CCW Holder Wrongly Convicted in 5 Minutes, for Defending His Life from BLM Thugs

[Marine Cpl]

It looks like he was retreating the entire video. Would you turn your back on that mob? I sure as hell wouldn't. And as long as they're pursuing and well within 21 feet, they can be a threat.

Not only that, by pursuing him, they are preventing him from retreating. You can't retreat to safety if they keep following you. The fact that they keep following you even after seeing you draw a gun means that they mean you harm.

 

[spat]

Do you think you can legally pull a gun in a simple fist fight because you are loosing. How about someone beating your head in while your laying on the ground. How about someone putting the boot to you? How about someone using a club on you. If you do not know what deadly force or reasonable is you best not carry a weapon.

5 on 1 fist fight, you certainly *can* use a gun. Its called disparity of force.

 

[ADK]

I'm very interested in the FOREPLAY to this video. What led up to this chain of events?

At a Christian Rights Rally

Someone told me Actor A. was a Homo and he put his hands on actor B. and grouped him in an inappropriate manner and would not remove his hand. Actor B. cried out to the crowd for help and they responded and confronted Actor A. Actor A. claimed innocence but the crowd was not buying it as someone in the crowd said he saw it himself. The Crowd shouts leave at Actor A. and at this point he is getting scared but still arguing with the crowd. Actor A. backs away from the crowd but is not fleeing in a great hurry as there is just Too Much HONEY HERE. As the crowd gets more angry they shout, What are you doing Here? Get out! Actor A becomes more fearful at this point. They might just kick my Ass and I already got beat up a while back and it will hurt a lot. The crowd yells Leave! Actor A. does not say OK, I am leaving, he just slowly backs away knowing full well he is armed if things really go south. The crowd follows him as he is slowly backing as they do not want him there. At this point Actor A is getting more scared and thinks people might Wack off my Pee-Stol, but No one has pulled out a Scalpel yet and threatened to Circumcise him. Actor A. is becoming more and more worried and thinking of all the possible things that could happen to him. None of which are good so he decides to lift his shirt and show his Sidearm.

Someone Yells, He Has a GUN! Next thing he pulls the gun out of the holster and points it directly at some in the crowd, moving it from one person to another. He backs away a bit more and people are telling him to put the gun away. A TV. reporter speaks with him for a moment and some in the crowd turn towards the crowd to protect him. He re-holsters his weapon but does not cover it up with his shirt. He keeps his hand on the weapon. He chats with a few people among the crowd and eventually starts to back out of the area with his Pee-Stol intact and unharmed. Someone calls the Cops and they take him down. He is arrested, convicted and sent off to Prison where some Big Husky Horny guys that have not had a women in years await his arrival. Now he is among his own kind.

 

[rpf427]

I watched the video and at no time just before he pulled his gun was he totally surrounded. He was moving in a backwards direction and no one was stopping his rearward movement. Lets call an ace and ace and a SPADE A SPADE. Don't be making up stuff that did not happen.

You wouldn't happen to own a pussy hat now, would you?

 

[ADK]

Not only that, by pursuing him, they are preventing him from retreating. You can't retreat to safety if they keep following you. The fact that they keep following you even after seeing you draw a gun means that they mean you harm.

I can tell you this. I could well have exited stage left in this situation but he chose to dilly dally around. I wonder if he did not have a weapon on him would he still dilly dally around. Think about what a REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO! There lies the Crux of the issue.

State v. Sandoval is not an issue in this case as both men were armed and it is a totally different situation.

 

[ADK]

You wouldn't happen to own a pussy hat now, would you?

No, but if you are looking to purchase one I am sure you can find one your size online.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can tell you this. I could well have exited stage left in this situation but he chose to dilly dally around. I wonder if he did not have a weapon on him would he still dilly dally around. Think about what a REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO! There lies the Crux of the issue.

State v. Sandoval is not an issue in this case as both men were armed and it is a totally different situation.

An attacker doesn't need to be armed for you to fear for your life. Read the ruling. The whole thing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

At a Christian Rights Rally

Someone told me Actor A. was a Homo and he put his hands on actor B. and grouped him in an inappropriate manner and would not remove his hand. Actor B. cried out to the crowd for help and they responded and confronted Actor A. Actor A. claimed innocence but the crowd was not buying it as someone in the crowd said he saw it himself. The Crowd shouts leave at Actor A. and at this point he is getting scared but still arguing with the crowd. Actor A. backs away from the crowd but is not fleeing in a great hurry as there is just Too Much HONEY HERE. As the crowd gets more angry they shout, What are you doing Here? Get out! Actor A becomes more fearful at this point. They might just kick my Ass and I already got beat up a while back and it will hurt a lot. The crowd yells Leave! Actor A. does not say OK, I am leaving, he just slowly backs away knowing full well he is armed if things really go south. The crowd follows him as he is slowly backing as they do not want him there. At this point Actor A is getting more scared and thinks people might Wack off my Pee-Stol, but No one has pulled out a Scalpel yet and threatened to Circumcise him. Actor A. is becoming more and more worried and thinking of all the possible things that could happen to him. None of which are good so he decides to lift his shirt and show his Sidearm.

Someone Yells, He Has a GUN! Next thing he pulls the gun out of the holster and points it directly at some in the crowd, moving it from one person to another. He backs away a bit more and people are telling him to put the gun away. A TV. reporter speaks with him for a moment and some in the crowd turn towards the crowd to protect him. He re-holsters his weapon but does not cover it up with his shirt. He keeps his hand on the weapon. He chats with a few people among the crowd and eventually starts to back out of the area with his Pee-Stol intact and unharmed. Someone calls the Cops and they take him down. He is arrested, convicted and sent off to Prison where some Big Husky Horny guys that have not had a women in years await his arrival. Now he is among his own kind.

What is this nonsense?

 

[ADK]

An attacker doesn't need to be armed for you to fear for your life. Read the ruling. The whole thing.

Of course an attacker dose not need to be armed for someone to fear for their life. People fear things for all kinds of reasons.
Some Crazy people fear for their lives because they saw a bug.

Nowhere in the link you posted can I find the word FEAR.

 

[ADK]

What is this nonsense?

Just having fun, a Parody.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Of course an attacker dose not need to be armed for someone to fear for their life. People fear things for all kinds of reasons.
Some Crazy people fear for their lives because they saw a bug.

Nowhere in the link you posted can I find the word FEAR.

It doesn't need to say fear. You only need to reasonably believe the other person is going to use deadly force against you. Then the burden of proof is on the state to prove that you did not act in self defense.

Whether that person shows fear or not is irrelevant. Most do and it's a term commonly used together with the above phrase which is why I used it. Focus on what the ruling says rather than playing with words to turn a blind eye to the ruling.

It basically says that you need not retreat amongst other things and that you can use deadly force if you feel the other person is going to use it against you.

 

[ADK]

Will, Lets get down to the crux of the issue here. The bottom line is what the Law reads and for your reading pleasure I will provide links.

Unlawful use of weapon

ORS 166.220 - Unlawful use of weapon - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:

(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015 (General definitions); or


2) This section does not apply to:

(a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;

(b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2015 ORS 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Will, item 3 above says using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Example: Using.... He just shot at you. He just stabbed you.

Example: about to.... He has a gun or knife in hand but he has NOT shot or stabbed you yet.

Clear cut simple to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------

ORS 161.015¹
General definitions

ORS 161.015 - General definitions - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

1) "Dangerous weapon" means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(2) "Deadly weapon" means any instrument, article or substance specifically designed for and presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will, Lets get down to the crux of the issue here. The bottom line is what the Law reads and for your reading pleasure I will provide links.

Unlawful use of weapon

ORS 166.220 - Unlawful use of weapon - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:

(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015 (General definitions); or


2) This section does not apply to:

(a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;

(b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person);
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2015 ORS 161.219¹
Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

ORS 161.219 - Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Will, item 3 above says using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Example: Using.... He just shot at you. He just stabbed you.

Example: about to.... He has a gun or knife in hand but he has NOT shot or stabbed you yet.

Clear cut simple to understand.

Yet you keep ignoring "Oregon State Supreme Court affirmed that deadly force is allowable when: “A person reasonably believes another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her.”

"The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."

Why do you keep ignoring this? The Supreme Court Decision references those laws you posted and adds this decision based on those laws.

 

[ADK]

See my above edited post

(3) "Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

I am not ignoring it but you take it out of context in this case.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's pretty clear cut once you stop ignoring the Supreme Court Decision which you clearly still are. One need only believe another person is using or about to use deadly physical force upon you. You drew your weapon and the mob still chases you. What would happen when they get to you? You think they are just going to put on boxing gloves and have a fair fist fight and leave you be once your ass is kicked on the ground with your gun on your side? Being that they tried to burn him already with a makeshift aerosol torch, stabbed a police horse in another incident, beaten countless others including an elderly man, one can reasonably assume that their life is in danger.

They were warned and they still pursue. Do they have a knife in their pocket? Are they wearing armor under those hoodies? You don't know. They know you have a gun and still come at you.

 

[4excal]

What is this nonsense?

I loled. Didn't read it, but enjoyed the response.

 

[ManrisFrack]

... a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

The article originally posted the following quote from Victoria Taft:

“A witness in court testified there had been a conspiracy by anarchists to assault him and toss him out of the rally. Strickland was questioned and released the night of his attack and he was ordered to court on a misdemeanor count of menacing. When it was discovered who prosecutors had–the hated Laughing at Liberals guy–the 1 (sic) charge turned into 21 (sic) and the 1 (sic) misdemeanor turned into multiple felonies.”
​

If a single one of those antifa thugs verbally threatened him with violence, he was absolutely justified. Hell, the reported chants of "get him" might qualify considering the reported testimony.

Most telling is the report that "The judge said the attack by the mob should have NO bearing on Strickland’s actions that day." Clearly, that is not the case according to the law that has been cited here. There is a specific exemption for defensive use of force.

Which brings me to another point:

"Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS"
​

He didn't attempt to fire the weapon and failed. He didn't fire but miss. There was no attempt. That leaves us with intent, which we have no evidence or information on. The only thing we can say is that he had opportunity to attempt deadly force but didn't. Why would he not proceed with the attempt if he had unlawful intent when he decided to carry the weapon?


The biggest take away from all of this is that there is a huge gap in the law regarding defensive gun use and, consequentially a similar gap in training and public opinion. This rigid dichotomy that deadly force must be used or remain hidden doesn't reflect reality and it is huge disadvantage to those of us who'd rather go home than be forced into taking a life.

 

[ADK]

It's pretty clear cut once you stop ignoring the Supreme Court Decision which you clearly still are. One need only believe another person is using or about to use deadly physical force upon you. You drew your weapon and the mob still chases you. What would happen when they get to you? You think they are just going to put on boxing gloves and have a fair fist fight and leave you be once your ass is kicked on the ground with your gun on your side? Being that they tried to burn him already with a makeshift aerosol torch, stabbed a police horse in another incident, beaten countless others including an elderly man, one can reasonably assume that their life is in danger.

They were warned and they still pursue. Do they have a knife in their pocket? Are they wearing armor under those hoodies? You don't know. They know you have a gun and still come at you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It woulda, it coulda , There you go again. It never happened except in his unreasonable mind at best. You make up scenarios that did not happen in this case.

When you said: One need only believe another person is using or about to use deadly physical force upon you.

You are missing the point, you forgot REASONABLE! I saw no one with a weapon in the group just before he pulled his gun so where is the Reasonable part of the equation. It only takes a second to make a decision to use a weapon and I see no logical reason for him to do so other that FEAR of the unknown, which is not reasonable. Had he see someone approaching him with a weapon he would have just cause but that did not happen. He just pointed his gun at unarmed people in a threatening manner. Where is the deadly "physical force" you think he was concerned about? Show me where it is in the video clip just before he pulls his gun.

 

[Marine Cpl]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It woulda, it coulda , There you go again. It never happened except in his unreasonable mind at best. You make up scenarios that did not happen in this case.

When you said: One need only believe another person is using or about to use deadly physical force upon you.

You are missing the point, you forgot REASONABLE! I saw no one with a weapon in the group just before he pulled his gun so where is the Reasonable part of the equation. It only takes a second to make a decision to use a weapon and I see no logical reason for him to do so other that FEAR of the unknown, which is not reasonable. Had he see someone approaching him with a weapon he would have just cause but that did not happen. He just pointed his gun at unarmed people in a threatening manner. Where is the deadly "physical force" you think he was concerned about? Show me where it is in the video clip just before he pulls his gun.

I saw a guy with a makeshift aerosol torch. I saw another one with his hands in his pockets approaching the victim with a gun. Who approaches someone with a gun unless they mean them harm? Answer that.

This is a joke already. When a person who approaches another knowing that he has a gun, there is all the reasonable you need to think that he means you harm and your life is in danger.

I'm done here. It's ridiculous. Good night. You keep hoping that he doesn't beat you while you fight with your fists and takes your gun or stabs you if ever in that situation.

 

[ADK]

[QUOTE="ManrisFrack,

Which brings me to another point:

"Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS"
​

He didn't attempt to fire the weapon and failed. He didn't fire but miss. There was no attempt. That leaves us with intent, which we have no evidence or information on. The only thing we can say is that he had opportunity to attempt deadly force but didn't. Why would he not proceed with the attempt if he had unlawful intent when he decided to carry the weapon?[/QUOTE]

Unlawful use of weapon
Make no mistake about it, he did attempt and in fact he did. Do you think for one second you can wave a gun a someone without breaking the law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

[QUOTE="ManrisFrack,

Which brings me to another point:

"Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS"
​

He didn't attempt to fire the weapon and failed. He didn't fire but miss. There was no attempt. That leaves us with intent, which we have no evidence or information on. The only thing we can say is that he had opportunity to attempt deadly force but didn't. Why would he not proceed with the attempt if he had unlawful intent when he decided to carry the weapon?

Good night.

 

[ADK]

I saw a guy with a makeshift aerosol torch. I saw another one with his hands in his pockets approaching the victim with a gun.

I just watched the video. and in the seconds leading up to him pulling his gun I see nothing that you mentioned. Perhaps you are looking at an earlier video which means little as his decision to pull his gun does not take that long, unless of course he is a very slow thinker.

 

[Marine Cpl]

How about looking at this one instead of one that doesn't show the whole picture. Note the aerosol can. Note the black guy taking off his backpack. Note the crowd behind them. Note the guy yelling to hold the line to keep the crowd off him.

 

[Marine Cpl]

In your video listen to what he says at the 1:10 mark in regards to why he drew and stopped them. Put on headphones if you have to. They would have ate him up if he didn't stop them.

 

[rpf427]

This is hilarious.

Still say closet pussy hat.

 

[ADK]

How about looking at this one instead of one that doesn't show the whole picture. Note the aerosol can. Note the black guy taking off his backpack. Note the crowd behind them. Note the guy yelling to hold the line to keep the crowd off him.

I do see what appears to be a girl holding something that is burning or perhaps that is the aerosol can in her hand. Some big black guy taking off his backpack after people are shouting he has a gun. I do not see the black guy approaching him as someone is holding him back.

All the above things you have mentioned do not rise to Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

He " MIGHT" have had his ass kicked at best in my opinion. Had he waited a bit longer before he pulled the gun we might well know that answer but he jumped the gun and we will never know. No force was used against him that I can see and certainly no deadly force. You might also keep in mind that MOB has every right to move in any direction it wants just as Strickland does.

He simply let fear overtake him and he made the wrong decision.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I do see what appears to be a girl holding something that is burning or perhaps that is the aerosol can in her hand. Some big black guy taking off his backpack after people are shouting he has a gun. I do not see the black guy approaching him as someone is holding him back.

All the above things you have mentioned do not rise to Deadly physical force" means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

He " MIGHT" have had his ass kicked at best in my opinion. Had he waited a bit longer before he pulled the gun we might well know that answer but he jumped the gun and we will never know. No force was used against him that I can see and certainly no deadly force. You might also keep in mind that MOB has every right to move in any direction it wants just as Strickland does.

He simply let fear overtake him and he made the wrong decision.

He might have saved his life by doing what he did. He should have gotten out of Dodge afterwards but was too afraid to turn his back. You don't know what happened previous. In your video, the guy defends him at the end and understand why he did what he did.

 

[ADK]

In your video listen to what he says at the 1:10 mark in regards to why he drew and stopped them. Put on headphones if you have to. They would have ate him up if he didn't stop them.

Will, I can not make out exactly what is said. I am sure Strickland had the opportunity to state his case in court. Making a statement to the police is one thing and to someone on the street is another as you well know. Regardless in my opinion a self defense case has not been made. I don't know about you but if my weapon comes out, it comes out smoking and this clown does the threatening thing which simple means the threat level was not that high. Just my opinion.

 

[ADK]

This is hilarious.

Still say closet pussy hat.

Rpf , If you are addressing me.... What is your major malfunction? You seem to have a Pussy Hat thing.

 

[Robin]

Laws that conflict and are contrary to one another have been ever increasing since the 1960's, and thats the way they, the commie globalists, want it. Oh, you didn't know they were still active? Sleep little lamb chop, sleep.
Robin