PDA

View Full Version : 5 min trial to convict Mike Strickland



Artful
02-28-2017, 01:34 PM
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/vendetta



By now many of you know that Mike Strickland, a pro-gun, free lance journalist was convicted of 21 counts of self defense on Friday, Feb.10.

Strickland had been attacked by a mob in Portland while covering a “Black Lives Matter” protest. The attack was planned and coordinated in advance.

You can read more about it here (http://www.oregonfirearms.org/pro-gun-journalist-faces-felony-counts-for-defending-himself). Victoria Taft has done an outstanding job of documenting the attack and the trial and you can see that here (http://www.victoriataft.com/).

In truth, Mike was convicted the moment he was arrested by Portland Police for defending himself against the same kind of mobsters who have trashed Portland repeatedly. Their criminal actions are rarely punished (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/criminal_charges_dropped_again.html) by a county “Justice System ” that encourages rioting and looting but creates political prisoners of people who attempt to defend themselves from criminal attack.

From the moment he was arraigned it was clear the fix was in. As soon as the D.A.’s office in Multnomah County (http://mcda.us/index.php/about-the-da/contact/) realized who Mike was, they began to assure he would never get a fair trial. And they succeeded.

Mike’s bail was set at an astonishing and unprecedented quarter of a million dollars!

The D.A.’s office made open and absurd accusations about him to the press. They said he was a “white nationalist” and a “racist.” All of it was lies. But what would you expect from a county whose D.A. is a rabid advocate for gun restrictions? D.A. Rod Underhill (http://mcda.us/index.php/about-the-da/meet-the-da/) has testified in favor of gun control bills in Salem and is a proud member of an anti-gun prosecutor’s organization.

Multnomah County is also home to Judge Kenneth Walker who said (in open court) “If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean. Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them.”

All complaints about Walker’s clear bias against the Constitutions of the United States and Oregon were dismissed. Oregon’s Commission on Judicial Fitness found nothing wrong with Walker’s outburst.

When it came time to seat a jury it became clear very quickly that the chances of getting impartial jurists in Multnomah County were almost zero (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/as_jurors_share_feelings_about.html). Only two of the potential jurors believed it was ok to have a firearm for self protection. Both would be eliminated by the prosecutors. Michael’s lawyers made the decision to dispense with the jury and opted for a bench trial. They understood their only hope was a fair and honest judge. They hoped for too much.

As the trial proceeded, everyone: Michael, his lawyers, and supporters in the courtroom were optimistic and confident. The prosecution witnesses either admitted their criminal plans or were quickly proven to be liars.

There is even video of the perpetrators physically assaulting Michael, from his own camera. That video has been ordered SEALED by the very judge who presided over the trial and will likely never be seen by the public.

Everything seemed to be going Mike’s way. But, after all, this is Multnomah County, the county that says your car and your front porch are “public places.” The county that rewards rioters and elects child molesters.

On Thursday, it appeared the trial was over. A use of force expert had testified that Michael’s actions were reasonable. Everyone was sure that Michael would prevail. Then the Multnomah County D.A. announced that they were going to have another surprise witness on Friday to testify that Mike’s use of “force” was criminal. The observers, and Mike’s lawyers were stunned by this last minute ambush witness.

Keep in mind that Mike’s “criminal” actions consisted solely of drawing a lawfully possessed firearm in the face of a mob of armed attackers and backing away without ever placing his finger on the trigger.

The ambush witness was Ryan Rasmussen (http://pamplinmediagroup.com/go/44-features/159379-top-cop), a Gresham cop who was not at the scene of the attack but agreed (for reasons yet to be determined) to come in at the 11th hour and testify that drawing your gun in the face of an attacking mob is not “reasonable.” Rasmussen testified that all of the training that he had received and that he teaches centers solely around law enforcement or military, and that none of it applies to civilians. He even testified that police are held to a higher standard than civilians.

Within a minute of the closing arguments, after Rasmussen finished his attacks on Strickland,Judge Thomas Ryan (https://www.mbabar.org/Resources/TomRyan.html) found him guilty on all 21 counts. Mike, his lawyers, and supporters were astonished.

Keep in mind, in Oregon there is no duty to retreat from attackers. But the D.A. and their hired gun witness said Michael’s behavior was criminal because he did not run away. In fact, multiple videos of the event show very, very clearly that Strickland was making every attempt to back away. Michael has had knee issues in the past and has trouble running. Add to that he was weighed down by his backpack full of computer and camera equipment, as well as the tripod with his camera on it. It would have been impossible for him to run away, as he would surely have been tackled behind by the mob.

Incredibly, the DA attacked Mike because, after he felt he was safely away from his attackers, he holstered his gun.

A Portland Police Sgt. who was part of the squad that arrested Michael told us he thought everything Mike did was correct. But none of that mattered. Strickland’s long history ofexposing the hypocrisy and tyranny of the left (https://www.youtube.com/user/LaughingAtLiberals) in Oregon meant he had to be made an example of. They had the power to silence him and chill anyone else who dared shine a light on them and they used it.

This case is about so much more than Mike. If this conviction stands, self defense in Multnomah County, and soon all of Oregon, will be a dead issue. The prosecution attacked Mike because he had backup ammo! They attacked him because he did not “run away” when in fact he did. They told lies about him to taint the jury pool and build up hatred for him in the press. Who among us is next?

If ever there was a clear cut case of self defense, this was it. But a leftist, activist judge in a leftist county decided to ignore the facts and the law and condemn Mike for doing what any rational person in his position would have done.

Multnomah County has sent a message loud and clear. If you riot, attack people and destroy property, you will be protected. If you try to defend yourself from criminals, you will be convicted and jailed. It is simple insanity. What Judge Ryan and D.A. Underhill have said is this.“If you come to Multnomah County and a gang of thugs attacks you, lie down and take the beating. If you are not killed, you will be better off than if you defend yourself and we get ahold of you.”

Because of many generous donors, OFF was able to contribute generously to Mike’s defense. Now we have no choice but to appeal. If we don’t, no one is safe and a precedent has been set for the rest of the state. Politically motivated judges and D.A.’s can ignore the law with impunity. We will sink into anarchy.

Please consider helping us help Mike and all rational people who want to be able to protect themselves from the thugs who thrive in Portland. This is going to be an expensive fight and we are going to need all the help we can get.

Every single dime you donate goes directly to Mike’s defense. This battle is not just about injustice to one man. This fight is about all of us.

You can make a secure donation on line here (https://oregonfirearms.ejoinme.org/MyPages/DonationPage/tabid/70447/Default.aspx). Please use any available box to indicate your contribution is for Mike Strickland. Time is short and this is an absolutely critical battle.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQwW9W5aok

quilbilly
02-28-2017, 01:53 PM
I had jury duty in my county seat a year ago on a case that was clearly self defense but the county charged the victim with assault. The jury ended in a hung jury when all the "city people" wanted to punish the victim even though the judge explained the law on self defense while the rural country people voted to acquit. I had never been cooped up that long with people who sincerely believed self defense was a crime even though the victim who finally defended himself was nearly beat to death by an obvious drug dealer. Amazing! Years ago I laughed when I read that in the U.K., if you are attacked by a mugger and you defend yourself, you might be in more trouble than the mugger.

Der Gebirgsjager
02-28-2017, 02:26 PM
Thank you for posting this. I made a $50 donation to the Mike Strickland Defense Fund through the provided link, and urge others to consider doing the same.

MaryB
03-01-2017, 12:09 AM
Please keep this non-political so we can keep it out of the pit!

shoot-n-lead
03-01-2017, 12:43 AM
Your chances in any court are only as good as your representation.

He had no representation.

You can bet, if he had been represented by George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'mara, the outcome would have been different.

M-Tecs
03-01-2017, 01:33 AM
"convicted of 21 counts of self defense" ?????????? Is this even real?

mcdaniel.mac
03-01-2017, 01:37 AM
"convicted of 21 counts of self defense" ?????????? Is this even real?
No, that's editorializing by the person who wrote the article.

Artful
03-01-2017, 01:44 AM
"convicted of 21 counts of self defense" ?????????? Is this even real?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/08/grand_jury_returns_21-count_in.html

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/02/11/journalist-found-guilty-pulling-gun-on-crowd/

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/as_jurors_share_feelings_about.html

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/michael-strickland-guilty-of-21-counts.237737/

You tell me ... As the Snowflakes say - it feels real.

M-Tecs
03-01-2017, 01:56 AM
Brandishing a firearm is way different than "convicted of 21 counts of self defense". Each state has varying rules on when deadly force can be used. The rule of thumb that is applicable in most cases is "would a reasonable and prudent person be in fear for there life?"

The firearm needs stay in the holster until a "reasonable and prudent person would be in fear for there life". When it is pulled from the holster the only reason the trigger is not pulled is something has changed to lower the threat level.

Based on what I see in the video if I did the same in Minnesota I would also be convicted.

shoot-n-lead
03-01-2017, 02:02 AM
Brandishing a firearm is way different than "convicted of 21 counts of self defense". Each state has varying rules on when deadly force can be used. The rule of thumb that is applicable in most cases is "would a reasonable and prudent person be in fear for there life?"

The firearm needs stay in the holster until a "reasonable and prudent person would be in fear for there life". When it is pulled from the holster the only reason the trigger is not pulled is something has changed to lower the threat level.

Based on what I see in the video if I did the same in Minnesota I would also be convicted.

BINGO!

And, this result would have been different with a decent attorney...his attorney failed him.

mcdaniel.mac
03-01-2017, 02:39 AM
Yeah, the report from OregonLive reads quite a bit differently than the OP. 20-25 yards away, sweeping the crowd with his gun?

Funny how they don't mention the undercover officer on scene that witnessed it.

Ballistics in Scotland
03-01-2017, 06:08 AM
Yeah, the report from OregonLive reads quite a bit differently than the OP. 20-25 yards away, sweeping the crowd with his gun?

Funny how they don't mention the undercover officer on scene that witnessed it.

Everything reads quite a bit different from the OP. The Oregonian's account of the trial mentions the prosecution saying that nobody touched him and the men with deadly flagpoles were nowhere near him. His claim to be in danger has to be seen against what actually does happen to journalists medium-close to flagpoles at such demonstrations. They don't get killed.

Here is some information, though, on his claim to be a journalist, and the reason for his bail being so high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Strickland_(blogger)

As to the five-minute trial, the Oregonian calls it a week-long trial, and at the arraignment evidence was taken from eighteen witnesses. The accused and his counsel opted for a bench judgment (which seems sensible of them), and no doubt the judge had examined the evidence beforehand. What should he do, dither on the bench for a few hours to make it look good?

Presumably an appeal is still possible, and that would be good enough reason not to release the videos, in case that helps someone tailor his perjury according to what he can get away with.

As to the UK, nobody ever got into trouble defending himself against a mugger in a way approximately proportionally to the danger faced. Where they will, is when they turn out to have armed themselves in case a mugger shows up.

flint45
03-01-2017, 01:13 PM
If I see a mass of people coming after me trying to get at me I would be in fear of my life ,just look at how these people act and there are plenty of news accounts were people have died from being beaten.Self defense yes ,guilty no.

Der Gebirgsjager
03-01-2017, 04:13 PM
What isn't shown or known is what happened before the video starts. What did the defendant see and perceive as a threat before the picture starts?

When he is shown drawing his weapon the crowd, which seems to be off to the right rear, may be much closer than 25 yards, and as he is backing up a threat seems to be moving toward him. I'm not saying that this guy in necessarily 100% in the right, and this is a fringe case, but so many cases that establish case law are fringe cases. I have some reservations, such as the guy having 6 extra magazines, but again there is no law against it. If I was in his shoes and believed that I was facing a butt whipping by a bunch of thugs I'd do the same thing--draw the weapon to prevent it--but thereafter my exit would have been much more expeditious and immediate.

The point here is that, whether or not the defendant pursued the most prudent course of action (and without being there we don't know), he was certainly tried in a hostile environment. Not only was the pool of potential jurors hostile, but the judge as well. Were I his attorney I'd go for a retrial and a change of venue. In any event, I believe that we have not heard the last of this matter, and its outcome will be important to gun owners in Oregon.

fatelk
03-01-2017, 06:09 PM
As to the UK, nobody ever got into trouble defending himself against a mugger in a way approximately proportionally to the danger faced. Where they will, is when they turn out to have armed themselves in case a mugger shows up.

I have to say I don't understand the justification for prohibiting people from even preparing to defend themselves. I expect that this paternalistic perspective is pretty foreign to most of us here. I feel bad for poor people in bad neighborhoods who's choices are to either hope the police arrive in time (or at all), or roll over and play dead.

As to the guy in question in Portland; that's not too far from me. I have also heard that it was a "fringe case", that it appears he did push it a little too far and he could have done some things different (but I don't know, I wasn't there). That said, I also suspect that he did indeed get a bit of a raw deal; they were going to make an example of him no matter what.

Some people defend pushing things a bit, say you have to to get things done. On the other hand, it can be counterproductive. There was an open-carry activist here in our town a couple years ago, who carried an AR through town, wearing a camera, them posted his encounter with the local police on youtube. I watched the video and had to respect the police for their professionalism. The activist on the other hand was kind of a jerk. The ultimate result of that little incident was that the city passed an ordinance banning all open carry. :(

MaryB
03-02-2017, 02:07 AM
Supreme court has ruled that "journalist" extends to anyone who publishes material for the public. So yes he IS a journalist.

Oregonian is extremely left leaning so take anything they publish with a grain of salt. They claimed Lavoy Finicum charged the FBI waving a gun for example when he was in knee deep snow struggling to walk.


Everything reads quite a bit different from the OP. The Oregonian's account of the trial mentions the prosecution saying that nobody touched him and the men with deadly flagpoles were nowhere near him. His claim to be in danger has to be seen against what actually does happen to journalists medium-close to flagpoles at such demonstrations. They don't get killed.

Here is some information, though, on his claim to be a journalist, and the reason for his bail being so high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Strickland_(blogger)

As to the five-minute trial, the Oregonian calls it a week-long trial, and at the arraignment evidence was taken from eighteen witnesses. The accused and his counsel opted for a bench judgment (which seems sensible of them), and no doubt the judge had examined the evidence beforehand. What should he do, dither on the bench for a few hours to make it look good?

Presumably an appeal is still possible, and that would be good enough reason not to release the videos, in case that helps someone tailor his perjury according to what he can get away with.

As to the UK, nobody ever got into trouble defending himself against a mugger in a way approximately proportionally to the danger faced. Where they will, is when they turn out to have armed themselves in case a mugger shows up.

mcdaniel.mac
03-02-2017, 02:46 AM
Supreme court has ruled that "journalist" extends to anyone who publishes material for the public. So yes he IS a journalist.

Oregonian is extremely left leaning so take anything they publish with a grain of salt. They claimed Lavoy Finicum charged the FBI waving a gun for example when he was in knee deep snow struggling to walk.

I don't remember anyone claiming that Finicum charged the FBI gun on hand, I distinctly remember the reports matching the video where he ran away from the vehicle (fleeing/resisting arrest) and then reached into his pocket when told to put his hands up.

Do you happen to have evidence of this lie by the Oregonian?

jonp
03-02-2017, 06:46 AM
Yeah, the report from OregonLive reads quite a bit differently than the OP. 20-25 yards away, sweeping the crowd with his gun?

Funny how they don't mention the undercover officer on scene that witnessed it.

pretty sure if I had an angry crowd coming at me screaming for my head I'd not let them get closer than 25yrds away before pulling my self defense handgun in the hopes that would stop them.

When do you think you should defend yourself, when your on the ground getting beat to death?

jonp
03-02-2017, 06:48 AM
"Here is some information, though, on his claim to be a journalist, and the reason for his bail being so high."

So do you agree that The Government should be able to designate who is a journalist and who is not? Gee, no chance of chicanery there...

Hickory
03-02-2017, 09:10 AM
So do you agree that The Government should be able to designate who is a journalist and who is not?

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of ALL citizens.
In the case of the first amendment, this right applies to all citizens not just to someone with a printing press.

mcdaniel.mac
03-02-2017, 10:03 AM
pretty sure if I had an angry crowd coming at me screaming for my head I'd not let them get closer than 25yrds away before pulling my self defense handgun in the hopes that would stop them.

When do you think you should defend yourself, when your on the ground getting beat to death?
But that's not what's on the video, or what the other witnesses testified happened, including the police.

Ballistics in Scotland
03-02-2017, 10:50 AM
I have to say I don't understand the justification for prohibiting people from even preparing to defend themselves.

Probably the resemblance to preparing to attack people. They seem to have taken the word of a police witness that he wasn't in the kind of danger that justifies pointing a gun at people. We frequently see people on this board claiming that violence is the right way to treat a slighting attitude. Of course it is mostly theory, that would evaporate if the situation arose in real life. But I don't suppose they intended to make themselves lawfully threatenable with a gun let alone lawfully shootable

UKShootist
03-02-2017, 02:20 PM
I don't know what happened in this incident, but one thing stands out to me. If we accept that the journalist was in fear of the crowd, and had reason to be, then he has some options if he is armed. Displaying and brandishing his firearm is one to consider. It is likely to discourage the crowd, and the journalist can then get clear. Nobody is hurt. Or. The journalist can keep his firearm out of sight until the crowd draws so near that he is in immediate danger of harm, assuming the crowd is indeed threatening. Then he draws his pistol, by which time he pretty much has to use it and someone gets shot. The question is, which is the better course of action.

To add, someone has said that the reported did not have a lawyer. If this is true then he's a fool, and fools should not be trusted with guns or the media.

MaryB
03-03-2017, 12:28 AM
They deleted the story after it was proven false by the live video.


I don't remember anyone claiming that Finicum charged the FBI gun on hand, I distinctly remember the reports matching the video where he ran away from the vehicle (fleeing/resisting arrest) and then reached into his pocket when told to put his hands up.

Do you happen to have evidence of this lie by the Oregonian?

mcdaniel.mac
03-03-2017, 12:29 AM
They deleted the story after it was proven false by the live video.
Well that's convenient.

MaryB
03-03-2017, 12:38 AM
They posted the original story by the FBI informant who claimed he had when he was nowhere near the scene. Mark the narc McConnell who later retracted his story. I found it over on Oregon live which the Oregonian repeated http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/militant_shot_and_killed_while.html


Well that's convenient.

mcdaniel.mac
03-03-2017, 01:10 AM
They posted the original story by the FBI informant who claimed he had when he was nowhere near the scene. Mark the narc McConnell who later retracted his story. I found it over on Oregon live which the Oregonian repeated http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/militant_shot_and_killed_while.html
So the Oregonian didn't lie about it, they got a bad scoop from a witness who turned out to be unreliable.

If you tell me you bought a Camaro, and I post on here that you bought a Camaro, and it turns out you bought a Corolla instead, I didn't lie I merely went with the information I had.

10-x
03-03-2017, 10:57 AM
Gee, remember the 20 foot rule? Any bad guy with a stick, club, knife of any size can cover 20 feet in seconds thus the reason to draw. He needs better attorney and change of venue. Will donate.

Big Mak
03-03-2017, 11:06 AM
I wonder how he would have faired (had he been a member) with a USCCA appointed lawyer who are said to be experienced in such cases?

dverna
03-03-2017, 12:10 PM
Anyone who goes to court on something this serious without an attorney, and a good one, is extremely foolish. This fellow had plenty of time to consider doing the smart thing and getting an attorney before going to court and he chose poorly.

Some people are predisposed to making bad decisions. Making decisions when your life may be threatened is even tougher as you have little or no time to think. And in the majority of cases, the person has little or no training.

The chances of making the right decision when under pressure goes down significantly if you cannot make the right decision when you have plenty of time to think things through. Part of that is playing "What if" scenarios in your mind... When do you run...when do you fight?


It is astonishing that he was carrying six magazines...it indicates he had given his situation some thought and was expecting a problem. It takes a lot of time to go through six magazines and unless he is being shot at by more than one attacker, he will never need that many..... unless he engages at long range. I suspect he drew the gun too early...knowing he had plenty of firepower in reserve. But knowing he was going into a possibly bad situation, why go in alone? Why no position yourself close to a couple of escape routes or places to hide.

In the little training I have had ($3000 invested), you do NOT go looking for trouble. You practice situational awareness at all times. If you perceive a threat, you get away or hide if at all possible. Standing your ground is the last option. Yes, it is not "heroic" to run and hide. But it is the smart option that keeps you alive and/or out of court and/or out of jail.

He is a fool. Like John Wayne said. "Life is hard. It is even harder if you are stupid."

Ballistics in Scotland
03-03-2017, 01:04 PM
The Oregonian seems a lot more conscientious and objective than the website quoted in the opening post.

He was convicted with no evidence of the scenarios people here are weaving. There were pictures showing him drawing with nobody within a few feet at least, and I doubt if the Oregonian is untruthful in saying that he put his gun away and tried to be interviewed by a TV team in the moments after the incident. It seems like he thought none of them had a gun. Do the Oregonian pictures look as if he is surrounded, as he has been heard to say in the TV interview? Does he sound like a truthful person if he wasn't?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/guilty_man_who_pulled_gun_out.html

The prosecutor's claim that nobody was near him and he wasn't in sufficient danger was presumably based on the videos and the evidence of the police witness. The origin of the protest was two police shootings, in which various people on this board claim the word of policemen should be taken, or guesses made on their behalf. Have policemen changed at all in the last couple of weeks?

As for the twenty foot rule, a phrase more commonly used of industrial ergonomics, I don't believe it is on anybody's statute book. But I am pretty sure most people in this thread would feel entitled to carry a flagpole within twenty feet of someone who didn't like them. There are people who could hardly carry a flagpole without it.

The jury pool sounded pretty much like a cross-section of America. Those who complain of the jury section being packed mostly wanted the jury selection to be biased.

Ballistics in Scotland
03-03-2017, 01:16 PM
Anyone who goes to court on something this serious without an attorney, and a good one, is extremely foolish.

That he may well be. But he had attorneys, Christopher Trotter and at least one other, who for all we know may have been like Perry Mason with a client who was actually innocent. The decision to go for a bench judgment was made after an unsuccessful motion to dismiss all the jurors. Perhaps he dismissed them while they could have given him a chance, or perhaps they advised him that it was the best chance he could get. Either way, do attorneys come into a bench judgment at all? It may have made no difference at that point.

bob208
03-03-2017, 02:39 PM
out come different in Baltimore where a bunch of black youths. came after this old guy he popped one in the head. no charges. the difference he was a retired cop. so I guess only retired cops have the right to defend themselves.

Ballistics in Scotland
03-03-2017, 03:50 PM
out come different in Baltimore where a bunch of black youths. came after this old guy he popped one in the head. no charges. the difference he was a retired cop. so I guess only retired cops have the right to defend themselves.

Very likely they actually did come after him. Either that or there was no video of him doing it.

Larry Gibson
03-03-2017, 03:53 PM
"The Oregonian seems a lot more conscientious and objective than the website quoted in the opening post"

Being a native Oregonian and having read that paper for years (even delivered it when I was a kid) I wouldn't say there was anything "objective" or "conscientious" about the Oregonian when reporting on anything gun related. The other site isn't all that objective either. There are few "journalists" anywhere these days, most want to be "investigative reporters" or commentators. Few report the facts. Most will report others opinions (includes witnesses) and their own and fail to realize "opinions" in journalism belong on the editorial page. Having also been a LEO in Oregon and having investigated many crimes up through murder I learned witnesses statements will all differ as they all had a different view. Witness statements are best recorded as soon as possible after an incident. Witnesses should also be separated as soon as possible so they don't collaborate, intentionally or not. What witnesses think they saw will always change as time goes by and as they become influenced by media output and what other witness say they saw. If their statements change as time goes by they should be held to their original statements. Then also some witnesses lie, for many reasons. Especially those that come out later as a "witness".

I've no idea of the facts of this case, how it was presented in court or if the guy was really out of line or not. But what I do know is I wouldn't be so quick to take one side or another based on what the Oregonian and that website say......I base that strictly on what I do know.

Larry Gibson

bob208
03-03-2017, 04:27 PM
I say the guy saved lives by pulling his gun. nobody wants to get shot so they backed off till he could leave. or should he have waited till they were on him then maybe get 2 of them before they tore him apart ?

Ballistics in Scotland
03-04-2017, 06:44 AM
I say the guy saved lives by pulling his gun. nobody wants to get shot so they backed off till he could leave. or should he have waited till they were on him then maybe get 2 of them before they tore him apart ?

He prevented the sort of deaths there were in all those other demonstrations? He didn't leave till his arrest. He gave a brief TV interview with his gun reholstered, within gunshot range.

Ballistics in Scotland
03-04-2017, 06:49 AM
"The Oregonian seems a lot more conscientious and objective than the website quoted in the opening post"

Being a native Oregonian and having read that paper for years (even delivered it when I was a kid) I wouldn't say there was anything "objective" or "conscientious" about the Oregonian when reporting on anything gun related.

That may be true, and still be an order of magnitude superior in conscientiousness and objectivity to what was quoted in the opening post. I don't suppose they actually made the prosecutor out to be saying things he didn't. Among all the scenario-weaving, about the most likely is that the accused and his attorneys couldn't afford to have a jury see the video or hear the plain-clothes police witness.