort of crap that makes my life as a CCW permittee and responsible gun owner more difficult. It is reckless, jumpy idiots that give other gun owners a bad reputation.

      We should not be so reflexive and fall into this trap of pure black and white thinking. Stickland effed up and we should admit it and hold him accountable. The crowd also behaved badly (mostly before what we see on the video). We must also face the realization, whether we like it or not, that if you carry you are going to be held to a higher standard. And we should be. The worst thing in the world for the gun rights community to do is to lower our standards and became laizze faire with every single moron that chooses to carry.

      1. @ 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 can’t deal with the simple reality that just because you don’t like the way something happened doesn’t mean it was illegal. Quite frankly, that is the difference. It is people like Mike Strickland who are targeted by idiotic bigoted thugs that the rest of us want to be empowered with CCW permits, not whiny little adolescents who throw a temper tantrum because the rest of civil society won’t acknowledge the bs they spew in an attempt to make themselves sound and feel morally superior.

        You claim to be worried about lowering standards to allow idiots to carry. Well why should you be when you are a prime recipient?

      2. @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 a reasonable doubt each and every element of each and every charge brought. This was not done.
        It is false that “we like it or not, that if you carry you are going to be held to a higher standard.” That would be an automatic and easy appeal.
        “Stickland effed up and we should admit it and hold him accountable.” Is circular logic. Nor would we ever make such an admission. That does not leave you with much.

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

          Same with situational awareness and common sense because it relates to mindset. It is sometimes fairly easy to distinguish between a truly random, shIt happens scenario and one precipitated by a serious of bad decisions. I do think Strickland made a series of bad decisions and, as such, does have to bear some personal responsibility for this situation.

          And one correction to something you state, I said that SOME in the crowd erred not THE CROWD in its entirety. It seems small but is an important distinction.

          1. 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?

    11. 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 how Oregon is with expungment proceedings. I think I read where Stickland does photography and videography for events like weddings and such. He can certainly continue doing that and there is a million other things he can do for employment. A lot of alternative media, would not care about this felony so if he really wants to keep doing this sort of journalism I suspect he will be able to. He didn’t have the skills to work in traditional media anyway so he is not really losing anything there.

      Anybody know what the appeals case number is? Or when it is to be taken up?

    12. 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 thread and on Ammoland that can carry on a conversation.

      1. 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 binary mode” Ad Hominem anyone?

        So, lets see which is the case. Up at the top of the page, I gave you a challenge. Still waiting to see if you answer it. Lets see, three quarters of an hour have already passed by. No response yet.

        1. 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 the truth and nobody else does ….. no need for any substantiation.

          Are you a tel-evangelist by any chance? If not, you should be. You’re pretty good at the shtick they use to get themselves really rich

          1. 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.

    13. 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 of all involved.

      1. @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?

        1. 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 of what they may do while exercising those rights. Nobody ever said Strickland could not report on the march nor did anyone way he could not carry a weapon since he had his CCW permit. Furthermore, nobody said that some folks in the crowd behaved exemplary and are without fault.

          Respectfully, if you cannot understand the distinction between rights and responsibilities and the concept of no freedom from consequences then we will just be talking past each other all day long. At this point, all I can really do is offer you analogies to illustrate these points and I have done so in other replies. It is a critically important that people understand this nuance. It really is the foundation of constitutional law – the progressive elaboration of just what things are protected as a right and just which things are not.

          A helpful quip that helps some people see this nuace is the saying that “one person’s rights end where another person’s begins and these matters are practically NEVER black and white.

          One quick analogy, about the interplay of a guaranteed Constitutional right in action – free speech. I hope we can agree that political advertising is protected free speech and that a politician yard sign is included. As such, I have a guaranteed right to place a yard sign if I wish BUT (and it is a big but) that exercise of my rights might bring consequences with it. One example, if I live in an HOA that prohibits signage like that. I can still place the sign, but I would not be immune from a fine the HOA may levy.

          1. 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 STILL HAS the right to post political signs in his front yard. RIGHTS cannot be abridged. However, by his signature on the HOA contract, he has delegated to the HOA the PRIVILEGE of evicting him if he does. It is clear to me this lack of understanding of the difference between rights and privileges informs Jim’s entire bogus argument: “Strickland didn’t have a right to video the demonstration;’ “Strickland didn’t have a right to stand his ground when threatened;” Strickland didn’t have a right to reveal his willingness to defend himself if attacked,” yada yada yada. What we have here, @Rev and others, is the liberal mindset that no one has any RIGHTS unless aggressively violent thugs authorize them. And the only reason aggressively violent thugs ‘authorize’ them is if their victim is armed — when is why liberals, including Judge Ryan want all guns to go away … except for their own, of course.

            1. @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.

            2. 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 wish and then go out into society and do stupid sh!t. Go ahead, flaunt your right without any regard of the attendant responsibilities whatsoever. Let me know how it works out for you.

              This is a general statement and not specific to anyone here:

              I am surprised and concerned at how (mostly right leaning, but some of all stripes for sure) folks have completely forsaken the idea of personal responsibility and accountability. It is just not the way I was raised, have lived my life or raised my kids. Blame shifting and obfuscation has taken the place of personal accountability. This is not a good trend.

            3. @ 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 at anytime. However, if you choose to remain in fantasy land, the pity pot is two doors down on the left.

          2. @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 of your freedom.
            If one harms me in the exercise of his God given, Constitution enumerated, pre political, civil Rights, then my recourse is to ask a court to make me whole by awarding me damages, but the various governments have no such recourse.
            Your analogy is fallacious and deceptive because it confuses a home owners association with government, and contract law with civil rights law.

            1. 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 to practice their religion and do one of those repugnant things they will find that their right does not shield them one bit. As an extreme example, honor killings and/or killing of non-believers. In this country our freedom of religion will not shield them at all from governmental preemption and governmental sanction along with the civil recourse you mention. The rule of thumb is that your rights are inviolate right up to the point it affects another persons’ rights. Once one’s exercise does that then it is game on. How that game ends depends on the situation of course.

              I am not going to go the rabbit hole of natural rights vs political rights vs limited rights vs privileges vs whatever. It is an interesting topic, but outside the scope of this discussion. It is also a debate that has not ever been settled anywhere, at any point in civilization’s history.

            2. @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 who continuously claims that others have porblems with understanding and context, does he not know that you just wrote “As Long as Your Religion does not physically harm another person or attempt to remove another’s Free will” it is legal? This is why he gets called an idiot and then doesn’t understand why he is being called that.

      2. 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!

        1. @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.

          1. @ 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, that and that “It is just not fair that we won’t let his opinion be counted as fact.”

            It’s all of us meanies’ fault.

    14. 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 in my opinion he was fully justified in telling the adam henry trying to flank him to get back in front before his head became a canoe, and he was fully justified in standing his ground and putting a hole in the first adam henry to lay a hand on him. But he didn’t, and he is facing the wrath of the liberal entrenchment in Portland as a result. I regard this as an opportunity to clean out the liberal trash in that city by suing the bloody hell out of them for violating his inherited and unalienable right to self-defense and the Rule of Law. But first he needs to win big on appeal and he needs us to support him all the way to the Supreme Court if that is what it takes. Lets put a stop to liberal mobsterism before they execute their Second Bolshevik Revolution, which the election of Trump put to a temporary stop. This heinous Court ruling in Portland cannot be allowed to stand.

      1. 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 day he killed an attacker.

        Food for thought before saying good night.

    15. 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 beating (as evidenced by testimony from the BLM Terrorists)

      Do I have that all correct?

      1. @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.

    16. 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 BLM protest to video it, knowing full well that the violent racist lunatics of BLM would be triggered merely by his presence…. Didn’t he know that that is a class A provocation offense?!!! But that wasn’t enough for Mr. Strickland.. Nooooo… He also has a youtube channel where he might have put some of his video footage on later, showing any racist stupidity, criminal activity, or violence committed by BLM protesters and mocking them as well!! Clearly this shows Michael Strickland as being a individual more sinister than a mass murderer, and the judge had to rig the trial to make sure this villain was put behind bars and forbidden from attending, videoing, or blogging about a protest ever again. Oh, but wait, we can’t talk about that. Criticism of the judge’s methods are not allowed.

      So please, be sure to welcome “Jim.” Remember, brainwashed idiots who have no connection with reality need to feel welcomed too.

    17. 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 the face of burning looting and rioting and not to make arrests. The taxpayers whose business have been burned and looted have in some cases lost everything due to Odumbos pen and phone along with the left wingnutjob mayors. We are in deep kimchee boys and girls and I hope it ante too late to get the Republic back on the right track

    18. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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/

            1. @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.

            2. @ 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.

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

            5. 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 claim about the court proceedings, the judge, the DAs, the witnesses is nothing but similarly contorted conclusions. You are boring me now. @ Wild Bill is getting a little PMSie, but can at least still hold an intelligent convo. You? Not so much.

            6. @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 States is a signatory member. I know I have taught respect for International humanitarian law to both the Military and civilian police forces in the United States. So these laws should be respected on the battlefields and in the streets. Non combatants have rights and they need to be protected and enforced.

              https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule3

            7. @ 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. =)

            8. @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?

            9. @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.

          1. 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?

            1. @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 targeted by the KKK. Seeing as how we just passed the anniversary of the Birmingham 4 all a black girl needs to do in this country to be murdered by bigots is go to church. And I maintain that reporters are unarmed so they can report the story unbiased.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof

            2. @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 on foreign soil, holding the position of “How dare he carry a firearm. He is not impartial, he is there for Combat!”

              Part 2: I wanted to see if you had the balls to say that a 12 year old girl and her father should not have the means to defend themselves, but not just any girl and father, an “Oppressed” minority to boot because she wanted to work as a reporter and therefore should be ready to die if it means covering a story. You sure were quick to state that when it pertained to a white guy in his thirties.

              I already knew you would play dumb on this one. It was a setup question to show the stupidity of your opinion, and that you would flip flop on it instantly if the question of something that would make you a social outcast for the rest of your life came up and if it was ever traced back to you in real life. After all, what could be worse than an idiot admitting he was ok with telling not only a female, but of black ethnicity, and an innocent angel of a child on top of it that unless she is willing to die if she wants to be a reporter then she can’t because “Reporters should not defend themselves so they can be impartial.”

          2. @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.

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

      2. 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.

      3. @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 he would not be credentialed and sent out of theatre.

        1. 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. Yes I’m am sure there are some reporters in some places that are armed. But as an industry standard be it Fox News or billsnewsblog.com reporters are unarmed. This is so they can be impartial observers or the story and not part of it.

          http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=3651

          1. 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.

            1. @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.

            2. @ 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!!!!

        2. @ 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.

          1. @ 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?

            1. @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”!

          2. @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.

      4. 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.

        1. 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.

    19. 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.

      1. 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?

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. 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 lie” hold true, and Jim is trying to obfuscate what I said. Apparently the very idea that saying an item “Has not been Banned” when you make it physically impossible to acquire or transport without violating the law has been ruled on by the high courts and found to be a defacto ban. If Strickland is barred from doing the very things an investigative reporter does, even if the judge hasn’t said it out loud it is still a ban on Strickland being a reporter.

          2. @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.

          3. 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 a right to free speech? Oh yeah, like Michael Strickland’s First amendment right to cover and write about the protest without being attacked for simply being there.

            I mean, seriously….. You don’t expect a hypocrite like Jim to actually believe other people have rights like he does do you? What’s a little more hypocrisy to a troll anyway…

          4. 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.

    20. 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 recording their actions in the public square, and then writing about what was seen and recorded. Should it turn out that the individual is less than proud of what they say, what they write, what they do, then quite possibly they would be well advised to stay home, and not bother anyone else.

      1. @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?

        1. 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.

        1. 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.

    21. 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?

      1. @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.

        1. @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.

      2. @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 doing it intentionally to cause trouble!!

        See how stupid that sounded? Yeah, your comment sounded about the same. Mike Strickland’s Job was as an investigative reporter. He was there to do his job. He also has been assaulted before while doing his job to the point where he was hospitalized the year before when he WAS UNARMED. Unfortunately, there seems to be this sect of people claiming to carry concealed who neither understand individual rights or the law. Frankly, they have their heads stuffed so far up their sphincters that getting a law book won’t do them any good because they can’t see to read, nevermind the lack of tools required for it.

      3. @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 isn’t worth risking trying to defend a moron’s position.

        1. @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.

          1. @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? The only purpose he might have for owning one is to shoot somebody with it, so he is just waiting for his chance….

            It definitely highlights the stupidity of his argument because it is not based on evidence, on the law, or in reality. Most people learn after they fail a few times. The individuals who so desperately want to blame the victim in this case at least show perseverance to fail over and over again on the same subject, even if they have no other virtue or quality to them.

            1. @ 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.

        1. Congrats Alan, you got this one correct.

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

      4. 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 in the Army, my goal was to to be a Stars and Stripes photojournalist covering war from the font lines, which at the time was nearing the end of Desert Shield transition to Desert Storm. Unfortunately I had a severe head injury during training that caused a seizure disorder and resulted in a medical discharge before serving any active duty. Still hate that I was never able to document the war from field, but fully expected to be directly in harms way while fully armed and protected with body armor.

        You probably are thinking that is a totally different situation, but for people with those kinds of jobs it isn’t any different than being a cop on the front lines of a protest and counter protest between two groups with violent histories when facing each other and you would never question the cop carrying and being fully protected even though there is a significant potenufor violence possibly direct at you directly as proven during the protest in Dallas last year.

        Journalism can be risky but it is important to either document so the country knows what is happening even if you don’t agree or fully believe in what is being reported. Even “fake news” is important even if only to understand the spin being fed to those who ideologically agree with particular reporter or news outlet.

        Without knowledge tryanny or civil war is more likely to happen as a simple result of fear or anger when based on little knowledge other than what participants or leaders and feeding you completely colored and biased to meet their own ends.

        Knowledge based on reporting by multiple outlets, including ones you don’t like or trust is very importantant so you know what those you agree with are thinking and basing their actions and decisions on.

        You should be very glad he was there in order to fully understand that if the proers don’t like a reporter or news outlet that they are attempting to shut them out so that only their version of the story gets out without a counter viewpoint as a check and balance.

        Knowledge is power, bury your head in the sand and you live with whatever direction our country goes in whether you like that direction or not.

      5. 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.

        1. @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.

          1. @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 wonderful firearms he claims to carry and use are just a red herring.

            1. @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.

        2. 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?

      6. @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.

    22. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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?

            1. 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 with a camera slung over his neck by himself has the should feel equally protected(You’re correlation, though left unstated)

              4. Imagining a reporter not picking up a rifle if the troops around him are killed to protect his own life and instead choosing to risk capture or execution in an extreme situation simply because a General said “I’ll send you home”

              5. Ignoring the fact that a firearm does not define a person as being armed, or the lack of said firearm defining a person as unarmed.

              6. Attempting to relate those who carry concealed as being eager for combat because they don’t stay home and lock their doors, they may get stuck in a city after dark where there are muggers and rapists and danger, so if they are armed and knowingly in a bad area it is their own fault…….

              That pretty much sums up your main points thus far. As Stated, the constitutionality of a President Pardoning a state level case was the only correct part you brought up so far in regards to the Law, the Constitution, and the case.

            2. @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 dose not carry. I could refer you to every newspaper and newsroom in this country but that would probably not be enough for you. I gave a concrete example I cant make you accept facts.

              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 with a camera slung over his neck by himself has the should feel equally protected(You’re correlation, though left unstated)
              A. Reporters at home or abroad are unarmed to be unbiased observers.

              4. Imagining a reporter not picking up a rifle if the troops around him are killed to protect his own life and instead choosing to risk capture or execution in an extreme situation simply because a General said “I’ll send you home”
              A. OK I imagined that.

              5. Ignoring the fact that a firearm does not define a person as being armed, or the lack of said firearm defining a person as unarmed.
              A. Yes, carrying a firearm dose classify you as armed. You can be lawfully armed with a CCP or in an open carry state. But if you have a weapon on you, you are armed.

              6. Attempting to relate those who carry concealed as being eager for combat because they don’t stay home and lock their doors, they may get stuck in a city after dark where there are muggers and rapists and danger, so if they are armed and knowingly in a bad area it is their own fault…….
              A. I never said that or tried to correlate the two.

            3. @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 in the constitution Freedom of the press is limited unless you forgo your right to life and self defense. Hint: “But the industry says….” is not an answer.

              A4. Good job on this one, you understood the fallacy of trying to stipulate a persons actions in a fight or flight situation and are owning up to it. Seriously, good job(No sarcasm)

              A5. Hence the clarification of lack of a firearm not defining you as unarmed. The human being is an interesting animal which has capacity for reason as opposed to most other life forms which operate on instinct. Personally, I could kill someone with a rock, a stick, a glass bottle, a plastic bottle, a book, a ball point pen, a paper clip, or hey… Even my bare hands. You are attempting to define the tool as a means of status in regards to lethality instead of looking at the human counterpart which is the brain. Take some time and think on this.

              A6. This was a combination of you’re stated opinions as follows, put forward in the guise of satire ridiculing you for the lunacy of the combined position.

              To which I quote.
              “Yes, by carrying a weapon you are a potential combatant, not an impartial observer. You can be targeted as such.”
              and
              “it means they should lay down their life if it means getting a story”

              Journalists and reporters are citizens too, and as such entitled to the same constitutional protections here in the united states as everyone else. Purporting that they either stay home locked inside to be safe, or give up their right to defend themselves for you to graciously allow them(see sarcasm) the ability to call themselves a journalist.

              Again, nice try. So far that makes one out of six. Last time I checked a 17% score is a failing grade just about anywhere.(16.6666% actual)

        2. 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.

    23. 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.

      1. 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 they decided to “table” the matter until things cool down and they can do it on the sly. Meanwhile everyone is applauding the police for doing it right and doing it fast. In response to a question asked by a friend of mine of an officer on the scene before the scuffle started, “Since the Mayor told you to not take action against the protestors, what are you going to do?” He replied, “What we are trained to do.”

    24. 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 disgrace that makes me question my own right to safety when carrying with my lifetime carry liscense.

      One question this does cause me to have is whether any of the carry insurance companies would cover the appeal itself after being convicted in the first case? I’ve considered getting one of the policies but living in a strong gun rights state like Indiana I’ve held off because of stretching my disability income too thin.

      Anyone know the answer?

      1. 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 go for a trial from the bench. 2. Given the ever increasing violent nature of Antifa and the attempted murder of a Trump supporter by a college professor/Antifa member with a chain and bicycle lock the judge, again showed bias and exhibited gross misconduct in not dismissing the charges if the entire video were allowed in as evidence.

        Bottom line: This will NOT be decided by the judiciary. This case needs massive public outcry so that the heat falls directly on the Circuit Court as a sham of justice. The Chief Justice of this Court needs to be called out for his lack of oversight. The presiding judge needs to have a complaint filed against him with the Judicial Review Board and, since he is an elected Judge the voters, even though they may not be pro-gun, need to be made aware that bad judges don’t just make bad decisions in one area.

        1. @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.

      2. @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 with what we know right now, we do not have every piece of evidence that we should have(Which should all be open and available once a case is decided) because of the political bs of a couple politicians abusing their positions in the city of Portland.

        1. 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 to this overturned and restore his right to carry because given the current atmosphere with the situations he will go into I know it could very well be necessary to protect himself in the future.

          1. 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. He had a personal political motivation from indictment to sentencing, plain and simple.

        2. 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. This CANNOT be allowed to stand!

          1. 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.

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

            2. 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 claim “Victim” status to the police, and was the prosecution’s number one witness during the trial.

              Lets see.. 1. Ignore Reality, 2. Ignore evidence, and 3. Feign ignorance of the first two… yep, think Jim has that covered completely on this one.

            3. 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.

        1. 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”

        2. 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.

          1. 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.

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

            1. 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.

      3. 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.

    25. 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

      1. 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” or “don’t make me shoot you” or any other of hundreds of similar things that get spoken regularly.

    26. 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.

      1. 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 briefs.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

        2. 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 be packed with people openly hostile to a protected, individual, civil right to either poison the jury or force a bench trial where you then get to play judge, jury, and executioner…..

          That is Judicial Misconduct.

          This is not simply a matter of mistakes but of a judge using his position to target and eliminate someone he disagrees with politically, and setting up a kangaroo court to do it while deliberately interfering with presentation of evidence.

        3. “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 censure only for improper “decorum” in the Court. This is why it is absolutely vital to have attorneys on your side who know what the hell they are doing, and it increasingly sounds to me like Strickland’s attorneys were rank amateurs.

          1. 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 makes it that far. In fact, most do not.

          2. 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 clear that hurdle.

            1. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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!

    29. 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.

      1. 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 to the thugs and tyrants. NO MORE!!!!!!

        1. 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.

      2. 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.

        1. 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 of judicial malpractice would free him legally from any command issued by the judge. It’s not an acquittal, as that is the outright dismissing of charges during a criminal trial, but they do have the power in the appellate court to do this. The key is whether or not the original jury trial erred or interfered in such a way that would significantly contribute to the outcome of the trial.. For example, a judge restricting and silencing evidence for the defense, and allowing hearsay evidence to be admitted in place of video evidence.

          Of course, for someone claiming to know the law and not understanding these rather simple points(I think you do, and you purposely ignored them because you have a personal issue with Strickland) is rather fascinating.

          1. 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 originated from which, more often than not, also means the same judge. Mul Co has a much bigger judicial system to that may or may not be the case there.

            1. 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 law becomes malpractice and misconduct.

              In the case of Judge Thomas Ryan and his handling of the case for Mike Strickland, we have four separate violations of both state and federal constitutional nature. I believe it was you who tried to call others out for daring to question a “Judge with the experience and knowledge of dealing with the law to have achieved judgeship”. An experienced, knowledgeable judge making four glaring violations in the same case? He is either a certifiable retard who has no business in being a judge in the first place since he is just “winging it”, or he willfully considered and then chose to violate those legal statutes in this case. It isn’t speculation at this point. His actions are there and easily comparable to the written law.

      1. @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…

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. 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

      1. 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.

    30. 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.

      1. 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.)

    31. @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 it’s different when it’s your neck in the noose.”

      and….
      “The judge declared that Strickland was not in danger, and had a means of egress”

      Point number one. After backing up, as you noted, a full city block and being rushed there is a noted difference in the judges ruling compared to actual law. Self defense laws in this nation do not state that the individual must be in an imminent position of bodily harm. What they do state is that if a normal person would have a “Reasonable expectation of fear of bodily harm or loss of life” Self defense is warranted. Considering Mike Strickland’s history, including being attacked and beaten the year before, having his arm broken in three places with his camera equipment being stolen, he absolutely would have been in fear for his life and justifiably so. The judge in this case has ignored and dismissed evidence, supplanting rule of law with his own personal opinion. I will say it now, that judge should be removed and barred from ever practicing in a legal field for the rest of his life. He is not the only one however, as an example the judge from the Shelly case in Twin Falls Idaho…

      Now, Mr Knox, I understand your statement and that it is your right to criticize people online as being “Internet Warriors.” Please, allow me to ask you that since this case deals with Mike Strickland being told by the government that he has lost his pre-existing right, a right enumerated in the Constitution restricting all levels of government from infringing upon it, and denying him a claim to his unalienable right to Life, How can you suggest that anyone just lie down and take it and still expect to be credible when you speak or right on the validity or nature of constitutional rights? I really would like a serious answer to that question. To me(my opinion) that is no different than telling a woman who is about to be raped that she is just better off if she lets her attackers do what they want.

      I agree, it is very easy for someone behind a keyboard to hold such positions when it “isn’t their neck.” So what would you do if it were your rights that were being violated for the rest of your life, or if it was your wife or kids to either scenario just discussed above? I can already tell you what my answer would be, and it is no different than the answer I hold for myself, or for Mike Strickland. I hope you will think on this.

      1. 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 broke and ignoring orders to stop. You are justified in shooting whether you see a weapon or not.

        these are just two examples, but they share a common theme. When an attacker or aggressor is given an order to stop, non compliance is legally a threat(by definition). An event not to long back involving a bystander shooting a man attacking a police officer had ordered the attacker to stop. The shooting was justified even as the attacker had no weapon in his hands, but remained non compliant and escalating the situation.

        Think things through people.

        1. 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 for his rights.

          I applaud Strickland for his original actions and for his standing up to clear his name, and I support removing this judge and jailing him for abuse of process and perjury of his oath of office. I also applaud Jeff Knox for bringing us this update. This travesty cannot be allowed to stand.

        2. 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?

          1. @ 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 opposing view to his analysis. A simple change in how it was written, for example, “While it may be more prudent to give up in the face of all the threats he faces….” That would leave the statement open, casting no judgement either way on Knox’s part before leading into the fact that Strickland is continuing to fight this. Instead, what he wrote was a direct statement of opinion. If that is not what he intended, he can say so. Everyone makes mistakes, especially myself.

            Now, I was not trying to tear him apart. What I was doing was asking him “Is this really the point you want to hold to(Letting rights be stripped unjustly just because someone happens to live in an anti-liberty area) if he is going to continue writing books based off the idea of arguing for the protection and adherence to our natural rights as protected under the constitution and Declaration of Independence. Personally, I hope he is thinking on it, and I hope you both are as well just like I did when you questioned my position. Introspection is a vital part of evaluating ourselves when we compare our opinions to facts, and too often people let their egos step in and put them in situations that end up humiliating themselves simply because they weren’t able to step back and rethink things through.

            Hope you both have a pleasant weekend, and that you will take some time thinking over this some more.

            1. 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 for self defense. 2. The judge refused a change of venue. 3. If you lose you’re now still fighting the same fight as before but you’re doing it from a cell that you’re potentially sentenced to for 50 years.

              When you put the totality of this stacked deck against you and then ask “well, Mr. Smith, exactly how would you like to lose your Rights, the easy way or the really hard way?”. I might decide, and I say might, decide to stay on the outside and fight rather than be on the inside looking out.

              Again, it’s not me and it’s probably one of the most difficult decisions any of us would ever have to make.

            2. @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 way I give up my rights to a tyrant is when they put an ounce of lead in my skull.

              I know that most people are not like myself, I understand that completely. It just struck me as odd that someone who was in the middle of belittling(Keyboard Warriors comment) others for deciding what their convictions would be in a given situation that they did not take part in, would at the same time be deciding that their opinion as to what their convictions would be should be argued. It was an opposing viewpoint that contradicted itself.

              As long as neither of us are trying to push someone else into “What they should be doing” and infringing upon their rights, we each have the right to form that decision for ourselves. We Each have to make that decision when the time comes, and it is something even our founding fathers struggled with. The story of the two men comes to mind, one saying “Give me peace in my time!”, and the other “Let me take the strife in my time, so my children may have peace in theirs.” At that point, they had decided, but it was something that weighed heavily on them before committing to the course of action they took.

              Thanks again Vanns.

            3. @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?

            4. 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 more inroads into the mindset of precious little snowflakes than I do, but I have more fun. 🙂

            5. @ 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.

      2. 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 clean he stands of very good chance of restoration of rights are perhaps even expungement.

        1. 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.

          1. @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.

            1. 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 teacher (that lasted about 15 minutes…) so I substitute taught. Strickland reminds me of all the kids you see that pester and harass others until the other kid knocks them on their butts. Then they play the victim because “they didn’t start the fight”. Strickland needs to grow up and hopefully this incident, no matter how it ends, convinces him of that.

              Idiot gun owners and particularly idiot CCW folks irritate the living sheet out of me as well. It is exactly the kind of crap that Strickland did that makes my life as a responsible gun owner and CCW holder more difficult. The weapon gives these idiots such a sense of empowerment that they lose their common sense and get themselves into bad situations they never would have been otherwise. And the public perception rarely favors the one that draws a weapon. That person may or may not be right under the law, but they are almost always losers in the public perception. It is not right, but it is real and when the public is against your position it has ramifications upon all the other bazillions of folks who carry responsibility. Agree or not, it is best we all realize and accept that as CCW holders (i assume you are anyway) have a higher standard of conduct than the average moron on the street.

            2. 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.

            3. 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 about personal responsibility than conservatives typically do. Also, the rule of law tends to be something conservatives value more than liberals. I maintain that Strickland did some egregiously dumb things and failed badly the personal responsibility metric. I also think he erred under the strict rule of law and, as such, now bears personal responsibility. It is you all that are arguing from emotion. I get your arguments, I really do, but they are visceral opinions for the most part. It is fine that you feel that way, but don’t confuse your opinions of what the law should be versus what it actually is.

              Why is “exercising a Constitutional right a bad decision”? I will attempt to answer this for you, but I got to say that that is the mother of all false equivalencies. If you cannot distinguish between a “constitutional right” and common sense situational awareness then I do not know what I could say to you. With rights come responsibilities. Also, our rights do not shield us from the knock-on consequences of our actions. For example, I have a right to say nearly anything I want about somebody and no government can prevent me from saying it. However, that exercise of my free speech rights might expose to penalties for libel or slander. No constitutional right guarantees freedom from consequence and that is the principle in play in the Stickland matter.

          2. 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.

            1. @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?

            2. @ Wild Bill

              Morpheous from the movie “The Matrix”

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

        2. @ 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 of your front door as you head into town? I can imagine you don’t want to answer that question as the correct answer as it completely invalidates your above response.

          Now, for any judge to rule specifically to being allowed in reference of emotion and perceived danger on the part of the victim?? That is out of bounds. A judge does have the right to decide whether or not a trigger pull was justified, but not whether an individual is experiencing fear.

          Now, You explain to me, how is a city like Portland, full of officials who hate Strickland’s guts for how he has covered them in his blog, will allow this man to regain a right to possess and carry firearms…. Keeping in mind Oregon’s political climate, explain to me how he might even have a 10% chance of overcoming the bias to reclaim his right, a right which has wrongfully been taken from him along with his reputation, when you are on here ignoring evidence and spouting off about how evil the man is? Strickland has kept his nose clean, aside from criticizing people who disagree with him, so perhaps while you are at it you can explain how that is reason enough to lose one’s rights.

          it’s pretty funny, but for as many comments as you have spammed on here trying to inject the idea that Strickland is a violent criminal mastermind with dirty hands, you have not replied to comments which have used evidence to blast away your talking points. Do you honestly believe we don’t have you figured out? Don’t.. Make.. Me.. Laugh…

          1. 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”.

            1. @ 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.

    32. 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.

      1. 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.”

        1. 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 himself from the area, but the thugs weren’t going to let him leave without trying to stomp a mud hole in his chest. While I don’t advocate “Show and Tell” I believe his response to be appropriate. He was trying to preserve his own life.

          The judge however, should have his nutsack kicked up around his neck, and the rest of the cabal removed from power.

          1. 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 was the aggressor. Since he however chose to continue his assault against a opponent that was pretty much defenseless and already down the shooting was justifiable.

            This case is no different than stating “Stop, I have a gun!”, the attackers seeing the shirt lifted as the firearm is ready to be drawn, and then the firearm being drawn. The last step was the only one not completed, and that is pulling the trigger. Everything that Strickland did was reasonable and within his rights, and the law. I agree with you 100% on that.

            I do not think it is Wild West syndrome, because Wild West Gunfighters did intentionally pick gunfights. They knew that was a good way to get killed! No, I think what we have here is a clear cut case of individuals who do not know or understand the law, and in some cases they don’t care.(See the video I am going to link to at the end.) They want to look tough, and puff up their chests. Whether or not this is because of some form of testicular deficiency, or some other derangement I do not know. I do know however that it is quantitatively stupid.

            Oh, and would you be ok flipping a coin to see which one of us got to put first boot to the judge’s raspberries?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhhungQ1KQ Pay attention to the threat that was made and what the guy had to say about it.

            1. 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 he also has options of having this conviction officially reduced to a misdemeanor after some time which would also come with full rights restoration.

            2. @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. Quite frankly, any normal human being seeing that Mike Strickland was pursued for roughly a city block, that the protesters also tried to intimidate an individual asking for them to let Strickland go so he could leave the area, the admission

              in court of one of the BLM organizers that “A group of enforcers was tasked with targeting Strickland if he showed up, and keeping him away with whatever means necessary including use of force, that Strickland was well within his rights. A city block? Oh yeah, that is anywhere from 100 to 200 meters, or 330 to 660 feet in length. At that point, he has done his due diligence in trying to retreat, and only an abject moron would try to claim that he was “Premature” in drawing his handgun.

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

          2. 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.

        2. 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 basically the act of being assaulted by more than one person, which makes a normal intentional or knowing misdemeanor assault a felony. ORS 163.165(e).

    33. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. @ 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.

      1. 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!

    Leave a Comment 272 Comments

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