The Oregonian reports this afternoon that criminal charges have been dropped against a man who continued to drive as Antifa protesters attempted to block his way.
Protesters moved out of the way as Mark Dickerson slowly drove through …
when one of the protesters came back and, like an intentional foul while dribbling in traffic, allowed himself to be ‘hit’ by Dickerson’s car.
Today, police released the dash cam video of the incident:
Prosecutors said the incident was Dickerson’s fault.
Dickerson’s incident took place after Antifa and Black Lives Matter ‘protesters’ blocked traffic in the aftermath of a police involved shooting and blocked another section of downtown Portland.
This above incident was done in full view of a flaccidly responding police officer, who watched from the safety of his motorcycle.
Antifa had also chased a man down the street and surrounded his car in a clash that made national news:
It’s precisely these attacks that give rise to charges that Antifa runs the streets of Portland.
And this is what the Antifa and Black Lives Matter ‘protesters’ said to drivers as they passed by:
“Yah, you little white little fucker! You’re a little whitey aren’t cha? … Just please turn right … You are a little whitey supremacist! … we don’t need your KKK … you fucking hit me right now, I’ll beat the shit out of you.
One upset driver told the ‘protesters,’ “Look, you don’t pay my bills, so shut the fuck up!” She drove where they wanted her to, however.
Prosecutors reportedly claimed that their star witness, identified as Arthuray Dudley, supposedly the brother of the man killed by police, would have sewn up their case against Dickerson, but he didn’t show up in court on Monday. Dickerson’s attorney said he would prove Antifa was responsible.
“My name is Michael Strickland” is how the Portland area citizen journalist began his story at the nationally prominent Gateway Pundit website.
Strickland’s speech was interrupted Tuesday night by a cow bell ringing, man-banned member of a Antifa/Anarchist group (they’re the same thing in Portland – just add a balaclava!) and his cadres, who are now full partners in Portland Professional Protesters, Inc.™ and who seem to receive full support of City Hall and Police Bureau.
As he wrote at Gateway Pundit, his planned speech was about how his First Amendment rights had been stripped away after being arrested for defending himself against Antifa in July of 2016:
On March 5th, 2019, The College Republicans invited me to Portland State University to speak about what happened to me on July 7th, 2016, when I was out filming a protest, exercising my right to freedom of the press.
As we mentioned here, Portland State University officials were asked to comment on how Campus Police did their jobs in allowing Antifa thugs to disrupt Strickland’s presentation.
The University issued a statement, which Strickland notes was full of inaccuracies and mischaracterizations:
Beyond the fluff and inaccuracies in that press release, what PSU’s head of public relations, Chris Broderick, can’t even get right is that my speech was not based around the 2nd Amendment. I believe my case is rooted in the 1st Amendment, and that’s what I was there to talk about. The name of the presentation was “How The 1st Amedment Was Invalidated.” The Republican club met with advisors and campus security the week prior to the event to discuss what the event was about. Broderick and his staff of 19 bureaucratic paper pushers are either incompetent, too lazy to do basic research and due diligence, or they are intentionally lying to the public.
Video of Strickland’s presentation, disrupted for more than an hour by Antifa/Anarchist protesters, one of whom we’ll just call Cow Bell Boy, was broadcast by many sources, including on Twitter by journalist Andy Ngo. It was picked up by The Daily Caller and featured prominently on the publication’s Facebook page. You’ll want to turn down the sound a bit if you’re at work:
Like a toddler who learns he can control Mom and Dad by throwing a wing ding, Cow Bell Boy rang his dingle dangle, shouted and made hiccup-like “yep!” sounds worthy of Dave Hester from “Storage Wars” to stop free speech in a public room. He later boasted, “I’ve been totally successful, I’ve shut this entire shit down all by myself.” He had two helpers with him, but basically, Cow Bell Boy was right. Police officers present did nothing.
During the dingle-dangle-wing-ding, videographer Nate Millsap said to him:
“I was just wondering if you had any balls to say what you are standing for or not standing for. You just shut people down and that is all that you know.”
Pondering his answer – or was he considering his balls? – as the diminutive man-bunned protester looked up at the six-foot-five, 280-pound boulder-sized Millsap, he creepily responded,
“Oooh, toxic masculinity!”
Millsap, who curates the YouTube channel Stumptown Matters, told VictoriaTaft.com that he laughed and responded:
“I’ve got all the masculinity you need and then some.”
If you know what “Toxic Masculinity” is you’re more informed than most. Or you’re a liberal arts intersectionality major at a university somewhere.
At a website called Tolerance (yes, really), invoking the latest made-up word in the feminist lexicon can be “tricky”:
“It’s a phrase that—misunderstood—can seem wildly insulting, even bigoted.”
Intolerant, insulting and bigoted? That’s quite a trifecta! (And, as an added bonus, if you were offended by the phrase then it would be your fault for ‘misunderstanding.’) We guess Cow Bell Boy thought he’d ‘trigger’ Millsap with his insult. That boy was barking up the wrong redwood.
Joey Gibson, the founder of “Patriot Prayer,” a pro-freedom, anti-Antifa group and who is all-too-familiar with Cow Bell Boy, gave VictoriaTaft.com his own definition of “Toxic Masculinity.”
Warning to Cow Bell Boy, you may be triggered:
“The term “toxic masculinity” is only used by boys who have tried their entire lives to be men but never figured out how. So instead they insult other men.”
Gibson, a former U.S. Senate candidate, told KGW-TV recently that America is getting soft and we need men and women to stand up for what’s right:
“We’re here to promote freedom and God and that’s about it. We’re the American Spirit where we stand up for our beliefs unapologetically and unafraid. Our country’s getting soft, it’s getting soft and we need leaders to step up.”
Meanwhile, back at Strickland’s presentus-interruptus, Cow Bell Boy only took his leave when he thought he’d burned enough of Strickland’s time to prevent him from giving his speech before the building curfew.
Cow Bell Boy, or one of his buddies, told VictoriaTaft.com via Twitter (more on that later) that he was never escorted out by police as I reported Wednesday. I can see by this angle of Andy Ngo’s video (above) that the Antifa protester was absolutely correct. Police response was even worse than I thought.
Coming to hear Strickland was a calculated act of bravery. Those gutsy enough to come to downtown Portland after dark to hear about Strickland’s case knew the cops wouldn’t have their back. They knew if they defended themselves or attempted to resume order in the room that they’d end up like Strickland: arrested, jailed, tried, convicted and deprived of their rights.
Strickland’s conviction is on appeal at the Oregon Appeals Court and is he represented by nationally known attorney Robert Barnes.
What are the stakes in the Mike Strickland versus Antifa case out of Portland, Oregon?
The City of Portland, prosecutors, police and judiciary have, so far, sided with Antifa protesters over Strickland, a videographer whose job it was to chronicle the radical mob which has preyed upon Portlanders for years.
“Before they chased old men in cars and canceled parades; before Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo Yianoppolous and Charles Murray were silenced by mob violence; before Professional Paid Protesters, Incorporated™ screamed at Senators, overturned cars or set a ‘deplorable’s’ limo on fire; there was Michael Strickland.
Strickland is believed to be Antifa’s ‘victim zero.‘”
The videographer and concealed carry permit holder was covering a Don’t Shoot Portland/Black Lives Matter protest on July 7, 2016. Strickland was surrounded and beaten by the Antifa mob (read about their conspiracy to do so here) and when they couldn’t bully him out of the protest on public property, the mob came back to finish him off. I reported on the clash:
“Strickland drew his licensed concealed handgun that Antifa knew he had (I know, I asked), a Glock semi automatic pistol. Strickland, showing amazing trigger discipline – never allowing his finger to come close to the trigger – held off his attackers as he backed away from the mob. To be clear, Strickland was the only person hurt that day. No shots were ever fired.”
One question remains: Is the judiciary even aware of the violence and vandalism perpetrated by a group that the Department of Homeland Security has designated a domestic terrorist group?
Strickland’s attorney, Robert Barnes, worries that they have no clue, telling VictoriaTaft.com and others on Friday:
“The judges haven’t ‘got’ what’s happening – the Judiciary as a branch. The judicial branch hasn’t figured out – other than Justice Brett Kavanaugh experiencing it personally – the rest of the judicial branch hasn’t deduced what’s happening in the public arena, what’s happening in these protests, what’s happening at these social gatherings, what’s happening in these tactics – these mob tactics –that are being utilized.
The reason why the press is nervous about the use of the word ‘mob’ is because of how accurate it depicts their tactics and techniques over the past two years. Tactics they experimented a little bit with at Occupy Wall Street but that went sideways because everybody was busy assaulting everybody inside, so they’re going, returning, back to those roots and those are dangerous roots for political expression. It’s going back to the street violence of the 1920’s and 1930’s as a technique and a tactic and the court system doesn’t realize it’s happening.”
After arguments in the case of Oregon V Strickland held Friday in a Oregon Appeals Court tribunal, Barnes summed up the high stakes involved in the outcome of the case.
The case of the Portland, Oregon man, forced to pull, but not fire, his legally concealed weapon to ward off a mob of Antifa protesters, has been heard before the Oregon State Court of Appeals.
Michael Strickland’s conviction on 21 counts against him, stemming from a July 7, 2016 protest, was appealed in oral arguments Friday morning before a three judge panel of the Oregon Appeals Court.
Robert Barnes represented Strickland while Susan Howe was the attorney for the state of Oregon.
The case was heard by Douglas Tookey (appointed by Gov. Kitzhaber), Scott Shorr (appointed by Gov. Kate Brown) and Rex Armstrong (elected to six year term in 2018) in a hearing that lasted less than an hour on Friday morning.
Strickland summed up the proceedings in a news release (see below):
“We raised several assignments of error regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, denial of change venue that was based on defamatory and untrue statements made by Multnomah County deputy district attorney Kate Molina to media, the 1st Amendment restrictions that have been placed on me by the courts, and the fact that I was denied my Constitutional right to face my accusers.”
“If the courts can do this to a privileged, straight, white, male in Portland, then just imagine what they can do to an underprivileged, transgender, immigrant of color in a rural county.”
Barnes, who practices law in California and Nevada, worked with local co-counsel, and traveled to Oregon to argue the case.
Barnes agreed that Strickland is Antifa’s ‘Victim Zero’ and asserted that judges all over the country are woefully ignorant of the violence committed by this group. He said Strickland’s case has sent a message to Portland and beyond:
“[R]ight now if you’re in the black bloc what do you think? I can harass somebody and get them arrested if they try to defend themselves. And then they want people not to defend themselves so that they feel terrified, so that the feel scared, so that they feel frightened, so that their behavior can be publicly and privately coerced. And that’s the danger. And that’s why this case is bigger than one person. This battle will be just the beginning of a long extended battle. If this can happen to him here it can happen to anyone, anywhere, and it means that nobody is safe. And that’s why this case is so significant.”
“This battle will be just the beginning of a long extended battle. If this can happen to him here it can happen to anyone, anywhere, and it means that nobody is safe. And that’s why this case is so significant.”
Barnes told VictoriaTaft.com, and others gathered outside the court house, that it’s easy for an appeals court to simply rubber- stamp the trial verdict, but he wanted to remind the judges of a higher legal principle:
“[W]e were trying to force the issue back into the legal terrain to sort of the high plains of what the law is ‘cause that’s what protects everybody and it needs to be equally applied. And it’s forcing them to face that when they don’t always want to face that when the easy political decision for them to make is just to affirm the case and not to overturn the police; not to overturn the prosecutor; not to overturn the judge not to enhance and expand the protection of ordinary individuals against the black bloc of Portland.”
“[T]he easy political decision for them to make is just to affirm the case and not to overturn the police; not to overturn the prosecutor; not to overturn the judge not to enhance and expand the protection of ordinary individuals against the black bloc of Portland.”
After the conclusion of the hearing on third floor of the Oregon Supreme Court building, Strickland told those gathered:
“I think at its heart that it is a first amendment issue. And I hope that the judges realize that a person has a first amendment right to be a public area, filming a public event and that a mob of thugs do not have the right to use force to prevent that person from doing such and that my actions were solely in self defense on this case.”
Strickland issued a press release (below) and a YouTube video about the hearing:
Published on Oct 12, 2018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
The Oregon Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this morning, October 12th, 2018, regarding the matter of State Of Oregon vs Michael Strickland, appeals case number A165019. I, Michael Strickland, am hopeful that the honorable Judges of the appeals court will recognize the dangerous case law precedent that was set in this case and that they will vacate my conviction.
We raised several assignments of error regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, denial of change venue that was based on defamatory and untrue statements made by Multnomah County deputy district attorney Kate Molina to media, the 1st Amendment restrictions that have been placed on me by the courts, and the fact that I was denied my Constitutional right to face my accusers.
If the courts can do this to a privileged, straight, white, male in Portland, then just imagine what they can do to an underprivileged, transgender, immigrant of color in a rural county.
At its heart, I believe my case is a 1st Amendment matter. As of the verdict of finding me guilty, the courts have essentially ruled that a person does not have a right to be in a public area, filming a public event, in their capacity as a professional news journalist, and that a mob of aggressive thugs have the right to use physical force and intimidation tactics to prevent a journalist from engaging in free press, and if the journalist tries to stop the thugs from assaulting and robbing them, then it’s the journalist who is guilty of crimes, while those who perpetrate and instigate violence become the victims.
This should strike fear into every journalist in the state.
Representing me on the appeal is LA-based Attorney Robert Barnes, who says “Right now if you’re in the black bloc [anarchists, antifa], what do you think? I can harass somebody and get away with it. I can harass somebody and get them arrested if they try to defend themselves. And that’s what they want. They want people to not defend themselves. And then they want people not to defend themselves so that they feel terrified, so that the feel scared, so that they feel frightened, so that their behavior can be publicly and privately coerced. And that’s the danger. And that’s why this case is bigger than one person.”
As we saw in the viral videos from last weekend, mob violence has been legalized. This is due, at least in part, to the ruling in case. Political violence is now encouraged and the mob is emboldened to attack people on the streets because they know they can legally get away with it, and anyone who opposes them or finds themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves against direct physical threats is guilty of crimes.
This puts everyone in Oregon at risk of being robbed, injured or worse. For example, a group of KKK members now have the legal right and lawfully authority to attack people of color in the street. Everyone’s rights to free press, to be safe from mob violence, and to defend one’s self are in the hands of the Honorable Judges of the Court of Appeals”