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

[Lohman446]

I believe in the fundamental right to self defense. I have written corporate policy that instructs CCW holders to comply with the demands of an aggressor should, in their judgement, only property be at stake. I have once made carrying of my firearm very clear when a threat escalated. Chances are I am one of your best friends on a jury where violent self defense is necessitated.

Many of you would exclude me because I believe, should you be robbed at an ATM, drawing a firearm increases the chance of SOMEONE being severely hurt or killed. Compliance, if it does not put your life further at risk, is the most likely method of everyone walking away without injury.

You are not going to get Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday on your jury

[Tom Servo]

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.

Bingo. I presume this is the video in question. The first thing I noticed is that there is nothing he couldn't just casually walk away from. He got fidgety, and he pulled a gun. There's a legal doctrine known as imperfect self-defense, and he may find himself on the hook for that.

He felt comfortable enough to reholster the gun in the middle of the confrontation, which also leads me to believe he wasn't in real danger. It also doesn't help his case that he was apparently carrying six spare mags. A prosecutor can use that to sell a trigger-happy mindset to a jury. In this venue, that seems a very real possibility.

And you know what? I have little sympathy. Which people in the crowd were the perceived threat and which weren't? Because he swept everybody, threat or not, with the muzzle. If I were in or near that group, I'd have had a real problem with him.

Yes, the statements by the judge and folks in the jury pool show clear bias, but Strickland didn't help himself one bit by his actions, which could carry very valid criminal penalties.

[zincwarrior]

Exactly. The book got thrown at him and he is gonna pay for this literally criminal level stupidity.

[thallub]

Michael Aaron Strickland is a trouble maker and an idiot.

http://whoismichaelstrickland.com/

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

I think it's important that we, in our zeal to defend the second amendment, do not defend someone who improperly (quite possibly criminally) displays a firearm and points it at people who pose no real threat out of knee-jerk reaction. Pointing a gun at someone without a legal exception (i.e. self defense) is a crime.

I agree with the caveat that I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Some people in the jury pool will say stuff just to get out of jury duty, judges know this but will oblige them because they don't want those kind of people on the jury anyway.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Some of this discussion lacks understanding the nuance of gun issues and legal interactions.

1. It is doubtful from the video that he had a clear case of using a gun for self-defense. The threat is not there and his pointing a gun such that he covered many, many non-threats doesn't speak well for him. It points to the need about being really up on avoidance and how to evaluate situations. This guy seems out of control and wrapped in his own ego/dominance challenge. Of course, this is based on the video and worth what your paid for my opinion.

2. Shock that potential jurors didn't support using lethal force to defend property. Well, that is pretty established legal doctrine in the US and has a long history. Before you spout about TX - better cite our laws correctly. In most legal discussions, life trumps property and to take a life only a threat of grievous bodily harm justifies lethal force.

3. Shock at hunters. It is well known from anecdotes and research that the hunting population is not identical to the self-defense population and that knowledgeable hunters and gun owners are not happy with the self-defense commando types. They may be more harsher in judgement than nongun folks. Many have negative views of assault weapons and higher capacity guns as indicators of untrained wannabees.

4. A lesson for all the 'if it's a good shoot' crowd. We see that all the time. My shoot is an obvious good shoot and a juror will see my point of view as it is of course correct. In this case, why do you have so many mags - well, I want to be able to shoot up an entire demonstration if they go beserk on me!!

That probably won't sell. So much for 'your good shoot'.

[doofus47]

Taking a step sideways from the question of "did he do right", I'd like to ask is it possible for the defense lawyer to point out "Potential Juror X just isn't my client's peer." as a reason for juror rejection when a hard-boiled anti-gunner or a "self defense is for the weak" activist is questioned for jury selection?

[Koda94]

Yes, I believe the guy is innocent but posted this really to share the reaction of the potential jurors.

Its a real eye opener to see how someone cant get a fair trial based on bias... The message here is apparently he should have taken a mob beating that day.

And to the hunters out there that dont think their bolt action hunting rifle or their grand dads old police revolver is on the list... .they fail to see the role model of gun control the antis work for, ask someone what its like to own a hunting arm just about anywhere in Europe or even use it...

Back to the subject, folks if you visit Portland and had to defend yourself, you will not get a fair trial.

[Lohman446]

Six loaded magazines with 120 rounds of ammunition in that environment. You would be hard pressed to convince me that he was not out looking for problems. Do you have the right to carry that? Sure. But if things go wrong that is one of the things that the person with the gun better have an explanation for.

For example I carry a 10MM most times. I fully realize this places me in the unenviable position of possibly having to explain why I am carrying a handgun "deemed too powerful by the FBI". My defensible position is that, because of where I live, my primary concern is not human in nature. I'm much more likely to run across a feral and aggressive dog, a bear (not as likely), or a group of coyotes (yes still overkill).

[5whiskey]

Taking a step sideways from the question of "did he do right", I'd like to ask is it possible for the defense lawyer to point out "Potential Juror X just isn't my client's peer." as a reason for juror rejection when a hard-boiled anti-gunner or a "self defense is for the weak" activist is questioned for jury selection?

Yes, the defense and prosecution both have the right to ask a judge to dismiss a juror either for cause or without cause. Requesting that a juror be dismissed for cause means that they were questioned by the attorney, and the attorney feels that the juror will not be able to set aside their biases when issuing a verdict. The judge gets to decide whether they can render a fair verdict, ultimately. You can dismiss any number of jurors with cause, but very few (if any, depending on the state, court, etc.) without cause.

[zincwarrior]

They can strike jurors pre-emptorily and for cause (that state's jurisidiction will have specific statutes and case law on what is applicable). He could theoretically attempt to move the venue arguing he could not get a fair trial, but the odds of that success are statistically nil.

Frankly he'd be better served with an ignorant jury. A jury of "his peers" would be be gun enthusiasts. After seeing the video, I'd vote for at least unlawful display and assault with a weapon and maximum sentence (again jurisdiction has the specific crimes).

Attempted murder? No
Assault (or whatever the state's version of threat of unlawful touching is called) with a deadly weapon OH YEA.

You're (the defendant) arguing Self Defense? here just climb into this hole under the jail I dug for you.

The multi mags, the fact he stayed (thats arguably potential crime there-oppression or similar if its in the books), and he didn't call the PoPo is excellent evidence of his mental state and counters self defense arguments.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Doofus47

Taking a step sideways from the question of "did he do right", I'd like to ask is it possible for the defense lawyer to point out "Potential Juror X just isn't my client's peer." as a reason for juror rejection when a hard-boiled anti-gunner or a "self defense is for the weak" activist is questioned for jury selection?

It seems to be a common misconception that we are guaranteed the right to trial before a jury "of our peers." That's not correct. What the Constitution actually says is:

Originally Posted by Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[44 AMP]

There are two basic issues at work here, what is legal to do, and what is prudent (smart) to do. They are not the same in every case, and clearly not, in this case.

You have a right to carry a gun, and a right to defend yourself, no matter what "potential jurors" might think. Now, whether or not its a good idea in a given situation is a DIFFERENT matter.

IF, by your own actions (or lack of action) you put yourself in (avoidable) harm's way, then both your legal and prudent options become severely narrowed.

And the race card (which will be played by someone if not many) further complicates the issue.

Another complicating factor will be the exact language of the applicable laws. There is a judgment principle that says that one's actions should only be judged by what the actor knew (or believed to be true) at the time. Generally this is a good idea, but there are variations, and if the language of the law says, "knew or should have known", then broader standards can be applied.

I believe a lot of this case will involve why he was there, as much as what he did while there, and why he didn't leave after the confrontation. Because the reasons and facts play a part in others deciding if his actions were reasonable & prudent.

IN simple terms, a "journalist" covers a rally, he's an obvious outsider, an angry mob closes in, he brandishes a firearm, they back off, he puts the gun away. No one got shot.

Based on just that, he did a minor foul the way he brandished the weapon (pointing at people), but no major crime that I see, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES he believed existed.

People aren't going to look at just that, however. And it is those other things that will make some of them want him pilloried, not just punished.

In the Zimmerman case, a lot of the press focus was on if he should have been there, was he right to be there, and do what he did up to the point of the confrontation. Now, this DOES matter, but does it matter as much, or more than what actually happens during the confrontation? Possibly, but not automatically. In that case, from my distant observer's point of view, the press (and prosecutor) decided he shouldn't have been there, and done what it he did, so everything that followed was his fault. The jury looked at the simple matter of "are you justified shooting someone who is pounding your head into the sidewalk?" and they didn't convict Zimmerman for that.

In this case, there was no shooting (fortunately), so all the "harm" done is in the minds of the people who felt threatened, and in whatever violation(s) of law occurred because of the manner in which things happened.

Consider this, if the same situation had happened in a different setting, meaning a group of people "threaten" an individual, who then produces a firearm (and does not fire it) and the threat retreats, if that happened in the mall parking lot, a city park, or some other public place, do you think it would get the same level of scrutiny?

Videos do show what happened, but they usually don't show the entire context, and context does matter. Remember the Rodney King riots?

Now replace the unarmed truckdriver pulled from his cab and severely beaten with an armed blogger (reporter??), who didn't get beaten possibly because he displayed a firearm.

The difference between an emotionally charged rally and an angry mob ready to do violence can be a single thing in literally a few heartbeats of time.

No, I'm NOT condoning his actions, I think he was a fool. I just don't think he should be automatically sent to the frying post, for being a fool when no one was physically injured.

Sorry for the rant, these things get away from me sometimes.

[zincwarrior]

Based on just that, he did a minor foul the way he brandished the weapon (pointing at people), but no major crime that I see, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES he believed existed.

That minor foul is a felony and the prosecutor is trying to claim individual felonies per person.

He's about to be a guest of the state for a considerable period of time.

He's also an excellent on video example of so many lessons taught in the Texas CC class of what NOT to do.

Interestingly, one could make the excellent argument that, the moment he pulled his, if one of the victim's he was pointing at pulled theirs and blew him away they'd have a far far better standing to claim self defense.

[Lohman446]

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES he believed existed

The danger here is that it is not the circumstances the defendant claimed existed and his actions but the circumstances that a "reasonable person" would believe to have existed.

And the defendant, in attempting a positive claim of self defense, is going to have his standing as a "reasonable person" questioned. Part of the questioning is going to be, I expect, the six loaded magazines he had with him.

On an aside: what circumstance does a single civilian envision that is going to require the use of lethal force, require 120 rounds, and allow said reasonable individual to escape alive? I figure if I fire 20-30 rounds (or 15 when carrying a revolver) and have not managed to escape or ended the threat I am out of luck.

[Koda94]

What I see if he gets convicted without a fair trial is a clear message that anyone who questions the BLM/dont shoot movement is subject to assault and/or criminal conviction.

Oregon is a stand your ground state, he had no legal obligation to run. He has a right to be there, the protestors who i bet did not get a permit to protest would not have in that capacity without one.

Yes, his worlk is controversial by nature but I still dont see how you guys think hes at fault when he is clearly walking backwards removing himself from the situation. He presented his gun to the mob that was flanking him, not the crowds.

[Koda94]

And the defendant, in attempting a positive claim of self defense, is going to have his standing as a "reasonable person" questioned. Part of the questioning is going to be, I expect, the six loaded magazines he had with him.

On an aside: what circumstance does a single civilian envision that is going to require the use of lethal force, require 120 rounds, and allow said reasonable individual to escape alive? I figure if I fire 20-30 rounds (or 15 when carrying a revolver) and have not managed to escape or ended the threat I am out of luck.

How about a BLM protest?

How many rounds would anyone here carry if they had to cover a BLM protest for their job? Even if you werent there to question them....

[zincwarrior]

On an aside: what circumstance does a single civilian envision that is going to require the use of lethal force, require 120 rounds, and allow said reasonable individual to escape alive? I figure if I fire 20-30 rounds (or 15 when carrying a revolver) and have not managed to escape or ended the threat I am out of luck.

Hey some people take that Zombie apocalypse thing seriously I guess.

How does one carry that many mags in civilian clothing without a shoot me first vest or similar?

Yes thats going to look to neutral third parties like screaming bad intent, or he's a nutjob. Plus not calling the police and just staying there thats...wow.

Oregon is a stand your ground state, he had no legal obligation to run. He has a right to be there, the protestors who i bet did not get a permit to protest would not have in that capacity without one.

Stand your ground just means you have no duty to retreat. It doesn't change the standards related to justifying self defense. Being shouted at by marchers doesn't work.

How many rounds would anyone here carry if they had to cover a BLM protest for their job? Even if you werent there to question them....

If your intent is to shoot up a march thats multiple capital murder.

[Koda94]

Folks he didnt call the police because the roit police were already on the scene and threw him to the ground...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stand your ground is not a get out of jail ticket if you don't have a provable lethal threat and you are deploying a gun.

Nor is announcing that you are in fear of your life. Some guy here did that when he clearly provoked a fight and stood his ground, proclaiming he was in fear of his life. Then he shot - and now he's off to the orange jump suit fashion show.

If you think that you will shoot 120 or so people successfully with all those mags, you are delusional about gun usage.

[zincwarrior]

Folks he didnt call the police because the roit police were already on the scene and threw him to the ground...

Sure he could argue that. Good luck.

If they were already on scene then no jury in the world is gong to buy self defense, and rightly so.

"I was in fear for my life"
"what about the ten cops standing next to you?"
"er.."

[Koda94]

But he wasnt standing his ground, he was leaving the scene...


(Ok, i agree with you about the 129rds... )

[KyJim]

Going back to what Koda94 wrote:

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.

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

These are not necessarily different people. The 10 who said it was not smart to carry in public probably included the 9 who were generally opposed to firearms; the same with those "few" against using guns for defense. I feel very sure there were not 25 different persons making all these statements. Could he have gotten a fair jury? I don't know.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What defines a fair jury? Only folks who agree with your interpretation of something? I get that sense.

They have to state that they will follow the law as presented to them.

Each lawyer tries to get a sympathetic jury but 'fairness' is ill-defined if you mean agreement with you.

If you were on trial for a racist hate crime - would you think it unfair that jurors who exposed equal rights and nondiscrimination were on the jury?