Man with gun at Portland protest charged with 2 felonies

[Nick Burkhardt]

No he went looking for trouble and found it. Actually he has gone looking to cause a problem many times and finally provoked the lefties. his whole agenda was to make fun of others as by his own definition laughing at liberals

He is getting what he deserves. it is the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest and crying when you get stung

Even liberal Jon Oliver is bemoaning the death of traditional journalism

In order to get the stories that the mainstream media ignores, citizen journalists must sometimes enter the lions den.

 

[JRuby]

if this was the first time I would support Strickland but continuing to put yourself in a position knowingly that will antagonize others and call it self defense is not self defense it's called baiting. We will see if a jury of his peers agree with him. A 21 count indictment sure doesn't sound like he used common sense to me. If he was in the right I hope he wins. The grand jury apparently felt he was in the wrong or else it would have gone no further.

 

[Koda]

if this was the first time I would support Strickland but continuing to put yourself in a position knowingly that will antagonize others and call it self defense is not self defense it's called baiting. We will see if a jury of his peers agree with him. A 21 count indictment sure doesn't sound like he used common sense to me. If he was in the right I hope he wins. The grand jury apparently felt he was in the wrong or else it would have gone no further.

your right this isnt the first time he was attacked. I suppose if they beat the bubblegum out of him enough he will back down and stop trying to report on their agenda.... I think there is a word for that.

21 counts when no shots fired, no harm done.... yeah, Im shur the 21 count indictment was fair and just from an anti gun court that also refuses to indict a gun control supporting local pastor who clearly broke a gun law too. Im shur the Portland courts and DA isnt biased at all in these matters.

I hear what your saying about antagonizing or inciting, but I just dont believe he did that. I havent seen one shred of evidence of that.

 

[Slobray]

A grand jury.felt that there was enough evidence we will now see what a jury of his peers feel.

We will see if a jury of his peers agree with him.

You keep saying "jury of his peers", I would bet dollars to doughnuts that not one of his peers (a conservative and/or a gun owner) will be on said jury.


Ray

 

[3MTA3]

Makes me wonder if a black reporter covering a KKK rally would be considered provoking and thus lose his rights to defend himself?

 

[JRuby]

You keep saying "jury of his peers", I would bet dollars to doughnuts that not one of his peers (a conservative and/or a gun owner) will be on said jury.

Ray

They don't have to be according to how our legal systems work in this country. His peers are chosen by both sides.

 

[PaulB47]

In order to get the stories that the mainstream media ignores, citizen journalists must sometimes enter the lions den.

Bingo. He actually did nothing wrong, even by the standards of our shabby government.

It's one thing to say, "I wouldn't bait people, even people who are jerks and bubblegums." It's another thing to say "Nobody should bait them." I am glad there are people out there doing this sort of thing, even at substantial risk to themselves. I like it when some go out and show everybody where that bright line that shouldn't be crossed ought to be. The bright line should be at the point of actual, physical attack - which is what Strickland was facing - and not in reporting or speaking one's mind. There are times to hold your tongue, but there are also times one should speak out.

 

[that guy]

Aside from the particulars of this case, I do know that historically reporters have put themselves in danger by intentionally going into hostile areas unarmed. "Traditional" media ethics requires them to be unarmed, even in war zones. It may not be in the best interest of their safety, but it preserves their neutrality, both objectively and in the public perception of their actions, which is just as important if not more so.