After jurors criticize guns, man accused of gun crime wants judge to decide case

[5whiskey]

I see three things here, personally. First...

That minor foul is a felony and the prosecutor is trying to claim individual felonies per person.

He's about to be a guest of the state for a considerable period of time.

There is certainly nothing wrong with us sharing our views here. With that being said, I hope this man does get a fair shake and a fair trial. There may be more evidence that we don't know of, possibly that could work in his favor. That one video is very powerful evidence that he likely committed a crime, but I haven't really "judged" per se. I could go into the trial open minded and impartialpersonally, even after seeing the video and honestly believing he is a bone head.

What I see if he gets convicted without a fair trial is a clear message that anyone who questions the BLM/dont shoot movement is subject to assault and/or criminal conviction.

Oregon is a stand your ground state, he had no legal obligation to run. He has a right to be there, the protestors who i bet did not get a permit to protest would not have in that capacity without one.

Which brings me to the next point. Again you have your opinion, and I know we don't agree. Doesn't necessarily make either of us wrong. With that being said, if he is convicted do not automatically assume he didn't receive a fair trial. Don't make your mind up on that before it actually happens.



Lastly, I think this is an excellent lesson in choosing your environment and/or other self defense options. This is a case of playing a stupid game. Just like you don't run into the Yankees locker room talking junk as a red Sox fan, you probably shouldn't be one political extreme antagonizing the opposite political extreme during their pep rally. You have freedom of speech... Even the freedom to be stupid. All that protects you from is arrest by the government, not from getting a tale beating. And no, you can't pull a gun on someone just because he wants to fight. Or a group of people just because theyre cussing at you.

 

[K_Mac]

Lastly, I think this is an excellent lesson in choosing your environment and/or other self defense options. This is a case of playing a stupid game. Just like you don't run into the Yankees locker room talking junk as a red Sox fan, you probably shouldn't be one political extreme antagonizing the opposite political extreme during their pep rally. You have freedom of speech... Even the freedom to be stupid. All that protects you from is arrest by the government, not from getting a tale beating. And no, you can't pull a gun on someone just because he wants to fight. Or a group of people just because theyre cussing at you.

I completely agree. Instigating trouble and then pulling a gun to stop that trouble is not a good strategy in any jurisdiction.

 

[Koda94]

I appreciate the perspectives here on the case but its not all cut and dry from a you-tube video and local news, (which is heavily anti-gun biased reporting)... if this Strickland guy instigated the event then yes he will own up to that in court. The concern I have is that if he didn't, he gets an unbiased trial.

 

[Tom Servo]

Oregon is a stand your ground state, he had no legal obligation to run. He has a right to be there, the protestors who i bet did not get a permit to protest would not have in that capacity without one.

This brings us back to the myth of the "clean shoot." Even in a SYG state, there are "reasonable man" standards. I don't see how a reasonable man in his shoes, with the ability to turn around and walk away, would believe he was in such danger as to turn to lethal force.

The fact that he reholstered the gun in the middle of this confrontation shows that even he didn't feel the danger was that great.

 

[5whiskey]

The fact that he reholstered the gun in the middle of this confrontation shows that even he didn't feel the danger was that great.

That was my observation. To me it honestly looked like he realized he should not have pulled his gun and he wanted to "correct" that mistake by putting it away. Even the look on his face as he begins to reholster screams that to me.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

On jury nullification - IIRC - there were cases in the North where folks resisted the fugitive slave laws and opposed 'legal' slave catchers up to the level of threats of lethal force. Jurors in the North refused to convict those who resisted the slave catchers to protect runaways on the grounds of jury nullification.

A fair jury are ones that are not basing their opinion on if people should carry guns, that he carried one, or even had hundreds or rounds.
The prosecutor is making it about the gun.

That is just the OP's opinion of what is fair jury. It is demanding a jury that agrees with his view of the RKBA. It is clearly a debate in the USA about carrying guns. It is only recently that shall issue permits and licenses became common place. Many 'pro' gun states came late to that position in the history of the USA. Theoretically, a 'fair jury' attempts to evaluate the law - with the caveat of jury nullification. If the OP demands that the jury be one predisposed to nullify the law because they have a RKBA position sympathetic to his - in spite of a crime being committed technically - that is a different circumstance.

The hundreds of rounds clearly can speak to intent. All kinds of issues of intent are relevant to evaluating a crime. You have a dead guy that was killed by X. The motivations of X are taken into account when deciding the crime to charge X with - the degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc.

We know quite well that pre-existing biases influence all in the judicial processes up to and including Supreme Court Justices. What else is new?

Look here - we have an extremely gun friendly group and many think the guy was an idiot and gets what he deserves. So if you had one of us in voir dire and it was said:

That we believe in the right to own guns
We own many guns
We compete
We train tactically

- you want us? That juror could be exactly the person who says in the jury room that according the training and standards we learned - he's guilty.

So how to you parse that? Recall that studies demonstrated that will happen in jury simulations. Don't assume that a surface appearance of gun friendly attitudes and behaviors is going to be a positive for someone like this person.

 

[Koda94]

That is just the OP's opinion of what is fair jury. It is demanding a jury that agrees with his view of the RKBA. It is clearly a debate in the USA about carrying guns. It is only recently that shall issue permits and licenses became common place. Many 'pro' gun states came late to that position in the history of the USA. Theoretically, a 'fair jury' attempts to evaluate the law - with the caveat of jury nullification. If the OP demands that the jury be one predisposed to nullify the law because they have a RKBA position sympathetic to his - in spite of a crime being committed technically - that is a different circumstance.

Well, thats not what I meant actually. Its that be was legally carrying his gun, and extra ammo. Now I get that the prosecution is going to attempt to portray him as as having predisposed ill intentions by having the gun and ammo, but he would also have to prove what those intentions were. The charge in question here ia based on him drawing the gun... And if he has that right to do so to defend himself.

Also, Oregon is historicall very pro gun. Weve been a shall issue state from longer than I reacall, at least 25 yrs.

I do appreciate the different perspectives presented here. There are definetely lessons to be learned. I have no affiliation with the guy, to clarify. Whats funny is I was thinking to myself how im complaining he doesnt have a fair jury yet everyone here in this thread is calling him guilty. So I say if he is then I can accept that... I do know if that was me I would have turned and ran (I also would have never been there in the first place...) I see that side too..... But I also see a guy trying to do his job, and also walking backwards, thing is no one here knows what caused that.... Maybe he recieved actual verbal threats of violence against him which prompted the draw. There was also another guy in the crowd that was doing a pretty good job of de-escalating the situation after the draw by telling everyone Strickland was scared, maybe thats what made him reholster the gun... as he continued to walk backwards and away from the mob.

But thats just my opinion... Until those questions are proven I dont think anyone here can truly know hes guilty with what little we have to see.

 

[Lohman446]

Well, thats not what I meant actually. Its that be was legally carrying his gun, and extra ammo

The thing is, had this been the entirety of his behavior, there would not be a question. He is not likely to be charged with carrying a firearm or ammo (unless he was doing so illegally to begin with). He is likely to be charged with brandishing (or assault or something similar). The amount of ammo he was carrying only speaks to his mindset going in - which will legitimately be in question because of his alleged criminal actions.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

... But I also see a guy trying to do his job, and also walking backwards,

I haven't seen or read anything to suggest that Strickland was "doing his job." If he wasn't being paid to be there, he wasn't doing a job -- he was there because he wanted to be.

That said, I did see that as he was back-peddling he was being followed by the black dude in the black cap and commando sweater, and he was also flanked and pushed by another black dude. In a video posted by Strickland's friend we learned that he (Strickland) had his arm broken as a result of an assault at some other event. So ...

Oregon law on this reads very differently from my state's law, and to me the Oregon law is convoluted as all get out. Rather than quote the whole thing, here's a link: http://www.oregonfirearms.org/use-of-force-rules

Basically, each section says that an act that would otherwise be a crime is justifiable if A, or B, or C, or X, or Y, or Z.

Scrolling down through a pile of such, I found this:

161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

I'll assume that Oregon uses the "reasonable man" test, but the reasonable man test requires that the hypothetical reasonable man be in the situation of the accused. So if we substitute a hypothetical reasonable man for Strickland, we see a hypothetical reasonable man backing away from an angry crowd, being pursued by multiple angry black men, and being physically assaulted by one of them. This hypothetical reasonable man also knows that he has once before been assaulted and suffered a serious injury under similar circumstances. Now: the question before our hypothetical reasonable man is not "Was Strickland in imminent danger of serious bodily injury?" but "Did Strickland believe he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury?" This is an important distinction, because the section of law I quoted above says that the use of physical force in self defense is justified "for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose."

So Strickland is in a place he has a lawful right to be. (Stupid to be there, but legal.) He is threatened. He backs up and he is both pursued and he is assaulted. Is it "reasonable" for him to believe that unlawful physical force against him is imminent? He's being pursued. He's outnumbered. He's outflanked. Heck, unlawful physical force has already BEEN used against him -- why would he NOT think it might escalate?

From what I saw in the video clips I viewed, I think he was justified in pulling his gun. And that's without knowing if he had previously heard the black dude in the commando sweater telling people to pull their guns and "cap" someone. If he can show that he heard that statement, I think any reasonable judge would have to acquit him.

 

[SSA]

In one of the videos, the black dude in the black cap and commando sweater can be heard saying to Strickland, "I got this. Just leave so you will be safe. Alright?"

Report is that prosecution wound up yesterday, so defense is probably going on now. In front of a judge, lawyers present, open courtroom so press and anyone interested can watch.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_0MQdpBIF0

At 1:40 the guy in the gray hoodie flanks him and pushes him. Legally, I think in all states, that's aggravated assault.

 

[Koda94]

Aguila, thank you for sharing that. I haven't seen that particular video but there were some segments in that video that were not in the one easily found on Google that Tom shared, segments that Ive seen whenever back this happened (been googling to share here but didn't since I couldn't find them....)

In the video that Tom shared there is a heavyset guy that disappears off screen just before Strickland draws. In the video you shared is a segment of him from a different angle (another camera)... I think was the guy that flanked Strickland I suspect may be a big part of why he drew his gun then (10 seconds into the video you shared). there might be some more information about that guy on this blogger website: http://www.victoriataft.com/exonera...journalist-mike-strickland-laughing-liberals/

and yes there are reports of them conspiring to attack Strickland. The evidence of them suggesting to pull their own pistols may be most likely why Strickland was walking backwards, and not running... like so many here claim he 'should' have done. Would anyone here turn their back to someone who threatened to cap your ....

I'm going a lot of memory of what I read back when this event happened which has already seen a lot of this, stuff that is not being reported in the mainstream media because the Oregonian is very anti-gun here. Because of that, I cant find again right now. This is why my opinion is that he is innocent... and probably wont get a fair trial but really should walk free with his gun returned. And the fact that he might not get a fair trial, should be a concern to anyone here that carries a gun for self defense.... why I posted this here.

 

[Buzzcook]

How many rounds would anyone here carry if they had to cover a BLM protest for their job? Even if you werent there to question them....

I have not had that pleasure, but I wouldn't feel the need to carry more than a sandwich and a bottle of water.

 

[Tom Servo]

At 1:40 the guy in the gray hoodie flanks him and pushes him. Legally, I think in all states, that's aggravated assault.

Yes, but I also see Strickland sticking his finger in the guy's face (bad idea to present an easy-to-grab extremity) and then brandishing the microphone stand like a weapon. The guy in the hoodie backs off, and the man in the black sweatshirt appears to be trying to calm things down.

Here's the thing: at the exact moment the guy in the hoodie was advancing, there might be a case for self-defense. But he backed off, and therefore posed no identifiable threat after that.

Here's the other thing: we don't know what happened before the camera was rolling. Judging from Strickland's prior antics, it's very possible he contributed to the short tempers of all involved. A jury can and will consider that as well.

If I were on the jury, I'd be hard-pressed to argue for self-defense on Strickland's part.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The fact he was carrying 120 rounds is definitely evidence that will be admissible at trial unless the police somehow performed a bad search-highly highly unlikely in this case.

The number of pennies they found in his pocket could be admissible as evidence, too, but ... evidence of what? The crime he is charged with is related to drawing a firearm and pointing it at people. How does the number of magazines enter into it?

If I were on the jury, I'd be hard-pressed to argue for self-defense on Strickland's part.

Granted, I didn't watch the full extent of all videos available of the incident. If I were on the jury (which now doesn't exist), I would have to see the full extent of all the videos plus listen to Strickland's (or his attorney's) explanation of why he believed brandishing his firearm was necessary.

With what little I actually know of the case at the moment, I don't think it's clear either way. I do think a case could be made that a reasonable man in his place would have felt threatened. How well that case could be made will now be up to the judge to decide.

 

[Koda94]

Yes, but I also see Strickland sticking his finger in the guy's face (bad idea to present an easy-to-grab extremity) and then brandishing the microphone stand like a weapon.

in self defense from the guy shoving him. I honestly don't see how you are deducting your reasoning. Two people had to step in front of the guy in the hoodie to keep him back. The guy in the hoodie was escalating the situation after his shove and did reach for his easy to grab extremity.

 

[Koda94]

he was found guilty today on all counts.

http://www.victoriataft.com/travesty-portland-judge-strickland-guilty-counts/

and it turns out, that was his real job...

its now illegal to draw your weapon in self defense here in Portland.

 

[5whiskey]

its now illegal to draw your weapon in self defense here in Portland

It has always been illegal, pretty much everywhere, to use deadly force unless you are threatened with deadly force (or grave bodily injury in some jurisdictions). This is nothing new. Getting punched or shoved is not grave bodily injury. Nor is being shoved by one member of a verbally hostile group.

 

[Koda94]

Getting punched or shoved is not grave bodily injury. Nor is being shoved by one member of a verbally hostile group.

he didn't pull his gun on the person who shoved him. And getting punched can and has been documented as even deadly. He was confronted by a mob walki... nevermind, we've gone over that and only one person beside me is seeing it.

but all this isn't the point, your all missing the bigger picture. Its illegal to draw your gun in self defense. He didn't even fire a shot. You have to wait until your physically assaulted, think about it and what that means for gun rights and self defense.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It has always been illegal, pretty much everywhere, to use deadly force unless you are threatened with deadly force (or grave bodily injury in some jurisdictions). This is nothing new. Getting punched or shoved is not grave bodily injury. Nor is being shoved by one member of a verbally hostile group.

But the law doesn't require that you suffer serious bodily injury before you are legally allowed to defend yourself. The law allows the use of physical force if you -- the person the law is talking to/about -- reasonably believe that you may incur serious bodily injury or death. The first shove may not result in serious bodily injury, but it IS aggravated assault. And one shove may well signal futher "imminent" attacks to follow. Given the disparity of force (Strickland was outnumbered and being outflanked), I don't think it would be a stretch for that "hypothetical reasonable man" I mentioned in a previous post to "reasonably believe" that he was about to get his ass kicked. Once again, here's what the Oregon law says:

161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

The Oregon law (like the law in most other states, if not all) requires that "the actor" be given the benefit of the doubt. The defendant's actions must be viewed from HIS perspective, given only what information he had available to him at the time. The issues then boil down to:

• Did he believe he was in danger of incurring death or serious bodily injury?
• Was that belief reasonable, from his perspective, based on what he knew at the time?