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.”
He added:
“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:
Michael Strickland, Appeals Court Appearance, Stringer Footage
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 …
“LaughingAtLiberals
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”
