Michael Strickland and The Case That He's Been Over-Charged
EDIT August 4, 2016: Strickland has since been indicted by a grand jury on 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and one count of disorderly conduct. I still think he's being over-charged on each count of unlawful use of a weapon, as per below.
As delighted as I am the Michael Strickland (of Laughing-at-Liberals and Asshole-who-pulled-a-gun-at-the-BLM-march fame) was charged with two counts of Unlawful Use of a Weapon, my guess is that he will almost certainly see those particular charges go away.
There are two ways one can commit Unlawful Use of a Weapon (per ORS 166.220):
1) "Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015"
2) "Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge."
He didn't discharge his firearm, so (2) is out, leaving (1). And that's where it gets interesting. The prosecution has to argue that Michael Strickland either (a) carried a firearm with the intention of using it unlawfully, or (b) that he attempted to use it unlawfully when he pulled it. Now, they have to demonstrate mens rea, or intent. And that's going to be a pain in the ass.
If I had to guess, if the prosecution is serious about arguing their case, they will focus on the fact that Strickland had five extra magazines on him (for a total of about 80-100 rounds, including the ones in his gun), and argue that was excessive. But given the other charges (menacing and disorderly conduct), this looks like the prosecution over-charged him for being a troublemaker. As much as I despise Michael Strickland, that kind of behavior from a prosecutor can't stand. I doubt a judge or jury will disagree, even in liberal Portland.
As usual, IANAL, I just obsess over this stuff.
As delighted as I am the Michael Strickland (of Laughing-at-Liberals and Asshole-who-pulled-a-gun-at-the-BLM-march fame) was charged with two counts of Unlawful Use of a Weapon, my guess is that he will almost certainly see those particular charges go away.
There are two ways one can commit Unlawful Use of a Weapon (per ORS 166.220):
1) "Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015"
2) "Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge."
He didn't discharge his firearm, so (2) is out, leaving (1). And that's where it gets interesting. The prosecution has to argue that Michael Strickland either (a) carried a firearm with the intention of using it unlawfully, or (b) that he attempted to use it unlawfully when he pulled it. Now, they have to demonstrate mens rea, or intent. And that's going to be a pain in the ass.
If I had to guess, if the prosecution is serious about arguing their case, they will focus on the fact that Strickland had five extra magazines on him (for a total of about 80-100 rounds, including the ones in his gun), and argue that was excessive. But given the other charges (menacing and disorderly conduct), this looks like the prosecution over-charged him for being a troublemaker. As much as I despise Michael Strickland, that kind of behavior from a prosecutor can't stand. I doubt a judge or jury will disagree, even in liberal Portland.
As usual, IANAL, I just obsess over this stuff.