Mick Strider has some explaining to do.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont care what Mick Strider did in the past, but I do know what he does now, and I respect him for that.

I don't understand that attitude - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I'm sure it's more comfortable and easy "not caring", but I don't understand it.

In the knife sub-forums, collectors repeatedly explain that the personallity of the maker, his integrity, his ethics, has a HUGE importance on their decision to buy this or that knife. The reason why is that when you pay your own money you are in effect granting your moral support to the payee.

We often have to compromise - I would like not to buy from China, but I find it's too difficult to do. That's OK. But not caring? I don't understand that.

As a knife collector, I care deeply, profoundly about this. I want to make sure that if there are any ass-holes in the business, they be exposed. I also want to make sure that any unfounded rumors be corrected. This is very important.
 
You hit the nail on the head, dude. Just cause you go to RIP doesn't mean you're a ranger and neither does working at one of the battalions. There are a lot of soldiers assigned to Ranger bats that don't have the tab.
Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure altering a DD214 is a huge no-no.

Bro,I'm sorry but you are wrong. If you complete RIP and get assigned to a battalion you ARE a RANGER. I don't know where you guys are getting this stuff.

Frank
 
BH, said all that has to be said. I've read absolutely none if this except that few posts and my opinion is:

Get on with your lives! Who cares! What a waste of time and bandwidth!

Win

Win, I would say a lot of people care. In under two days we have almost 400 posts, and over 15,000 views. I care because I don't believe that a company should be built around lies. What I am trying to learn from this is whether that is the case here. From what I have gathered from the many threads on the topic, I have come to think that the company was built on omissions and embellishments. Are those lies? Maybe as time goes along things will become more clear.

There are things that I find hard to believe, such as the prosecution offering Mick a year in Somalia and forfeiture of pay in lieu of a five year jail term. I also wonder why someone would be carrying firearms, when it is against the stipulations of his probation. That is a criminal act and would mean that Mick's criminal activities are not in the past, but continue into the present. These things may not be important to some, but they are to me.
 
So whats the new question? Is Richard Marchinko the real deal or have lots of folks been suckered by the Rogue Warrior and his 93 confirmed kills. Marchinko must have ben a good Con as he served an an officer in Force Recon's group.

Chuck Mawhinney [SP?] also seems like the real dedal also but as soon as you crucify Mick, get to work on the next two will ya? I am also saddened by those who taqke away the glory of those who have been in real fikre fights.

I was in a short firefight where almost 600 rounds was fired by the BG and my cover vehicle ended up with 169 bullet holes and me four. Sure wish I had me a real sniper that day, where was marchinko damnit!!!!!!

*Again disclaimer: I have never heard of these two alleged snipers until today so I do not know if they are real. But marchinko's been written up alot as has the other guy. naybe they are superb Posers.............................maybe not.


So Marchinko was a Marine sniper now? Keep digging dude, you've screwed up the legal arguments you might as well screw up the history of the most famous Navy SEAL.
 
I also wonder why someone would be carrying firearms, when it is against the stipulations of his probation. That is a criminal act and would mean that Mick's criminal activities are not in the past, but continue into the present. These things may not be important to some, but they are to me.

I have to say this bothers me also. As a gun rights activist and coming from a long line of LEO and a father that was an avid gun collector it concerns me. But I did find this that is rather interesting. Maybe one of our lawyer friends can elaborate???

"No. 01-704, is a provision in federal law that allows felons to obtain a permit to own and sell firearms. While convicted felons generally are not permitted to own guns, a provision in the federal firearms laws allows someone who has served his time and been released to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to own a weapon. But the ATF hasn't green-lighted any felon's request for relief in a decade. It can't. In 1992, Congress eliminated the funds that enabled the bureau to do it and has refused to restore them ever since."

And these... http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/June/296ag.htm

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/felon-in-possession.htm

STR
 
THOSE of you who are without sin cast the first stone!!!!! :eek:


I want to respond to this. This post suggests that unless one is perfect, one is not fit to pass judgement on the actions of another. This is moral cowardice of the lowest order.

Nobody is perfect - we all have our flaws. Most of us have done things they're not too proud about.. But that doesn't make all sins equal. If only perfect people have the moral standing to condemn the wicked and the evil, then the wicked and the evil will be free to act.

Some people have stolen tootsy rolls when they were kids. Some people have murdered. Somewhere between those relative extremes is stealing a car and lying about one's military record.
 
ok ok ok so i wasnt on the 86 mets worlds series team ,and didnt throw a no hitter against babe ruth- oooppps wrong thread
 
I want to respond to this. This post suggests that unless one is perfect, one is not fit to pass judgement on the actions of another. This is moral cowardice of the lowest order.

Really, this whole controversy is not about the wrong. As Mr. Joss reminds us, we have all made mistakes. This thread is about what you do after the mistake. Do you admit your mistake -- publically if the mistake was made publically -- appologize for it, accept any consequences for it, and then learn from it and not repeat it? Or do you try to cover it up, blame others for it, and try to distract from it?

A big measure of a man's character lies in how he handles his own mistakes.

If the accusations made against Mr. Strider are true, then I really wish he'd admit his mistake without trying to excuse it or blame others for it, appologize for it, accept the consequence -- which is really just a heavy meal of crow -- and then get back to designing and making great knives, knives that speak for themselves and need no exagerated backstory.

If the accusations are not true, then I wish he'd end all this bickering and remove all of the clouds of doubt in the way the way that only he can, by producing the necessary, complete documentation.

The ball is really in his court.
 
Win, I would say a lot of people care. In under two days we have almost 400 posts, and over 15,000 views. I care because I don't believe that a company should be built around lies. What I am trying to learn from this is whether that is the case here. From what I have gathered from the many threads on the topic, I have come to think that the company was built on omissions and embellishments. Are those lies? Maybe as time goes along things will become more clear.

There are things that I find hard to believe, such as the prosecution offering Mick a year in Somalia and forfeiture of pay in lieu of a five year jail term. I also wonder why someone would be carrying firearms, when it is against the stipulations of his probation. That is a criminal act and would mean that Mick's criminal activities are not in the past, but continue into the present. These things may not be important to some, but they are to me.

Keith, Spark, Boats, et al,
I've come to the rather disturbing conclusion that Strider apologists are so blinded by their devotion to the man that no amount of proof or well reasoned arguments will suffice to sway them. Greater men than Strider have fallen from grace for much lesser sins. Strider appears to have an aura about him that is extremely captivating to some. Once ensnared by it the Strider fanatic is unable to reason, listen to common sense, intuition, etc. as they once could. What convinced me more than ever about this is the claim made by Mick that the federal government had initially offered to send him to Somalia in lieu of jail time. Supposedly at the very last minute the prosecutor rescinded his offer and Mick was sent to the pen instead. This claim defies all common sense and reason. Several lawyer members here have tried to explain why this is implausible. Yet Mick's claim is swallowed hook, line and sinker by his supporters. If solid evidence should surface that Mick was in fact telling the truth vis-a-vis Somalia, after the shock wears off I will be the first to apologize.
 
What's astounding is that even when confronted with direct quotations from Mick Strider himself, they still try desperately to either attack me, distract from the issue, or outright deny the validity of what was said.
 
I have spent alot of time today trying to get a copy of the actual "confession"
Mick is alleged to have offered claiming he never served, etc. but have had zero luck securing a photocopy.

Is there in fact one in existence?
 
I think the rather uniform Striderette resistance to what appears to be the greater truth--namely that Mick is far more fraud than substance--stems from their own stubborness.

Most of the more colorful Strider supporters make various claims that they've met the man and that is enough for them. Something about him doesn't peg their personal bullshit meters. Maybe somewhere down deep they're reluctant to admit they've been taken in by his false persona.

People never like to admit that they've been conned, or that they could be conned.

It's that very reaction that con-men thrive upon.
 
I want to respond to this. This post suggests that unless one is perfect, one is not fit to pass judgement on the actions of another. This is moral cowardice of the lowest order.

Nobody is perfect - we all have our flaws. Most of us have done things they're not too proud about.. But that doesn't make all sins equal. If only perfect people have the moral standing to condemn the wicked and the evil, then the wicked and the evil will be free to act.

Some people have stolen tootsy rolls when they were kids. Some people have murdered. Somewhere between those relative extremes is stealing a car and lying about one's military record.

Joss, very good points in your last two posts. I agree most wholeheartedly.

Add to the stealing of a car, "while in posession of firearm" ,which was admitted to by the person in question. No? So, why would anyone even THINK that not only a Felon, but one who committed a felony while possession of a weapon, WOULD EVER be granted permission to acquire a weapon, legally, much less legally CARRY one, ever again? Sorry, it's not just flimsy, it's inconceivable.

Back to whether or not it all matters?

I also would prefer not to buy from China, sometimes do, but when there is a viable alternative I choose not to. Same goes for unscroupulous businessmen and their companies.
As they wade through the muck and mire, I'd like to know whether or not this is someone whose business I would patronize or not.
 
I have to say this bothers me also. As a gun rights activist and coming from a long line of LEO and a father that was an avid gun collector it concerns me. But I did find this that is rather interesting. Maybe one of our lawyer friends can elaborate???


STR
STR and Keith, I will not claim to be an expect on the elements of Federal criminal offenses, so I looked this stuff up. First, Strider was sentenced to 5 years of probation after his prison term (ended in 1998) and the docketing statement says that there was some modification to his terms of probation but does not specify what those were. Terms of probation vary by individual, i.e. maybe anger management classes, stuff like that, but they also can not commit any other crimes. At this point his probation is probably finished but this section applies to any felon-

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html
 
...This thread is about what you do after the mistake. Do you admit your mistake -- publically if the mistake was made publically -- appologize for it, accept any consequences for it, and then learn....

Maybe this has only a tiny bit of relevancy to it (considering the massive tomes that precede my post) but I will offer it anyway as an analogy to this on-going drama.

When I ran my advertising agency, my advice to everyone (including myself) was: if you make a mistake, you admit to it immediately, apologize for it, correct it, and learn from it. That way, the mess is a lot easier to clean up and no one belabors the fact that you made the mistake in the first place.

This ongoing drama started as a small fire years ago and could have been easily extinguished. By ignoring it, and even feeding it, this conflagration has turned into an ugly, raging inferno. And the stench that rises from it is starting to choke those who want nothing more than to collect, make, and enjoy knives. Very sad indeed.

(think I'll wander over and see what Allan Blade is up to.)
 
Also, to provide further the specifics of why a Somalia sentence would not be a rational thing to believe.


§ 3551. Authorized sentences


How Current is This?

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise specifically provided, a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute, including sections 13 and 1153 of this title, other than an Act of Congress applicable exclu*sively in the District of Columbia or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553 (a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.
(b) Individuals.— An individual found guilty of an offense shall be sentenced, in accordance with the provisions of section 3553, to—
(1) a term of probation as authorized by subchapter B;
(2) a fine as authorized by subchapter C; or
(3) a term of imprisonment as authorized by subchapter D.
A sentence to pay a fine may be imposed in addition to any other sentence. A sanction authorized by section 3554, 3555, or 3556 may be imposed in addition to the sentence required by this subsection.




§ 3553. Imposition of a sentence


How Current is This?

(a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence.— The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for—
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines—
(i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28); and
(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742 (g), are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or
(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28);
(5) any pertinent policy statement—
(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 (a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994 (p) of title 28); and
(B) that, except as provided in section 3742 (g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.[1]
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
 
More:

(b) Application of Guidelines in Imposing a Sentence.—
(1) In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range, referred to in subsection (a)(4) unless the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. In determining whether a circumstance was adequately taken into consideration, the court shall consider only the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official commentary of the Sentencing Commission. In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline, the court shall impose an appropriate sentence, having due regard for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2). In the absence of an applicable sentencing guideline in the case of an offense other than a petty offense, the court shall also have due regard for the relationship of the sentence imposed to sentences prescribed by guidelines applicable to similar offenses and offenders, and to the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing Commission.
...
(c) Statement of Reasons for Imposing a Sentence.— The court, at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence—
(1) is of the kind, and within the range, described in subsection (a)(4), and that range exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range; or
(2) is not of the kind, or is outside the range, described in subsection (a)(4), the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from that described, which reasons must also be stated with specificity in the written order of judgment and commitment, except to the extent that the court relies upon statements received in camera in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. In the event that the court relies upon statements received in camera in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 the court shall state that such statements were so received and that it relied upon the content of such statements.
If the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, the court shall include in the statement the reason therefor. The court shall provide a transcription or other appropriate public record of the court’s statement of reasons, together with the order of judgment and commitment, to the Probation System and to the Sentencing Commission,,[3] and, if the sentence includes a term of imprisonment, to the Bureau of Prisons.
(d) Presentence Procedure for an Order of Notice.— Prior to imposing an order of notice pursuant to section 3555, the court shall give notice to the defendant and the Government that it is considering imposing such an order. Upon motion of the defendant or the Government, or on its own motion, the court shall—
(1) permit the defendant and the Government to submit affidavits and written memoranda addressing matters relevant to the imposition of such an order;
(2) afford counsel an opportunity in open court to address orally the appropriateness of the imposition of such an order; and
(3) include in its statement of reasons pursuant to subsection (c) specific reasons underlying its determinations regarding the nature of such an order.
Upon motion of the defendant or the Government, or on its own motion, the court may in its discretion employ any additional procedures that it concludes will not unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process.
(e) Limited Authority To Impose a Sentence Below a Statutory Minimum.— Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant’s substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Such sentence shall be imposed in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code.
(f) Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in Certain Cases.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of an offense under section 401, 404, or 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 844, 846) or section 1010 or 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960, 963), the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of title 28 without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation, that—
(1) the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
(2) the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person;
(4) the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and
(5) not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II_20_227_30_A.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top