Mick Strider has some explaining to do.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Str, I hate to break it to you but Law and Order is total fiction and bears no relationship to what prosecutors do. Generally, they do not talk directly to defendants, they go thru their lawyers , confessions are generally made while in police custody, before the police actually arrest and present their case to the intake division of the prosecutors office. You can believe want you want to, but that simply doesn't happen except in the most rare of cases.
Click to expand...

My bad. Not Law and Order the fictional show with actors. Its the real Law and Order I was referring to. It uses the same music is the basis for the fictional show and as I understand it where some of the story ideas come from at times. There are two Law and Orders. One is the fiction you speak of but there is another one and that one is the reality show. Its real lawyers, real investigations involving DAs and the whole ball of wax and even how they work. I'm not interested much in fictional accounts here. I'm also not interested in hanging someone so long as benefit of the doubt can still be had. If we were a jury I'd be the one everyone would be pissed at for siding the other way I think. I still am not convinced Mick is not telling us the whole story either because he can't or because the reasons for keeping his secrets are more important to him than his own personal anquish is. Just like why he went to prison without ratting out his friends even if they were unsavory types.

I've read all the accounts. I've viewed info from other forums. I'll be the first to agree its not something easily refuted but something still doesn't add up.

STR
 
Bert_G said:
Suppose I must be bored, but after reading all of these posts it seems most of you are mad because Micks mis-appropriation of military status helped him profit from knife manufacturing.

Not just the fact he lied. His profits probably make alot of you jealous in the first place.

As a sidebar I also suppose that if his knife sales gets less attractive by members and guests reading these negative threads it will slowly quit diluting the funds of these members so they can buy more Busse's.
Click to expand...

What an inspired and ground-breaking take that is. No one has ever had the insight to claim economic jealousy before!:p
 
STR wrote:

I still am not convinced Mick is not telling us the whole story either because he can't or because the reasons for keeping his secrets are more important to him than his own personal anquish is.
Click to expand...

It is certainly the latter. The secret is that there is no secret there to defend.:cool:
 
Bert_G said:
Suppose I must be bored, but after reading all of these posts it seems most of you are mad because Micks mis-appropriation of military status helped him profit from knife manufacturing.

Not just the fact he lied. His profits probably make alot of you jealous in the first place.

As a sidebar I also suppose that if his knife sales gets less attractive by members and guests reading these negative threads it will slowly quit diluting the funds of these members so they can buy more Busse's.
Click to expand...

No worries Mate!! This thread motivated me to buy a Mick Strider Custom Today! So no dilution of fundage here, I put my money into the best knives possible. That would be Strider. This thread is a witch hunt.

They should rename this thread " How to Do a Internet Witch HUNT"

Heres how..

1 Cut and past a bunch of ancient unprovable qoutes and links, also make it "sound" like Mick was never in the military.
2 Round up the village idiots.
3 Let the fun begin.
4 Act like your above the fray, by claiming the moral high ground, all the while calling a man who you never met a bunch of shitty names.
5 Jump on anyone who has anything positive to say about Strider.

It's that easy!!!!;)


The whole thing is a witch hunt!:barf:
 
pricecw said:
Micky, in the other thread on this subject, the individual who wrote the article explained what the mistakes were and how they were made.

Again, I see a leap to a conclusion. Please show me the line where he says he was on a black op for the government when he stole the car. I believe he stated


Again, I don't see a lie, but rather a jump to conclusion to support your wish.

I would like to hear the lie about his military career. I served honorably, and have 2 brothers and a cousin who followed me into the service, both brothers discharged honorably, cousin is still in.

I don't take it lightly when someone does lie about their military service, but I also don't take it lightly when someone accuses a man that was discharged honorably of doing doing so without real proof. Jumps to a conclusion don't cut it. Show me something that he said about his military service that is a lie. Again, it can't be a speculative feeling that this isn't right.

I know some might think I am a friend of Mick's defending him, but I don't know him. What I am trying to defend is the idea someone who served honorably (by all accounts so far, if you have evidence otherwise, please show it) being tarred and feathered because someone doesn't think this statement or that is accurate. I just can't see a vet being treated this way on speculation.

Now on comments that he had a horrible back injury. I think the statement was he injured his back and lost his jump status. My understanding is that it is not hard to loose jump status. An injury that points to the potential of more injuries would loose you your jump status. There are NFL players that play professional football after having vertebrae fused. Chances are, the injury that required the fusing would loose a person jump status, especially during a period of unprecedented peace. Again, the speculation on the injury is just that.

--Carl
Click to expand...
please refer to the civil case for the proof of his never having worked black ops or of ever having been a ranger in the US Army. If I am mistaken in my interpertation of what he ment by hard hitters, it is due to his use of the term in other places referring to black ops personal.
 
Gentlebeings, the people who are being rounded up elsewhere on the net and sent over here to do battle are not idiots. They're just ignorant. Let's not call them names; let's welcome them and educate them.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Statue-of-Liberty-2.jpg
 
STR said:
My bad. Not Law and Order the fictional show with actors. Its the real Law and Order I was referring to. It uses the same music is the basis for the fictional show and as I understand it where some of the story ideas come from at times. There are two Law and Orders. One is the fiction you speak of but there is another one and that one is the reality show. Its real lawyers, real investigations involving DAs and the whole ball of wax and even how they work. I'm not interested much in fictional accounts here. I'm also not interested in hanging someone so long as benefit of the doubt can still be had. If we were a jury I'd be the one everyone would be pissed at for siding the other way I think. I still am not convinced Mick is not telling us the whole story either because he can't or because the reasons for keeping his secrets are more important to him than his own personal anquish is. Just like why he went to prison without ratting out his friends even if they were unsavory types.

I've read all the accounts. I've viewed info from other forums. I'll be the first to agree its not something easily refuted but something still doesn't add up.

STR
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not familar with that show. What the ponit I'm making, and what the other lawyers are too, is that the whole story about Somalia is really not cradible. I don't know about the other stuff about the Rangers, the civil suit, etc...

Basically it seems like he got busted for the carjacking (I have to disagree with the theory that Strider was suggesting that it involved secret agent type stuff, his words seem to me to be saying that he fell in with the wrong crowd, i.e. a gang, and he stole a car and someone rolled over on him).

So he gets caught, goes through all the usual procedure, his lawyers see what evidence the FBI and the AUSA have and he pleads out and serves a sentence. The stuff about Somalia justs seems way too far out there, totally incredible, made up to add to the mystique.

Just a basic primer on crim procedure- the police, or here the FBI, investigate and interview witnesses and the suspect. This is the point where a confession would most likely be made. So, the police will decide if there is prob cause to charge, will do the affidavits for an arrest, then arrest and present the case to an intake ADA. That ADA will look at the evidence and decide what, if any, charges will be filed (and they can be different that what the police arrest for). The ADA can charge by an information or an indictment, the indictment is by grand jury but the information is more common. The defendant will face a first appearence (the name and procedure differ by state) where a magistrate may determine of probable cause exists to formally charge and sets a bond. He also advises of rights and may appoint counsel. After that, the DA's investigator interview witnesses and maybe the ADA, but they can't talk to the defendant w/o counsel present. At some point, the ADA and defendant's lawyer can negotitate a plea agreement and can present that to a judge who may accept, modify , or reject. He does have to have written findings if he rejects and that would be noted on the docket sheet. If you go through the sheet that was provided, you'll see that the case proceeded that way. It is really a pretty garden variety crime that is only federal b/c the car was transported across state lines. There isn't anything out of the ordinary in the docket sheet, so there is really no evidence that anything was unusual.

Really, if he is claiming the Somalia stuff, it just is not credible. As for the rest I'll differ to others.
 
I, for one, would like to see the associated police reports on the carjacking. My understanding is that, because the car was driven across state lines (from California to Nevada), it became a Federal crime. I have read Strider's version of what the carjacking consisted of, but would like to see Law Enforcement's version of the details of the crime, specifically, why said car was taken across state lines to begin with.

Regards,
3G
 
3Guardsmen said:
I, for one, would like to see the associated police reports on the carjacking. My understanding is that, because the car was driven across state lines (from California to Nevada), it became a Federal crime. I have read Strider's version of what the carjacking consisted of, but would like to see Law Enforcement's version of the details of the crime, specifically, why said car was taken across state lines to begin with.

Regards,
3G
Click to expand...

3G, have a look at the docketing statement attached on page 1, the charge was 18:2312 INTERSTATE TRANSPORTION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE.

I doubt the feds would have been involved if that wasn't provable. As for the police reports, I doubt anyone can get them. Police I know have told me that they do multiple reports, very basic ones for that are subject to release and other detailed ones that they can hold back. That being said he was both indicted by a grand jury, so the indictment would include specific details and an information later superceded the indictment and he waived re-indictment. The information would have specifics and probably LEO affidavits as supporting documents. I doubt that one could get all that unless they went to the courthouse and examined the actual clerk's file.
 
I'm mulling Freedom Of Information Act requests to:

The FBI
The US Attorney
Bureau of Prisons
DOD

Anywhere else of interest?
 
Boats said:
I'm mulling Freedom Of Information Act requests to:

The FBI
The US Attorney
Bureau of Prisons
DOD

Anywhere else of interest?
Click to expand...

Why? The strider folks have a point, its one thing to discuss this on here but another to spend effort doing FOIA requests and screwing with that for a year. And quite frankly, I see that as approaching the line of harassment and invasion of privacy. I could see someone who lives in the cities where the civil and criminal trials were to go and look at the files, but what does all of this accomplish?

Occam's Razor was discussed earlier, the simplest plausible explanation being the most logical. Here, I would say the guy was in the military, was in the Ranger Regiment (I know 2 medics who were and were not tabbed) and either left b/c of injury or he got busted. So he gets with some petty criminals and he gets busted b/c he's a shitty criminal. So maybe he feels bad b/c he didn't get to do all the cool stuff and he got busted. He makes up stuff to make himself sound better and maybe measure up to the people around him and then he mouths off too much and gets caught. Simple, maybe reprehensible, but certainly not a major deal that would require all of this.

So what is the outcome here? Hell I believe he made up stuff but what does it matter if there is solid proof or not?
 
Micky said:
please refer to the civil case for the proof of his never having worked black ops or of ever having been a ranger in the US Army. If I am mistaken in my interpertation of what he ment by hard hitters, it is due to his use of the term in other places referring to black ops personal.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if I new someone had been in the USMC, had been discharged honorably, and then settled a civil suit that stated "I have never been a Marine", that would not change the fact that he was. I have not seen the civil case, all I have seen was a summary by someone with an axe to grind. I do not know what is considered a Ranger, but it appears the Army considers anyone who serves in that battalion as such. If that is the case, the civil suit has very little merit to change the fact.

The facts so far is a PI, hired to do an in-depth dig through his background, and the people who did it, distributed it widely, and still do not have evidence that shows conclusive evidence that he lied about his military career. It bothers me to see a vet dragged through the mud without proof.

--Carl
 
digitalrebelttu said:
Why? The strider folks have a point, its one thing to discuss this on here but another to spend effort doing FOIA requests and screwing with that for a year. And quite frankly, I see that as approaching the line of harassment and invasion of privacy. I could see someone who lives in the cities where the civil and criminal trials were to go and look at the files, but what does all of this accomplish?

Occam's Razor was discussed earlier, the simplest plausible explanation being the most logical. Here, I would say the guy was in the military, was in the Ranger Regiment (I know 2 medics who were and were not tabbed) and either left b/c of injury or he got busted. So he gets with some petty criminals and he gets busted b/c he's a shitty criminal. So maybe he feels bad b/c he didn't get to do all the cool stuff and he got busted. He makes up stuff to make himself sound better and maybe measure up to the people around him and then he mouths off too much and gets caught. Simple, maybe reprehensible, but certainly not a major deal that would require all of this.

So what is the outcome here? Hell I believe he made up stuff but what does it matter if there is solid proof or not?
Click to expand...

That's why I am only thinking it over. First, if anything came back, it'd no longer be second or third hand. My bet is there'd be no cause for any of it to be redacted except maybe for SSN fields.

Just seems that no amount of logic is going to win the day. Hard proof may be the answer.
 
Wow... I just read all five... no, SIX pages.

I need a drink before the heavy hitting operators come roll over me. ;)

drinker.jpg
 
I think your idea is the best thing in 12 pages Boats.
I have no dog in this fight, but it should be settled one way or the other.
It will never fade away.
 
Occam's Razor was discussed earlier, the simplest plausible explanation being the most logical. Here, I would say the guy was in the military, was in the Ranger Regiment (I know 2 medics who were and were not tabbed) and either left b/c of injury or he got busted. So he gets with some petty criminals and he gets busted b/c he's a shitty criminal. So maybe he feels bad b/c he didn't get to do all the cool stuff and he got busted. He makes up stuff to make himself sound better and maybe measure up to the people around him and then he mouths off too much and gets caught. Simple, maybe reprehensible, but certainly not a major deal that would require all of this.

So what is the outcome here? Hell I believe he made up stuff but what does it matter if there is solid proof or not?
Click to expand...

A lot of this makes sense to me and is along the same lines as I was thinking.
It is probably safe to say that he was pretty down right out of the Army feeling like he let down more than himself I'm sure. I would guess he was down on himself, down on his luck and generally depressed all around. If he dealt with depression in any way similar to how I dealt with it after my first wife left me for another guy in all likelihood he probably did things like drink too much if not other things like take more pain meds for his back than is recommended both in an effort to deal with his sitation and to make up for lost time after the stressful life in the schools and training he had even if for just a short while. Its safe to say he may not have been in the best state of mind at that time let alone among the best company. In fact from the sounds of it the circle of people he hung with were a large part of the problem and made him pay a hefty price to hang with them. One thing led to another and he messed up big time. All this I can forgive with little worry.

I still can't help but wonder about the missing pieces but I think I've seen and read enough to make an educated decision to give him the benefit of the doubt unless something else turns up. I still keep telling myself that any man with so many other good and honorable people behind him can't be all bad or worth all this. Interesting day though but I think I'm done with it.

STR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top