Last Friday, Multnomah County judge Thomas Ryan found Mike Strickland guilty on all 21 counts against him.
Strickland drew his legal, licensed, registered concealed hand gun while covering a Black Lives Matter/Don’t Shoot PDX event July 7, 2016.
He drew his weapon, a Glock handgun, to stop a phalanx of protesters who converged on him from all angles in order to attack and stop him from covering the rally. He swept the black bloc attired mob with his gun, without his finger on the trigger, to stop the threat. It worked long enough for him to back away from the mob.
Some news outlets have reported that Strickland was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. In fact, a jury didn’t hear the case.
Approximately 40 people were chosen as the pool from which the jury for Strickland’s case would be selected.
During selection, it was soon discovered that the pool was so tainted, that even with defense attorneys peremptory challenges, many anti-second amendment people would make it on the jury.
Here’s how badly tainted the jury pool was.
Let’s start with the The Oregonian report that said 30% of the jury pool was anti-second amendment. Actually, in its own report, the newspaper expanded that number.
Here’s a sampling of jurors replies to questions about guns:
When questioned about how many were “generally opposed to firearms,” nine of the people in the jury pool raised their hands. As the discussion progressed, more said they were opposed on some level, too.
“I don’t like them,” one man said.
“I hate them,” said a woman.
Another prospective juror said she thinks guns should be legal only for police and maybe for hunters in remote areas where they’re responsible for getting their own food, such as in Alaska.
Even a few hunters in the group said they only take their guns out for hunting trips, then lock them at home, where they belong.
“I have pretty strong feelings about the type of person who would want to carry a gun around for personal protection,” said one hunter.
“I’m an advocate of guns,” said another hunter. “I like guns, actually. But I think most people, if they have the proper training, they should know when to and when not to pull them out.”
…Jason Short, another defense attorney, asked if any of the potential jurors were opposed to using a gun to defend themselves at home or if strangers approached them at an ATM. A few jurors raised their hands.
“I’m just afraid that someone would be killed, and it wouldn’t have happened if the firearm wasn’t there,” said a woman. “I’m just very uncomfortable with a gun coming out.”
A few of the people said the circumstances would have to be truly extreme to warrant using a gun.
“Someone kicks me, I shouldn’t pull a gun out on them,” one said.
Short asked if any of them had ever had to make a split second decision to protect their well-being.
Yes, said one man. He was once attacked and robbed by five people — and he decided not to fight.
“I chose to be a pacifist,” the man said.
But it was even more anti-gun than the Oregonian reported.
In fact, courtroom watchers say, that by the time the jury questioning was done, only two jurors were possibly pro-second amendment, pro-self defense, pro-conceal carry. Two.
But, wait, there’s more.
It turns out that one of the potential jurors actually knew who Mike Strickland was. Why? Because she was part of an anti-gun activist group, Cease Fire Oregon, that was often covered by Strickland on his YouTube channel “Laughing at Liberals.”
Members of this anti-second amendment group monitored and attended Strickland’s trial.
How’s that for a coincidence?
I’m not done yet.
What would be the chance of a jury pool in Multnomah County including a person who had attended the same rally–as an anti-gun activist and protester the day Strickland drew his gun at anarchists.
Don’t bother guessing. In this case, the chance was 100%.
Strickland and his lawyers opted for a trial in front of the judge.
After his lawyers took apart the two “star” witnesses at trial, one of whom was on video giving a pep talk with the Black Panthers to urge rally goers to use their guns to shoot cops–I’m not making this up–
After that same witness admitted to a conspiracy to rough up Strickland at the protest–
After another one of the witnesses–a multiple felon who was well known for lying–was found lying on the stand–
After cops corroborated almost all of Strickland’s account of events, though they didn’t see the first assault–
After a surprise witness was brought in at the 59th minute of the 11th hour to counteract the defense’s use-of-force witness–
After all that. The judge, I’m told, took no more than a couple of minutes to consider the evidence and find Strickland guilty of all charges.
Please donate generously here to Strickland’s defense fund being overseen by the Oregon Firearms Federation.
Here are my previous posts on this case: