SIG Talk banner

The Mike Strickland incident: opinions?

1792 17
Back in July of 16' at an Oregon protest rally a guy, Mike Strickland (some account him as a journalist & counter protestor), draws his glock due to feeling threatened. He ends up getting arrested and it seems the book is thrown at him. He was also loaded out with 5 addition mags.

Elsewhere on the internets there's a bit of debate going on about whether he acted appropriately or reasonably or however you would care to qualify it. Since I didn't see it posted here I wondered what our little community of the worldwide internets had to say about it.

I'll post two vid links, careful little one what you hear as there's some language.
https://youtu.be/D_0MQdpBIF0

https://youtu.be/FH7aTp8DsVI

(if someone can and cares to embed and it doesn't break any rules, have at it)

I'm not particularly concerned about the severity of the charges he's facing (pretty severe IMO), my interest is his processing and ultimately his decision to draw.

If this is another beating of a long beaten horse, I apologize.
  • Like
Reactions: bearone2
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Well, I wasn't there and I wasn't in his shoes, so I can't say whether or not I would have drawn a pistol in the same situation. But Mr. Strickland surely knew, and presumably accepted that Portland, Oregon is one of the most liberal cities in the nation.

My limited understanding of Oregon gun laws suggests that it is very unclear whether individuals have a duty to retreat outside of the home, to avoid a risk before utilizing a weapon. There is certainly an obligation not to not seek out a confrontation. By going to a protest of this type armed with 5 additional magazines may well have been construed as an attempt to seek out confrontation. Oregon law also stipulates the use of deadly force is only justified in the face of an "imminent threat". In this case, the police may have argued that there was insufficient evidence that an imminent threat existed.

Perhaps the most important obligation of those who carry concealed weapons is to recognize and avoid situations in which the use of deadly force is more likely to occur, and on that account I think Mr. Strickland failed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
If one feels they need 5 extra mags to go to a place, I am sure that it is seen as excessive. When you look at that coupled with being in a liberal place to begin with, I am sure he was painted as an antagonist in the situation. I don't know who this guy is but if he is seen as a counter protestor that may play into it as well.

As a CCW holder we should seek to avoid confrontation and not start it or antagonize it. If you know you are going into a bad area or situation without a good reason you will be subject to interpretation buy Lawyers and jury.

I am sure he felt threated, but what lead up to that? Did he say something to someone to get it started? I don't know

The problem is did he feel threated enough to use deadly force. I would have to say NO, since no shots were fired.

I would never use my firearm to wave at an attacker. My philosophy is if it is being drawn on someone it's getting fired at them. One it makes you think if deadly force is really required. Second it prevents you from flashing it as just a deterrent, which could escalate things more.
 

· 🎖USA Veteran
Joined
·
56,730 Posts
before reading, it depends what oregon laws are regarding "brandishing".

my line in the sand:

in az i can place my hand on the grip(still holstered) in an attempt to diffuse a possibly ugly situation, it isn't brandishing.

in az you can't flip someone off, call 'em a xxxxhead, cut 'em off, etc....then claim fearing for your life, kill them, when they follow.

if me or my family is actually involved, deadly force will be utilized......if i'm at a circle-k that's being robbed by armed individual/s, i'll take-up a defensive position, if ali bubba comes armed, lookin' for witness, i'll engage if necessary.

5 mags, he was looking fortrouble
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,884 Posts
I would never use my firearm to wave at an attacker. My philosophy is if it is being drawn on someone it's getting fired at them. .
I would respectfully disagree. I have drawn a gun on 3 occasions. The first was on a burglar who was climbing in my bedroom window, the second was on someone trying to get in my car when I was in traffic and the third was three thugs who seem to "want" the young lady I was with.

In all 3 occasions the attackers broke off and ran away at the sight of the gun
 

· Banned
Joined
·
7,265 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I'm finding it difficult to rally for the guy but was looking for another angle to consider things, something other than "my rights". follow?

I do wonder how many personal defense classes will use this situation as a training aid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bearone2

· Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Total fail. Now this clown will spend tens of thousands on legal fees and worse. Simply having 5 mags won't likely pass the test of a jury of our peers.

Back in July of 16' at an Oregon protest rally a guy, Mike Strickland (some account him as a journalist & counter protestor), draws his glock due to feeling threatened. He ends up getting arrested and it seems the book is thrown at him. He was also loaded out with 5 addition mags.

Elsewhere on the internets there's a bit of debate going on about whether he acted appropriately or reasonably or however you would care to qualify it. Since I didn't see it posted here I wondered what our little community of the worldwide internets had to say about it.

I'll post two vid links, careful little one what you hear as there's some language.
https://youtu.be/D_0MQdpBIF0

https://youtu.be/FH7aTp8DsVI

(if someone can and cares to embed and it doesn't break any rules, have at it)

I'm not particularly concerned about the severity of the charges he's facing (pretty severe IMO), my interest is his processing and ultimately his decision to draw.

If this is another beating of a long beaten horse, I apologize.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
He did what he did in the wrong state.
Arizona has 13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

B. This section does not apply to a person who:

1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.

2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.

C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.

D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:

1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
Two extra mags, ok by me. Five? Dunno about that. That is just my opinion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
I would respectfully disagree. I have drawn a gun on 3 occasions. The first was on a burglar who was climbing in my bedroom window, the second was on someone trying to get in my car when I was in traffic and the third was three thugs who seem to "want" the young lady I was with.

In all 3 occasions the attackers broke off and ran away at the sight of the gun
All of your points would authorize deadly force here. If someone was breaking into my home or car with me in them, I am sorry to say they will be shot. There is a pretty bad heroine epidemic going on and you don't know what they are capable of or if they turn around with their own firearm. Under state law this is castle doctrine. I would not wish this situation on anyone or to have to defend myself in that way, but will not hesitate if needed. As for your third scenario it is coverd under rules of deadly force and self defence as well. Being former military as well as having multiple talk/training with local sheiriffs and police this has been their advise as well. After my parents had their house broken into and a key stolen to their home, my mother asked what to do if someone tried to get back in. I am sure you can guess what they told her.

Most home invasions around here involve persons using weapons either knife or gun against home owner. It is the robberies that the theives normally don't have weapon and owner is not home.

Our sheriff supposedly made headlines after placing a warning out to individuals dressing up as the scarry clowns and chasing people with baseball bats. He warned them that there where xxxx number of people in the county with CCWs and they should rethink their actions.

I am not saying what you did was right or wrong, each person must know his own response within the boundaries of what they are allowed by law. As well as live with the outcome.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,777 Posts
still difficult from the videos to assess the whole situation.

hard to gauge. what would prompt the protesters to care if they were being video taped? It appears there was lots of video being shot.

makes me believe there was additional verbal exchanges that took place. I don't condone the harassment he seems to be receiving........but it also appears he went there to film AND be confrontational in the process. Just guessing.

I don't know the man and didn't know of him before seeing several videos of this.....but would say he wasn't making the smartest decisions he could.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
This is an article based about Ohio law.I know everyone has different laws state to state, but I think this is good advice.

Brandishing and Warning Shots | Second Call Defense


Why brandishing, shooting to wound, and warning shots are BAD ideas
For every bit of good advice out there about self defense, there are at least 10 pieces of bad advice.

Some of the very worst advice is about how to avoid the legal fallout of self defense by using a firearm in a non-lethal way, such as brandishing, shooting to wound rather than to kill, and firing one or more warning shots to scare off an attacker.

On the surface, these ideas seem to make sense. After all, why kill someone if you can end a confrontation in some other way? The problem is that besides being in many cases tactically unwise, the idea of introducing a firearm into a situation before you're actually in fear of death or great bodily harm can lead to serious legal troubles.

Perhaps the best explanation for this comes from Ken Hanson's book The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws, Fourth Edition, pages 76-77. While written for Ohio gun owners, you should consider taking Ken's advice to heart no matter where you live.

Prosecutors have another term for warning shots: attempted felonious assault, improper discharge of a firearm etc. Shooting someone in the leg rather than center mass is similarly misguided and will not evade serious felony charges. Similarly, pulling out a gun just to "defuse the situation" is a legal non-starter. Do not be tempted to do this. If the gun comes out of the holster, the gun owner had better be justified in immediately employing it fully. There is no such thing as a warning shot or shooting to wound. This will be construed as a miss, bad marksmanship and perhaps even attempted murder.
This author understands the theory that the presence of a firearm might eliminate a confrontation. However, the opposite is equally true. For illustration purposes, assume the following: Someone was rudely and dangerously cutoff on a street, the horn blast that logically followed developed into the "cutter" getting out of the car to go yell at the "cuttee." The "cutter" does not display anything other than bare hands. Unfortunately, "cuttee" then displayed his handgun in the honest belief that it would avert/end the confrontation. Bad move.
First, no threat of imminent serious physical harm or death had been made, thus the person who took out the handgun did not have any legal justification for using lethal force. Second, the "cuttee" has escalated the situation: Within his own car, without any threat of serious physical harm or death, he removed a handgun from a holster. This action clearly, in this circumstance, could be construed as a threat. Would the "cutter" now be justified in drawing a handgun of their own and shooting the "cuttee," assuming it wouldn't violate a duty to retreat? This scenario will always present more questions than answers, and the gun owner is going to be playing against long odds if he brandishes a firearm in a non-lethal situation.
Removing a handgun from a holster, or even possibly just uncovering and indicating the presence of a handgun, can be considered a hostile act and will be considered a criminal act. As the old saying goes, an armed society is a polite society, and people do not need to be waving guns around to accomplish this. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR HANDGUN OUT OF A HOLSTER, YOU HAD BETTER BE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN USING IT IMMEDIATELY.
Readers, students and the general public never like this answer, but I assure you it is an accurate answer under Ohio law and has withstood the test of time and appellate cases. Any deliberate action on your part that introduces lethal force into the encounter in a manner that makes the other person aware of the lethal force, IS THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE. If you make reference to lethal force, show lethal force, hold lethal force in your hand etc., those actions are simply an alternative use of lethal force, short of pulling the trigger. If you are in a non-lethal encounter, and have used lethal force, even in this round-about, alternate way, you have escalated the encounter and will have difficulties proving your self-defense case.
In short, don't draw your firearm until you honestly believe you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. And if that is truly your belief, you don't have the leisure of brandishing, shooting to wound, or firing a warning shot.

At that crucial moment, you should do what you've been trained to do: stop the attack by shooting your attacker center mass until the danger is gone.

Then, if you end up in a courtroom, you can honestly and with conviction look the jury in the eyes and say, "I feared for my life. I had no choice"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,114 Posts
Not addressing the OP, but on the follow ons.

Should I ever be so unfortunate as to be victimized in a home invasion or other such crime wherein I am placed in fear of my, or my family's life or of great bodily harm, there will be no verbal warning, no intentional display of my firearm, no warning shot. I will do my best to stop the threat. And if in so doing, the bad guy is mortally wounded or otherwise deadened, then there are likely others who will never suffer as his victims and will never know they have me to thank (or blame). That's okay, I don't mind.

For the last 46 years (since I was in the PD academy), I have watched our criminal justice system grievously fail us all, a revolving door for bad guys. Taking a bad guy down (permanently) is not my goal now and will never be, only stopping the threat. If the bad guy perishes while I'm doing that, tough, he should have known it was risky business going in. If he scampers off to visit violence on some other innocent, I need more practice. He doesn't need to worry about being shot in the back, he's good, just so long as he doesn't turn to come back when I remind him that he missed some money in my other safe. :)
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Not addressing the OP, but on the follow ons.

Should I ever be so unfortunate as to be victimized in a home invasion or other such crime wherein I am placed in fear of my, or my family's life or of great bodily harm, there will be no verbal warning, no intentional display of my firearm, no warning shot. I will do my best to stop the threat. And if in so doing, the bad guy is mortally wounded or otherwise deadened, then there are likely others who will never suffer as his victims and will never know they have me to thank (or blame). That's okay, I don't mind.

For the last 46 years (since I was in the PD academy), I have watched our criminal justice system grievously fail us all, a revolving door for bad guys. Taking a bad guy down (permanently) is not my goal now and will never be, only stopping the threat. If the bad guy perishes while I'm doing that, tough, he should have known it was risky business going in. If he scampers off to visit violence on some other innocent, I need more practice. He doesn't need to worry about being shot in the back, he's good, just so long as he doesn't turn to come back when I remind him that he missed some money in my other safe. :)

To add a minimal amount to this I over heard some guys talking to my local sheriff about this kind of situation at the gym and his words were "the dead cannot speak so make sure they won't be able too"

I hope I never have to ask him if he recalls saying that
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
I have no idea what went on before the incident in the video but it seems like he should of avoided the protest in the first place and known the local laws on what he could legally do. If he had opened fire he would might of killed a few of them with the first magazine but the rest would be useless if they attacked him. I am sure most would run but who knows what will happen in any situation

I most likely wouldn't of let the protestors know I was armed unless I was cornered and had no way of staying unharmed without it
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top