Oregon Michael Strickland, guilty of 21 counts

[So Low 2]

They have every right to protest thier position regardless of wether any of us like what they think. It is an American process and a right.[/QUOTE]
Just as he had every right to be there and film them, Whats your point?

 

[cdmontgo]

50 years for that? "Cruel and unusual punishment".

These are the sorts of events that give rise to revolutions, because ordinary people figure they can't get a fair shake any more. That is deadly. In the middle of war, looking back at such events, people are going to think "Maybe it was a bad idea to throw this guy in jail after all."

He hasn't been sentenced yet, so your claim is premature. If he actually gets 50 or anything remotely near that, I'll agree with you, but let's not be over dramatic.

 

[Certaindeaf]

"

They have every right to protest thier position regardless of wether any of us like what they think. It is an American process and a right.

Just as he had every right to be there and film them, Whats your point?[/QUOTE]"

Don't you understand? If someone says something often and loud enough or physically beats you down like the uppity dog that you are, you are supposed to click your heels together and submit.










not

 

[JRuby]

They have every right to protest thier position regardless of wether any of us like what they think. It is an American process and a right.

Just as he had every right to be there and film them, Whats your point?[/QUOTE]
Strickland agitated the situation a big difference in my opinion.they were protesting peacefully he was there to ridicule them.

 

[FortRock]

This makes me sick. I'm down for $50. OFF.

 

[Nocaster]

Agreed. Don't know why reading is so hard for some. It said he could face UP to 50 years. I doubt he will get 5.

5 years is a very long time. So is 1 year.

Edit: for someone who thinks they are not committing a crime.

As to whether a crime was or wasn't committed by Strickland, I see him kind of like George Zimmerman: innocent of the charges, but should have avoided the situation.

 

[So Low 2]

Just as he had every right to be there and film them, Whats your point?

Strickland agitated the situation a big difference in my opinion.they were protesting peacefully he was there to ridicule them.[/QUOTE]
I saw no evidence of this, even if true so what? Doesnt take much to agitate special snowflakes these days....

 

[JRuby]

You have a right to an opinion or a belief but you do not have the right to enforce your belief by picking a fight. Strickland went looking for trouble and found it. It is a right to protest those ideas and laws we disagree with as long as the protest is done peacefully. It is ironic that the only reason that Strickland is in trouble is because he knowingly put himself in a position that he knew may be dangerous to his well being. Most smart men don't go looking for fights if they can avoid them.

 

[JRuby]

Strickland agitated the situation a big difference in my opinion.they were protesting peacefully he was there to ridicule them.

I saw no evidence of this, even if true so what? Doesnt take much to agitate special snowflakes these days....[/QUOTE]
Respectfully if you do not see a difference I am wasting my time.if you do not see a difference between the intent to provoke a violent response and then pulling a weapon to cause an escalation of a situation caused by said individual and protesting for something they felt important enough to March for then I am done. To me it is clear as day.

 

[So Low 2]

You have a right to an opinion or a belief but you do not have the right to enforce your belief by picking a fight. Strickland went looking for trouble and found it. It is a right to protest those ideas and laws we disagree with as long as the protest is done peacefully. It is ironic that the only reason that Strickland is in trouble is because he knowingly put himself in a position that he knew may be dangerous to his well being. Most smart men don't go looking for fights if they can avoid them.

Sounds like just your opinion to me. Your welcome to it. Ive seen some of the videos hes made, I found them informative . I appreciate his journalism. Sort of a local Project Veritas. Hows that line go, evil persists when good men do nothing....

 

[So Low 2]

I saw no evidence of this, even if true so what? Doesnt take much to agitate special snowflakes these days....

Respectfully if you do not see a difference I am wasting my time.if you do not see a difference between the intent to provoke a violent response and then pulling a weapon to cause an escalation of a situation caused by said individual and protesting for something they felt important enough to March for then I am done. To me it is clear as day.[/QUOTE]
Are you bubbleguming kidding me . He went there to provoke violence? Yes you certainly are wasting your time!

 

[mkwerx]

Some of you guys don't seem to get it - when you have a crowd of dozens of people advancing on you - none of them need to be armed for that to be considered a lethal disparity of force. It wouldn't take much for multiple unarmed assailants to seriously injure or kill you. Mob mentality - mob violence. The term "curb stomping" isn't just a colloquialism - it's a real thing, and that mob very likely could have done it to him.

He was retreating once he felt his safety actually was in jeopardy, and he was retreating tactically - watching the threat instead of trying to just book it - there were plenty of people in that crowd that looked faster and stronger than he did - so even turning tail and running was no guarantee he would've escaped safely. And he didn't know who in that crowd may have been armed themselves - radicals have been known to carry guns, especially Black Panther / Black Lives Matter types.

Blame the victim in this case all you want. It's setting a precedent that we all may wind up being tried under now if things break bad for us. Strickland had the same first amendment rights as the jackasses he was filming - the difference is that he actually was peaceful right up tot he point his life was threatened - and the reason he was armed was because they tend to get violent, and have a demonstrated history of attacking him, while the authorities did absolutely nothing.

He wasn't provoking them, except by his physical presence, and the fact that he was there filming them - which he had every right to do.

I hope none of you guys ever wind up facing an angry mob advancing on you. Then again, for some here, maybe that would be a good wake up call. I'm done with this thread.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Some of you guys don't seem to get it - when you have a crowd of dozens of people advancing on you - none of them need to be armed for that to be considered a lethal disparity of force. It wouldn't take much for multiple unarmed assailants to seriously injure or kill you. Mob mentality - mob violence. The term "curb stomping" isn't just a colloquialism - it's a real thing, and that mob very likely could have done it to him.

He was retreating once he felt his safety actually was in jeopardy, and he was retreating tactically - watching the threat instead of trying to just book it - there were plenty of people in that crowd that looked faster and stronger than he did - so even turning tail and running was no guarantee he would've escaped safely. And he didn't know who in that crowd may have been armed themselves - radicals have been known to carry guns, especially Black Panther / Black Lives Matter types.

Blame the victim in this case all you want. It's setting a precedent that we all may wind up being tried under now if things break bad for us. Strickland had the same first amendment rights as the jackasses he was filming - the difference is that he actually was peaceful right up tot he point his life was threatened - and the reason he was armed was because they tend to get violent, and have a demonstrated history of attacking him, while the authorities did absolutely nothing.

He wasn't provoking them, except by his physical presence, and the fact that he was there filming them - which he had every right to do.

I hope none of you guys ever wind up facing an angry mob advancing on you. Then again, for some here, maybe that would be a good wake up call. I'm done with this thread.

Good post, well said! I'm with ya, I'm done here! Up the Republic

 

[woody06]

I don't send credit card info over the web. Does anyone know where I can mail a check? Thanks.

 

[nammac]

Mike was railroaded by the same corrupt, left leaning, liberal, political machine he spent much of his time documenting and uncovering.

He was a thorn in their side and they figured out a way to silence him, so they can continue with their slimey underhanded business... Wouldn't surprise me if some of those protesting had been paid to instigate a situation...

Honestly, Mike being silenced is our loss, because he was exposing them for the wormwood they truly are...

I guess you can only be a video journalist if you go along with the establishment and their line of bs...

 

[Camelfilter]

He gets 50 years?

Meanwhile this complete & total waste of breathable air gets 10 years (there is something VERY VERY wrong with our judicial system):

Salem man sentenced to 10 years for fatal DUI crash
Whitney M. Woodworth , Statesman Journal Published 11:14 a.m. PT Feb. 13, 2017 | Updated 10 hours ago
TWEETLINKEDIN 3 COMMENTEMAILMORE
A Salem man was sentenced to 10 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of painkillers and narcotics, causing three crashes, one of which left a 73-year-old man dead.

Daniel James Thompson, 42, pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter, hit-and-run and two counts of DUI. He was sentenced by Marion County Judge Courtland Geyer on Friday.

Thompson was involved in four crashes within the span of eight months. On April 19, 2016, the day of the final crash, witnesses reported seeing Thompson driving erratically and falling asleep at the wheel around 7 a.m. An hour and a half later, he was driving down Sunnyside Road SE when he crossed the centerline and crashed head-on with a vehicle being driven by Michael Tuel of Salem.


Both Tuel and Thompson had to be extricated from their vehicles, and were taken to Salem Health hospital. Tuel died at the hospital from his injuries.

During its investigation, Salem police discovered Thompson was under the influence of the narcotic Suboxone at the time of the crash. A probable cause statement filed in Marion County also stated Thompson tested positive for methamphetamines.

He was arrested in June on charges of manslaughter, DUI, hit-and-run and reckless driving.

In a plea petition, Thompson stated he knowingly drove while under the influence of a controlled substance.

"While doing that, I recklessly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, caused the death of Michael Tuel," he wrote.

First-degree manslaughter is a Measure 11 offense requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. Thompson's driver's license was permanently revoked, and he was ordered to pay restitution.

 

[etrain16]

Some of you guys don't seem to get it - when you have a crowd of dozens of people advancing on you - none of them need to be armed for that to be considered a lethal disparity of force. It wouldn't take much for multiple unarmed assailants to seriously injure or kill you. Mob mentality - mob violence. The term "curb stomping" isn't just a colloquialism - it's a real thing, and that mob very likely could have done it to him.

He was retreating once he felt his safety actually was in jeopardy, and he was retreating tactically - watching the threat instead of trying to just book it - there were plenty of people in that crowd that looked faster and stronger than he did - so even turning tail and running was no guarantee he would've escaped safely. And he didn't know who in that crowd may have been armed themselves - radicals have been known to carry guns, especially Black Panther / Black Lives Matter types.

Blame the victim in this case all you want. It's setting a precedent that we all may wind up being tried under now if things break bad for us. Strickland had the same first amendment rights as the jackasses he was filming - the difference is that he actually was peaceful right up tot he point his life was threatened - and the reason he was armed was because they tend to get violent, and have a demonstrated history of attacking him, while the authorities did absolutely nothing.

He wasn't provoking them, except by his physical presence, and the fact that he was there filming them - which he had every right to do.

I hope none of you guys ever wind up facing an angry mob advancing on you. Then again, for some here, maybe that would be a good wake up call. I'm done with this thread.

I completely get where you're coming from with this post. But I think there is another consideration here that has to be taken into account. If this had been you or me or someone else down there with a camera, recording what was going on, there is a good chance we would have been left alone by the crowd - because they want the video coverage, they want the attention. All you have to do is look at all of the 'citizen journalists' that surround these events with phones and cameras - they like to play it up for all of them, regardless of color, etc.

The problem is that Strickland himself is a known instigator/agitator of the left. He has been for some time. I've watched many of his videos and I'm thankful he does what he does. The problem is, he was a target before he ever arrived. Call it perhaps the hazard of the job, but they were out for him, specifically, not just a white man with a camera, they wanted Michael Strickland - because he represents that group of people that want to call them out for what they are - hypocrites, bigots and rioting buffoons. He has embarrassed liberals/leftists in and around the Portland area, made them look like fools - and it's pizzed them off big time.

I don't argue that he had a right to be there, to cover the event and report on it using his unique style. But come on, he had to have known that his life was in greater danger than probably anyone else there, because of who he is. And that is why I have to put some of the blame on him for making this choice. Say for example, I knew a street gang had it out for me in a particular neighborhood, would it be smart for me to go walking down the middle of the street in that neighborhood? Something I have every right to do? Or say I knew a mob was threatening to kill any white person they come across, would it be smart for me, even though it's within my rights to do so, to go walking into that mob? No, of course not. Those would be stupid choices. And that's where I put his choice to be there in the first place. He has spent a lot of time agitating these people through his videos, and they most certainly knew exactly who he was, and likely targeted him and only him. Just look at the rest of the group - were any other folks carrying cameras attacked or threatened? I've not heard of a single one - they came for him and him only, and he walked right into that trap.

I'm not defending the mob or the government - they are clearly on a vendetta, but I think that is a personal vendetta against one man, Michael Strickland. As I noted in my earlier post, there are a number of recent situations where folks have used guns for self defense in and around Multnomah county with not a single charge filed. I am simply saying the evidence isn't there that this is a sudden change in direction where now we don't have a right to defend ourselves. Instead, this appears to be an isolated incident - a witch hunt - with Michael Strickland right in the center of it. This was never about a guy pulling a gun to defend himself in public, this was about Michael Strickland, an "enemy of the state", pulling a gun in public, and handing them a golden ticket to rain down hellfire on him, to silence him, to keep their status quo intact. Michael should have seen this could have been coming, in fact, it might have been time for him to start changing how he did things, for his own safety.

This is a B.S. case that has corruption written all over it, and I hope it goes to appeals and he kicks the ever-loving crap out of every one of them in court. But I can't say he was just some innocent expressing his 1st amendment rights that just suddenly happened to find himself in this situation. If it hadn't been him doing what he does, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this. He turned himself into a target of the left, then practically handed himself over to them with the very evidence they needed to shut him down. Like it or not, they had been waiting for him to pull something like this, and he walked right into their trap.

I really hope GOA, OFF, SAF, NRA, someone will jump on this one and make it a big deal, maybe even take it to the SCOTUS.

 

[etrain16]

He gets 50 years?

No, not yet. He hasn't been sentenced. And it's highly unlikely he'll get that much time. Either way, I expect this will be appealed quickly.

 

[JRuby]

Good post, well said! I'm with ya, I'm done here! Up the Republic

I will do everything in my power to not put myself in a position where a angry mob is targeting me. I learned a long time a go that if you think your going to get in a fight by going somewhere don't go there. Sometimes you have to but given a chance to prevent an altercation I will avoid it. I don't need to prove anything.

 

[probasco]

I don't send credit card info over the web. Does anyone know where I can mail a check? Thanks.

Po box 556
Can by, Or97013

Go to the link above, click about, then contact