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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The sad thing is that he may have the same problem with the judge. Even judges now feel it's ok to rule based on how they feel instead of on what the law says.
 
...not one juror believed it is appropriate to use a gun to defend your life...
Click to expand...
That is not what the article says.

The guy took a gun to a Black Lives Matter march. Plenty of white people there, but he's the only one who feels threatened by the mob.
There are lots of pictures, video, and eyewitnesses. One of the eyewitnesses is a cop.
He probably had a better chance with a jury.
 
SSA said:
That is not what the article says.
Click to expand...

you are correct, the gist of the jury pool was that virtually every one of them was biased against carrying a gun for self defense.

out of 30 potential jurors 10 right away said its not smart to carry a gun in public, 9 claimed to be "generally opposed to firearms" , 2 hunters who own guns expressed bias against carrying a gun for self defense, a "few" more claimed they were against using a gun to defend themselves in their home and one person claimed he was once attacked and robbed by 5 bad guys and chose not to fight back and be a pacifist.
(paraphrased)

somewhere in there I lost count, Id say 25 easy...

cant have a fair trial when your jurors are already decided against ya.
 
Koda94 said:
not one juror believed it is appropriate to use a gun to defend your life even if your life is at stake...
Click to expand...
The article doesn't say that nobody thought it's appropriate to use a gun to defend yourself if your life is at stake. In fact, there's not a single part of that article that has even a single person saying that specifically. Yes, some come close, but they all seem to be saying that they think guns can make a simple robbery worse and it's better to just go along with the people robbing you. Nobody specifically said that it's not appropriate to use a gun to save your life.

Heres one part of the article: "One woman said even if someone tried to rob her at an ATM, she wouldn't pull out a gun in response because it would only escalate the situation." Notice she never says it's not appropriate to use a gun if your life is at stake. Maybe that's what she believes, but this quote doesn't convey that. Her quote is conveying the idea that it's better to not resist and just go along with the robber and hope nobody gets hurt, instead of escalating the situation into a potential deadly situation by pulling out a gun. Apparently she believes your life is more at risk if you pull out a gun than if you just go along with the robber.

Here's another part of the article: "'I have pretty strong feelings about the type of person who would want to carry a gun around for personal protection,' said one hunter." Notice he doesn't say anything specifically against the act of using a gun to save your life, he's more just prejudiced against the type of people he thinks are the ones who carry guns.

Here's another quote: "Jason Short, another defense attorney, asked if any of the potential jurors were opposed to using a gun to defend themselves at home or if strangers approached them at an ATM. A few jurors raised their hands. 'I'm just afraid that someone would be killed, and it wouldn't have happened if the firearm wasn't there,' said a woman. 'I'm just very uncomfortable with a gun coming out.' Again, this quote isn't saying that the person is against the idea of protecting one's life necessarily, it's simply saying that this person believes that the presence of a gun can escalate a situation where nobody was going to get hurt into one where someone does get hurt. Obviously, I disagree strongly with this statement, but these people apparently believe that they're safer if they just go along with someone who is trying to rob them instead of trying to fight back with a gun.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with any of these sentiments at all, but we shouldn't misquote and misrepresent articles like these. Nowhere in the article is anyone specifically asked if they are for or against using a gun to protect one's life, and nowhere in this article does anyone explicitly answer these questions. What I get from these responses is less of a resistance to the idea of self-defense, and more of an embrace of the idea that guns always make a situation worse.

Again, this doesn't mean I agree with any of the jurors quoted in this article. I don't. But let's not misunderstand the opinions of anti-gun folks. If we can truly understand what they're trying to say, it's easier to actually refute their anti-gun positions.
 
Koda94 said:
I corrected my misstatement in post 4
Click to expand...
Apparently you did. Notice the times on our posts: I posted three minutes after that. My post is pretty long, it took me way longer than three minutes to write it. Obviously I didn't see your post.
 
I saw that and understand.



I still dont think he can get a fair trial but I dont understand the process well enough to see otherwise.

I also wanted to show how bad the anti-gun sentiment has become, I dont think its confined to just Portland either. Those juror comments were telling and the fact nearly most all of them feel that way shows how they put their bias first... Not one consideration to the fact that he was retrieting to get away.
 
The guy took a gun to a Black Lives Matter march. Plenty of white people there, but he's the only one who feels threatened by the mob.
Click to expand...

Correction, he was the only one attacked by the mob.
 
Quote:
The guy took a gun to a Black Lives Matter march. Plenty of white people there, but he's the only one who feels threatened by the mob.
Correction, he was the only one attacked by the mob.
Click to expand...
According to him. He better plea now because the prosecution is going to go through his claim like crap through a goose.
 
Correction, he was the only one attacked by the mob.
Click to expand...

??? The protestors clearly didn't like him being there, but he was not attacked. No one even walked toward him in an aggressive manner. He had a group meandering toward him and screaming at him, but no one trying to bum rush him.

Discretion is the better part of valor. I think that would apply in his case. I will say, somewhat to his defense, that the mere presence of several individuals wearing bandanas on their face focusing on me would unnerve me a little. Not so much to his defense, I don't think I would get in a shouting match with them.
 
I've watched the video of the incident, and I saw no evidence that the crowd "attacked" Mr. Strickland. Before he pulled the gun, the video shows the crowd walking in his direction; he seems to have been in front of the marchers as they were moving in the direction they had planned to march. No one laid hands on him or threatened him with a "flag staff." After he puts the gun away, there are people calming the crowd, and there are people attempting to persuade Mr. Strickland to leave. He clearly was there to film the march (and was well known to many of the marchers), and no one was preventing him from leaving if he felt threatened; that pretty well undermines any claim to self-defense he may try to make. He seems to be something of a professional provocateur, which doesn't particularly help his case.
 
I saw some of the video. I'd be interested to see if there is any footage starting about a minute earlier and an angle of him from behind.
 
Last edited:
I saw some of the video. I'd be interested to see if there is any footage starting about a minute earlier and an angle of him from behind.
Click to expand...

As always, some of the "juicy stuff" likely did happen before the video... as that is likely what makes the person filming decide to take their phone out and start recording. None-the-less, when filming did start it did not really show a chaotic scene. If something happened prior to filming that would be good exculpatory evidence for the defendant, he probably wouldn't still be holding his camera and walking around more less calmly when filming started.
 
The video I saw showed the guy walking backwars trying to leave, the mob following him and closing in around him just before he drew. IIRC at least one guy was trying to flank him. The fact he was walking backwards tells me he felt threatened. Whos to say any of the protesters wasnt armed? Whos to say what made him feel so threatened he didnt want to turn his back to them to run?

All I know is I see a guy trying to leave the scene peacefully, and now his freedom is on the line for defending himself. He never even fired a shot or even had to put his finger on the trigger. As soon as the mob backed off he reholstered his gun. Doesnt sound like the kind of guy that was starting a fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top