Looking at the evidence above, I’m not sure it’s clear that Mr. Strickland was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm and imminence was imminent. As confusing as that last bit sounds, it’s crucial to his defense. While Mr. Strickland may have been in danger of death or grievous bodily harm, was that threat in the actual process of happening when he drew his firearm?
The use of deadly force laws (which include threats of deadly force) vary from state to state. Regardless of the written law, the legality of justifiable deadly force ultimately depends on the “reasonable person standard.” Would a reasonable person have drawn in the same circumstances?
Again, I reckon the videos presented here are not conclusive. I can’t see anyone in the act of trying to hurt Mr. Strickland. I see people who’d intimated him, and one who shoved him, approaching. But that is not in and of itself a lethal threat. Also, he points the gun in several directions, which is understandable but doesn’t speak of a specific threat.
In some states, Mr. Strickland would be legally obliged to effect a retreat in the face of a violent threat — despite the fact that he had a legal right to be where he was at the time of the incident. In Oregon, where this confrontation occurred, Mr. Strickland had a right to stand his ground.
Common sense said Mr. Strickland should have beat a hasty retreat. But he didn’t. He drew his gun and suffered the consequences. The judge/jury will now consider the totality of circumstances to decide if he acted lawfully. I wonder if Mr. Strickland videod the organizer advising bystanders to shoot police? Not entirely relevant, but not irrelevant either.