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

[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...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]

Originally Posted by 5whisley

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?

[Koda94]

and to increase the bigger picture, not only is it now illegal to draw your gun in the face of obvious self defense, and not get a fair jury of your peers. You cant even get an unbiased judge in Oregon to rule your case for your freedom...

“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.”

“They are a scourge of this country and no one should have one as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “There’s no defense to guns. There’s just absolutely no reason to have them.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssjX...ature=youtu.be

That is just within the last 6 months here while presiding over a case, I wonder how Stricklands judge felt about guns? Maybe it was the same judge?

[5whiskey]

I really shouldn't respond, but I shall for the sake of your second amendment rights. I will also be blunt. You better be prepared, as soon as you TOUCH a firearm, to deal with the consequences of presenting deadly force. Aguila I understand what you are saying, but I don't at the same time. A shove is not aggravated assault. A shove is, almost everywhere, an assault. There is a great DISPARITY of force between a shove and pointing a firearm at someone. You are correct that one shove MAY be a sign of further, much more serious, assault. But it also MAY be just a shove after the person who got shoved said something they shouldn't have.

I understand there were many people who do not share Mr. Strickland's view there, and he was basically alone. That is a disparity of force. Pointing a gun at someone (many people) who do not appear from video evidence to present a deadly threat is also a large disparity of force. To suggest that you were in fear for your life because one member of the group shoved you is a very great leap. A leap that ensures this man will never legally possess a firearm again. Act and believe as you wish, but I recommend you not act in the same manner as this man.

Koda, the link you provided IS telling of your chances of a fair trail by judge in Portland. That is disturbing. It Still doesn't mean you should be able to draw a gun and point it a crowd.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

A shove is not aggravated assault. A shove is, almost everywhere, an assault.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. "Assault" is actually the proverbial "harsh words." I used to think as you do, but I discovered to my dismay a few years ago that there's a reason why I'm not a lawyer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

Assault
Definition

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/aggravated_assault

Aggravated Assault
Definition

A criminal assault — a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with one's person — involving an additional, aggravating factor, such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.

[5whiskey]

Also that slight shove when the guy in black is confronting him and gray hoodie guy comes to the side happens about 2 or 3 minutes after Mr. Strickland drew his gun and reholstered. The narrarator may say it happened before, but he is either mistaken in fact or lying.

[5whiskey]

Aguila tell me how a shove (which is moot because it happened AFTER the defendants crime) is...

involving an additional, aggravating factor, such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.

I'm dying to know...

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ Don't quote only the part of the sentence that seems to support your view -- quote the entire sentence:

A criminal assault — a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with one's person — involving an additional, aggravating factor, such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.

Shoving is a physical act, and under most circumstances involving a disparity of force would be likely to create a "reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact."

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

a shove (which is moot because it happened AFTER the defendants crime) is...

how is a shove moot after a crime?

[JohnKSa]

how is a shove moot after a crime?

Drawing a gun and pointing it requires some level of legal justification to prevent it from being a crime.

The legal justification must be present immediately before or during the act of drawing/pointing in order to justify the act. If, at 7:00AM you draw and point a gun at someone and then reholster it 30 seconds later, you can't claim that you're justified in drawing and pointing the gun because at 7:01AM someone shoved you.

The shove is moot in terms of justifying the drawing/pointing which occurred earlier. It might serve as justification for a later act of self-defense but it can't retroactively justify an act that happened earlier.

...not only is it now illegal to draw your gun in the face of obvious self defense...

In all fairness, the issue at stake wasn't whether or not self-defense with a firearm is legal, but whether or not there was sufficient justification for drawing and pointing a gun.

Frankly, the circumstances of the case are not what I would call a crystal clear case of self-defense. It certainly didn't help that it happened in a gun-unfriendly area, but I don't think that's the primary reason for the conviction.

[5whiskey]

Don't quote only the part of the sentence that seems to support your view -- quote the entire sentence

Okay.

A criminal assault — a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with one's person — involving an additional, aggravating factor, such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon

You are emphasizing the first portion of the definition. A crime (such as assault) only happens when ALL of the elements of the crime are met. The portion that a quoted is an element of aggravated assault. If you don't have that critical element, then you do not have aggravated assault.

Here is a definition of assault, from Cornell law...

Definition

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage

That would cover a shove. A shove is not aggravated assault as there is no aggravating factor. And the shove occurred AFTER he drew his gun and reholstered it. I assumed the guy who shoved him was angry for having a gun pointed at him.

[zincwarrior]

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?

That he had the mens rea to cause trouble or potentially a mass shooting.

he was found guilty today on all counts.

Of course he was, because he was guilty.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Drawing a gun and pointing it requires some level of legal justification to prevent it from being a crime.

The legal justification must be present immediately before or during the act of drawing/pointing in order to justify the act. If, at 7:00AM you draw and point a gun at someone and then reholster it 30 seconds later, you can't claim that you're justified in drawing and pointing the gun because at 7:01AM someone shoved you.

The shove is moot in terms of justifying the drawing/pointing which occurred earlier. It might serve as justification for a later act of self-defense but it can't retroactively justify an act that happened earlier.

John, ...respectfully I think you are misunderstanding my question and the Strickland case. Im not asking about drawing a gun at that moment the guy in the hoodie shoved him, because no gun was drawn then. The video showed the guy in the hoodie shoving Strickland to antagonize him into a fight. Strickland never drew his gun. 5Whiskey was stating that the hoodie guy could get away with that ("is moot") because Strickland had previously drawn his gun earlier. I disagree... as far as I understand the law even if someone instigates a fight (justifying self defense from the victim) if he disengages that fight and especially makes an attempt to flee, its now illegal for the victim to continue his self defense on the bad guy. In fact, the original bad guy (for starting it) would then at that point be justified in his own self defense.

the guy in the hoodie went up to Strickland while Strickland was disengaging, flanked him on his blind side and shoved him to instigate a fight.


this thread is mystifying me, its almost like we are not watching the same video evidence. I don't know how we cant talk about this with the back and forth bantering about what happened in the video when one side says something opposite what the video shows. Im going to re-watch it one more time, in case its me thats doing that many im the one thats confused.... but Ive already replayed many times. Im not seeing what you guys are seeing... this is troubling to me because it tells me it tells me there is a disconnect between what Ive studied on self defense and you guys who are lawyers... and yeah Im thinking about it seriously wanting to learn. I do respect many of the discussions Ive read here from the legal professionals.


and lastly...

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In all fairness, the issue at stake wasn't whether or not self-defense with a firearm is legal, but whether or not there was sufficient justification for drawing and pointing a gun.

but that was never determined in the trial. the judge ruled him guilty on all counts by his judgment alone not by trial.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Koda94

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

Originally Posted by Koda94

Its illegal to draw your gun in self defense.

Originally Posted by Koda94

not only is it now illegal to draw your gun in the face of obvious self defense

Please stop repeating this nonsense. That statement is an absurd hyperbole.

A man drew a firearm under a circumstance in which it wasn't clear-cut that he was legally justified to do so. He was convicted of a crime. It's pretty ridiculous to repeat over and over again that this now means it's illegal in Oregon to draw your gun in self-defense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Koda94

....this thread is mystifying me, its almost like we are not watching the same video evidence. ....

For now this is very much beside the point. The reality is that the judge here saw and heard a lot more evidence than we have, as well as the arguments of the prosecutor and defense attorney about how the evidence should be interpreted and how the law should be applied. So thus with far more information than we have the judge found Strickland guilty.

Of course the outcome is subject to appeal, and the judgment could be overturned by an appellate court. But at this stage we know that at least one person with the benefit a a great deal more information decided that Strickland committed the crimes with which he is charged and was not justified in drawing his gun.

If there is an appeal, we might have more to discuss later. But I'm closing this for now.