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

[Glenn B]

Had he been beaten by several people or someone was putting the boot to him he could pull his gun.

So you are saying he had to have been attacked first to defend himself from what he believed was an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm, is that it? If so, you had better check the laws on that one because otherwise you may wind up dead due to misinformation and hesitation.

As to his being there, last time I heard, regardless of it being smart or not, he, you or I am allowed to go pretty much where we want in the land of the free
that includes attending a BLM rally to take pictures and to gather info for an article about it. Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating.

Knowing what little I know of this (and probably what little most of you know), the support (in this forum) for the leftist judge and HIS verdict (according to the article it was the verdict of a judge, not a jury as many keep saying) is virtually unfathomable to me.

 

[Chipperxd]

No one is applauding the verdict. Yes, we don't know the whole story as we weren't there. There are however other pictures and witness accounts of him being the instigator in the whole thing. IMO, he had chances to just leave but he didn't. He decided to pull his weapon and he is paying for it.

Also, we need to stop all these "OMG he was carrying it legally" click bait BS. Just because the person had legal rights to carry a gun doesn't absolve him from being an idiot.

 

[DoD1776]

So you are saying he had to have been attacked first to defend himself from what he believed was an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm, is that it? If so, you had better check the laws on that one because otherwise you may wind up dead due to misinformation and hesitation.

As to his being there, last time I heard, regardless of it being smart or not, he, you or I am allowed to go pretty much where we want in the land of the free
that includes attending a BLM rally to take pictures and to gather info for an article about it. Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating.

Knowing what little I know of this (and probably what little most of you know), the support (in this forum) for the leftist judge and HIS verdict (according to the article it was the verdict of a judge, not a jury as many keep saying) is virtually unfathomable to me.

So with the knowledge ADK is having here. Let's say you're home and a robber just broke in. You get your gun and you can't shoot him until he lays a finger on you... just let him rob and hope he touches you. This is the vibe I'm getting from what he is saying.

 

[ADK]

QUOTE="Glenn B, post: 234867, member: 88"]So you are saying he had to have been attacked first to defend himself from what he believed was an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm, is that it? If so, you had better check the laws on that one because otherwise you may wind up dead due to misinformation and hesitation.

As to his being there, last time I heard, regardless of it being smart or not, he, you or I am allowed to go pretty much where we want in the land of the free
that includes attending a BLM rally to take pictures and to gather info for an article about it. Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating.

Knowing what little I know of this (and probably what little most of you know), the support (in this forum) for the leftist judge and HIS verdict (according to the article it was the verdict of a judge, not a jury as many keep saying) is virtually unfathomable to me.[/QUOTE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]

Let me be real clear here. He can go anyplace he wants on public land or private land with permission. He is entitled to be dumb as a rock or smart as a whip.

3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person...... That is Stricklands only possible defense

(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........ It requires the above.

Now with that said...SHOW ME..... ANY physical force that under the circumstances in which it is USED is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. ........ There was NO Deadly physical force "USED" on Strickland so he has to come up with Deadly Force was ABOUT to be USED to save his ass from prison. He failed on that part.

He was just a dumb ass white boy period.

Now on to your statement:.......... Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating."

Let me tell you about FEAR. It is a very good thing as it will keep you alive. I am not advocating anything as you put it.
If you wanna be Rambo, have at it. If you want to error on the caution side, have at it also.

Here is a story for you. In the early 70's I had gone up to Montreal for a weekend and partied hard for a couple days. I am heading back to Peekskill NY and on 87 heading south. I have to get off 87 for the Bear Mountain bridge. It's 1 A.M. and I am dog ass tired and blow past my exit. I don't have a map with me but remember I can get off at the Tappan Zee Bridge and take 9 north. I blow past that exit also. I am tired and half awake. I know I can get off at the GW bridge and I think I can hit 9 north from there as I recall seeing it on a map. I make that exit, go across the GW and am looking to exit and head north. I took some exit road and am looking for a RT 9 sign. It seems I landed in Harlem. It's past 2 A.M. and all kinds of people on the street and many of them are looking at me in an strange way. I am getting the Clue. After traveling several blocks I am stopped at a traffic light waiting for it to change. A NYPD car pulls up besides me with a white cop driving and a Black Sargent
in the passenger side. The Sargent asked me if I was lost and I told him I was trying to find RT 9 to go to Peekskill.

His words to me were..... Go up three blocks, make a right, then go up 2 blocks and you will see RT 9. Roll up your window and don't stop for any traffic signs on the way..... Now being a "REASONABLE" man I took his advice.

 

[Chipperxd]

So with the knowledge ADK is having here. Let's say you're home and a robber just broke in. You get your gun and you can't shoot him until he lays a finger on you... just let him rob and hope he touches you. This is the vibe I'm getting from what he is saying.

How is that what he is saying? Are you just going to overlook the fact of private home vs a public place?

 

[ADK]

So with the knowledge ADK is having here. Let's say you're home and a robber just broke in. You get your gun and you can't shoot him until he lays a finger on you... just let him rob and hope he touches you. This is the vibe I'm getting from what he is saying.

Yea Bud, that what I am going to do. If you come to my house to rob me I will be in the closet hiding in fear.

Now you wanna try robbing me? You will soon be doing the Funky Chicken.

 

[DoD1776]

Yea Bud, that what I am going to do. If you come to my house to rob me I will be in the closet hiding in fear.

Now you wanna try robbing me? You will soon be doing the Funky Chicken.

Oh yes... I'm out to rob you....

 

[DoD1776]

How is that what he is saying? Are you just going to overlook the fact of private home vs a public place?

Doesn't matter! Your life is still endanger! Is it not?

 

[Chipperxd]

Doesn't matter! Your life is still endanger! Is it not?

Yes it does matter but since it seems that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, I will leave it at that.

 

[ADK]

Doesn't matter! Your life is still endanger! Is it not?

For some Ignorance is Bliss.

 

[Robin]

Some mistake bliss for common sense.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

QUOTE="Glenn B, post: 234867, member: 88"]So you are saying he had to have been attacked first to defend himself from what he believed was an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm, is that it? If so, you had better check the laws on that one because otherwise you may wind up dead due to misinformation and hesitation.

As to his being there, last time I heard, regardless of it being smart or not, he, you or I am allowed to go pretty much where we want in the land of the free
that includes attending a BLM rally to take pictures and to gather info for an article about it. Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating.

Knowing what little I know of this (and probably what little most of you know), the support (in this forum) for the leftist judge and HIS verdict (according to the article it was the verdict of a judge, not a jury as many keep saying) is virtually unfathomable to me.[/QUOTE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]

Let me be real clear here. He can go anyplace he wants on public land or private land with permission. He is entitled to be dumb as a rock or smart as a whip.

3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person...... That is Stricklands only possible defense

(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........ It requires the above.

Now with that said...SHOW ME..... ANY physical force that under the circumstances in which it is USED is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. ........ There was NO Deadly physical force "USED" on Strickland so he has to come up with Deadly Force was ABOUT to be USED to save his ass from prison. He failed on that part.

He was just a dumb ass white boy period.

Now on to your statement:.......... Are you saying we should live in fear and let those who cause the fear have their way while we cower with our heads in the sand - cause it sure sounds like that is what you are advocating."

Let me tell you about FEAR. It is a very good thing as it will keep you alive. I am not advocating anything as you put it.
If you wanna be Rambo, have at it. If you want to error on the caution side, have at it also.

Here is a story for you. In the early 70's I had gone up to Montreal for a weekend and partied hard for a couple days. I am heading back to Peekskill NY and on 87 heading south. I have to get off 87 for the Bear Mountain bridge. It's 1 A.M. and I am dog ass tired and blow past my exit. I don't have a map with me but remember I can get off at the Tappan Zee Bridge and take 9 north. I blow past that exit also. I am tired and half awake. I know I can get off at the GW bridge and I think I can hit 9 north from there as I recall seeing it on a map. I make that exit, go across the GW and am looking to exit and head north. I took some exit road and am looking for a RT 9 sign. It seems I landed in Harlem. It's past 2 A.M. and all kinds of people on the street and many of them are looking at me in an strange way. I am getting the Clue. After traveling several blocks I am stopped at a traffic light waiting for it to change. A NYPD car pulls up besides me with a white cop driving and a Black Sargent
in the passenger side. The Sargent asked me if I was lost and I told him I was trying to find RT 9 to go to Peekskill.

His words to me were..... Go up three blocks, make a right, then go up 2 blocks and you will see RT 9. Roll up your window and don't stop for any traffic signs on the way..... Now being a "REASONABLE" man I took his advice.

Apples and oranges. Regarding your story under that logic, no conservative reporters should ever cover rallies because that would be unreasonable.

As far as the physical force that can cause him harm or death, how about the spray can being sprayed at his face or the flagpoles pointed at him that once stabbed a police horse?

 

[ADK]

Will, there is a level that has to be reached before it becomes a deadly force issue. Cops get bottles, bricks and all sorts of things thrown at them. They get spit upon, beat up and everything else. They often get confronted by mobs, have molitov cocktails thrown at them. The list goes on and on.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will, there is a level that has to be reached before it becomes a deadly force issue. Cops get bottles, bricks and all sorts of things thrown at them. They get spit upon, beat up and everything else. They often get confronted by mobs, have molitov cocktails thrown at them. The list goes on and on.

They also aren't alone and surrounded or almost surrounded. A lone cop would have shot one of them when they sprayed his face and approached with spiked flag poles.

 

[ADK]

If that is what you believe. It's fine with me Bud. You are not going to change my mind in Stricklands case and I doubt I will change yours.

If by chance you ever end up in a situation like Stricklands I wish you well.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If that is what you believe. It's fine with me Bud. You are not going to change my mind in Stricklands case and I doubt I will change yours.

If by chance you ever end up in a situation like Stricklands I wish you well.

Likewise. Just keep in mind that when you decide to use your fists against a criminal, if he gets the better of you, your life or someone else's life could be in danger after he takes your gun. When carrying, you have to take that into consideration. Criminals don't fight fair or with referees.

Carrying a firearm requires you to protect it at all costs as well.

 

[ADK]

The last fight I got into I took a sawed off Q stick to the guys head and I thought it was quite fair. A Detective friend of mine said I can't do that stuff when I brought the guy in. Go Figure

 

[Glenn B]

ADK,

This is NY law and it is close to the same for OR as will be seen below:

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20. (Source: Article 35 NY Penal Law | Defense of Justification | NY Laws)

Here is the definition of deadly physical force in NY (and it is usually virtually the same in all other states):

11. "Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
or other serious physical injury.

(Source: Article 10 | New York State Penal Law Definitions | NY Laws)

Here is when you can use deadly force for self defense in the state of Oregon (the state in question):

Except as provided in ORS 161.215 (Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person) and 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person), 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]

(Source: ORS 161.209 - Use of physical force in defense of a person - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes)

Here are the OR limitations on that:

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. [1971 c.743 §23]

You will note that nowhere in the law does it state that enough force to cause injury, or serious injury or death, actually had to be used before a person can defend himself against the imminent threat of it. You will also note that it depends on the person's reasonable perception (the person claiming self defense). Thus, your reasonable perception that a mob is threatening to beat the shit out of you, I believe, should qualify as such in any non-biased court of law. In combination with what was happening to the defendant at the time there were many other similar instances by which he could have arrived at the very reasonable conclusion that he was about to be seriously injured by the mob. He had not only reasonable cause but probable cause as I see it.

 

[ADK]

Like everyone else you make assumptions. You are assuming he was about to be attacked by a mob and that deadly force would be used. It did not happen. Had it happened he would have a case. Think of it this way. I am at a shooting range, three guys have handguns on them and so do I. They are pissed off at me and want me to leave. I think they might gang up and kick my ass or perhaps even shoot me. Should I draw my Gun or just tell them I am leaving.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Like everyone else you make assumptions. You are assuming he was about to be attacked by a mob and that deadly force would be used. It did not happen. Had it happened he would have a case. Think of it this way. I am at a shooting range, three guys have handguns on them and so do I. They are pissed off at me and want me to leave. I think they might gang up and kick my ass or perhaps even shoot me. Should I draw my Gun or just tell them I am leaving.

The way you try turning spin things is funny. Now you want to equate law abiding citizens with criminals and anarchists.

Read the law. Any cop would have shot or at the very least drawed if he were alone in that situation.

 

[ADK]

Come on Will, are saying the protestors in that group near Strickland were not law abiding. Another assumption without merit.

You do not know what a cop would do in that situation anymore then me. Not to mention Cops have police powers and the general public
does not.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Come on Will, you now are saying the protestors in that group near Strickland were not law abiding? Another assumption without merit.

You do not know what a cop would do in that situation anymore then me. Not to mention Cops have police powers and the general public
does not.

So the guy spraying aerosol into his face is law abiding? How about the guy who took off his backpack in preparation to fight a guy with a camera?

 

[ADK]

My question Will was this.... I think they might gang up and kick my ass or perhaps even shoot me. Should I draw my Gun or just tell them I am leaving.

Now what is your answer?

 

[ADK]

So the guy spraying aerosol into his face is law abiding? How about the guy who took off his backpack in preparation to fight a guy with a camera?

And in your opinion that is a deadly threat. Could well be air freshener in the can as far as you know and that black guy taking off his pack was held back by another person in the group so where is you deadly threat case? It just went poof.

 

[Marine Cpl]

And in your opinion that is a deadly threat. Could well be air freshener in the can as far as you know and that black guy taking off his pack was held back by another person in the group so where is you deadly threat case? It just went poof.

It is given the organization's previous actions. Like I said, a cop would have drawn and or shot.

 

[ADK]

Will, Still waiting for your answer to my question above Bud.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will, Still waiting for your answer to my question above Bud.

The answer is yes. When a mob approaches me that is known for violence, the threat is deadly. I will not bank on them showing me mercy or not stomping me to death.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This is just one of many homemade torches used at BLM events.

 

[ADK]

It is given the organization's previous actions. Like I said, a cop would have drawn and or shot.

Now not only do think ( and I use that last word loosely ) a cop would have drawn his weapon but he would have shot someone.

Damn good thing Strickland didn't shoot someone.

Was there any particular person in that group the cop should have shot that you had in mind or just the whole bunch of them.

BTW....Still awaiting your reply to my above question

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now not only do think ( and I use that last word loosely ) a cop would have drawn his weapon but he would have shot someone.

Damn good thing Strickland didn't shoot someone.

Was there any particular person in that group the cop should have shot that you had in mind or just the whole bunch of them.

BTW....Still awaiting your reply to my above question

The torch guy for one.