Mick Strider has some explaining to do.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pete1977 said:
does a convicted felon have the right to carry a knife? I know in some states the law isn't felon in possession of a firearm, but of a deadly weapon, the weapon defined by that state's statutes and the person in possession's intent and criminal history.

I don't know though.



I was under the impression that Mickey Ray Burger served his full sentence and was not under supervision upon release. again, i don't know though.
Click to expand...

If you guys go back to page 1 you will find a pdf attachment named Strider_J_C which details the sentence and terms of probation, including carrying a knife. However, the docket sheet states that at some point after he was released from prison, there was some modification to the probation terms, but those specific papers have not been presented by anyone.
 
That's what I'm looking at:

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on probation / supervised release for a term of FIVE (5) YEARS PROBATION AS TO COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT; THREE (3) YEARS SUPERVISED RELEASE AS TO COUNT TWO OF THE INDICTMENT; THREE (3) YEARS SUPERVISED RELEASE AS TO THE SUPERSEDING INFORMATION OF ONE COUNT; ALL TERMS OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
 
By all means. Please be clear and I will answer to the best of my ability.
 
ss6sonola said:
That's what I'm looking at:

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on probation / supervised release for a term of FIVE (5) YEARS PROBATION AS TO COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT; THREE (3) YEARS SUPERVISED RELEASE AS TO COUNT TWO OF THE INDICTMENT; THREE (3) YEARS SUPERVISED RELEASE AS TO THE SUPERSEDING INFORMATION OF ONE COUNT; ALL TERMS OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.
Click to expand...

Go and open the actual pdf, not just what was quoted, look at page 4 of the judgment.
 
NousDefions said:
Two friggin' posts from a 5 year time frame in no way constitutes a "habit."

If that's the case, I have a habit of banging fat chicks.
Click to expand...

I am just going by what was posted by Mick. If this was an isolated incident, then shame on me:D
 
Alright, this has gone on long enough.

The real question is, is Micky's image as some heroic badland Ranger soldier consistent with his military record?

You'd have to be a fool to sit here and read all of this and not recognize what has taken place with Micky Burger (aka Mick Strider). Even his name change appears to be nothing more than another one of his building blocks geared toward creating some tough guy image.......really, I mean which Special Ops combat vet would you rather buy a knife from, a guy named "Micky Burger" or "Mick Strider". Of course, it really doesn't matter to any normal person what the spelling is of the name of the person we buy a knife from, we all know that. But to a guy whose sole purpose is to create this poser merc image, he will think it matters.

He was a Ranger? Just because he signed up and lasted a few weeks before he was cut? Technically he was....technically.....yeah, right!

Wait a minute! I drove around Harvard's parking lot a few years ago... Now I can tell everyone that I went to Harvard....yeah, that's the ticket :thumbup:

Here's a guy that was an AWOL soldier and who was also convicted for armed car jacking, and his supporters are somehow doubting that Micky would stoop so low as to lie or mislead about his military record, which coincidentally happens to financially benefit the image of the business the guy is involved with.

Are you all that stoopid? No, you're not.

Now, with that said. We all need to get over this.

Everyone has screwed up, some worse than others perhaps.

At some point, Strider needs to be forgiven for his past mistakes. We need to let this go at some point.

The final question for me is, at what point are we, as fellow knife enthusiasts, ready to forgive this guy who happens to make a pretty decent looking knife?

This is the only question we need to resolve at this point, IMO. Anything else is just a circle jerk because this thread reached critical mass about thirty pages ago.
 
NousDefions said:
In the first post, he mentions a SAW drum. That, to me, signifies that he was talking about the time he was in the military. I've only handled an M249 a few times in a civilian capacity, and I never set up a kit to carry drums.

SNIP
Click to expand...

One would hope he was talking about M249 boxes, not drums.

It must have been confusing for him, the M249 Entered Army Service in 1987.

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m-249_saw/index.html

Mick was "disinvited" from the Army in 1986.

It's sometimes difficult to fake BTDT from pictures and movies. Poor Mick, caught in another stupid lie.:p
 
I just looked at the whole pdf. Looks like pretty standard stuff. I assume you're referring to :

"THE DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED TO POSSESS KNIVES ONLY AT WORK AND SHALL NOT POSSESS DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN HIS RESIDENCE OR VEHICLE. ANY KNIVES THE DEFENDANT SELLS OR MANUFACTURES SHALL REMAIN ON THE PREMISES OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND ARE NOT TO BE TRANSPORTED BY THE DEFENDANT."

I think that it's extremely generous for the court to give a guy who's just gotten out of prison for a violent felony that kind of privilege!

But I truly believe that the courts and the PO's are there to help someone who's just been released get on the right track. Not put them right back in prison without due cause.
 
RWS, I agree but it is hard to resolve anything when the person in question will own up to no wrong doing (except when pressed to do so in a court of law) and in fact continued his old patterns as recently as last week with his somalia in lieu of service claims.
 
Spark said:
I'll tell you what, I'll lock this thread, right now, if he's willing to come out and state that he lied about the Prosecutor telling him he'd be sentenced to Somalia. No equivocations, no dodging the statements, no other misdirection bullshit. Just a simple statement saying "I, Mick Strider, lied when I made the claims that I was to be sentenced to 1 years service in Somalia as punishment for my carjacking felony. This has no basis in fact, it is something I created to try to make myself look better."
Click to expand...

One I am glad you have time to read all of Mick’s post to keep us abreast of what he happens to be saying.

Two I will let all my Ranger buddies that I know who were in Somalia, that you have got their back. You say you had buddies across the quad that went. I was at the train up prior to Somalia in Bliss. I remember talking to guys there who are now dead.


If Mick lied the truth will come out, fine. But as a Ranger who was in the 75th at that time and worked with the guys that went it gets old seeing you hide behind this one.
 
ss6sonola said:
I just looked at the whole pdf. Looks like pretty standard stuff. I assume you're referring to :

"THE DEFENDANT IS ALLOWED TO POSSESS KNIVES ONLY AT WORK AND SHALL NOT POSSESS DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN HIS RESIDENCE OR VEHICLE. ANY KNIVES THE DEFENDANT SELLS OR MANUFACTURES SHALL REMAIN ON THE PREMISES OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND ARE NOT TO BE TRANSPORTED BY THE DEFENDANT."

I think that it's pretty cool the court would give a guy that kind of privilege!I believe that the courts and the PO's are there to help someone who's just been released get on the right track. Not put them right back in prison.
Click to expand...

Yes, that and the other dangerous weapons prohibitions, however, we need to keep in mind that those terms were modified twice- have a look at the docket sheet- once on a motion by his lawyer and once by the bureau of prisons.

Ok my take, sorry Spark but I disagree with you on some points.

First, the civil suit with Chris Osman- I would feel a lot better seeing a scan of the actual settlement as opposed to quotes but assuming that the qoutes are correct, it is already established that he did not see combat and all the other things he admitted.

Second, Ranger stuff- seeing 2 different DD214, he was a Ranger for a short amount of time, obviously he left out stuff (AWOL) unfavorable to him. I think that this is settled now.

Injury or kicked out? We don't know and I don't know if it matters.

Carjacking- documented, the only questions being was he doing "black-ops" and was he sentenced to Somalia- reasonable with all evidence that both of these statements are BS. On my limited knowledge about mil contractors in that time frame, most were Brit based- like KMS, the US ones had not really started going yet. My understanding is that the Brit ones are picky and take former UK and European SOF's. So, most likely- he was screwing around with a criminal "gang" and got busted, nothing "black" about it. Based on Federal procedure and Army Regs and the record and the state of US forces at the time in Somalia- that part is BS.

Carrying guns or knives when not allowed- I have no idea.

Corporation not in his name- without seeing the articles of incorporation or bylaws, I am willing to believe him- if he is president and not a shareholder he does not "own" the company. I don't know the federal contracting requirements but I find it probable that he is telling the truth there.

So I think that covers most of the stuff, the only stuff I see as maybe in disbute are the carrying weapons and the Somalia stuff and maybe the new stolen valor act (iffy).

So now I would have to agree with the other posters that this has run its course.
 
Spark said:
It's not just 1 post from 5 years ago, otherwise he wouldn't have the rep. He wouldn't have guys convinced he was a combat vet with medals, and willing to post about it. He wouldn't have magazines writing about how high speed he is. So please, don't insult everyone's intelligence by making those claims. This is a pattern of behavior over several years, on various sites.
Click to expand...
So, from the 10,000 or so posts Mick has made on the internet since 2002, you have found maybe 8 or so where he makes bravado claims and/or (allegedly) admits to violation of the terms of his parole.

I'm not seeing a "pattern of behavior" here.

Spark said:
I'll tell you what, I'll lock this thread, right now, if he's willing to come out and state that he lied about the Prosecutor telling him he'd be sentenced to Somalia. No equivocations, no dodging the statements, no other misdirection bullshit. Just a simple statement saying "I, Mick Strider, lied when I made the claims that I was to be sentenced to 1 years service in Somalia as punishment for my carjacking felony. This has no basis in fact, it is something I created to try to make myself look better."
Click to expand...
So, you want him to make a statement involving a claim that you have absolutely NO PROOF on either way? Yeah, that'll happen.

I've had cops say some CRAZY shit to me before. I once had a friend (a female) who was pepper-sprayed by an LEO when she exited a bar while a fight was going on... for no reason. What happened? The cop arrested her and charged her with public intoxication (she wasn't drunk) and disturbing the peace (he argued that she was part of the large entanglement outside). If you were to check her records, you'd find these two charges... because she couldn't afford a good lawyer to defend her.

I'm not trying to change the subject, merely address a point: the prosecutor may very well have told Mick that he would go to Somalia. Who would he be to protest? He's no legal scholar, and in the courtroom, it's their word against his.

Is it probable? Probably not. Is it PLAUSIBLE? Absolutely. Regardless of that, you have no evidence either way... other than your own beliefs. Will you go on record and admit that?

Spark said:
That's what got me fired up and digging on this issue. So, if he's willing to let that go, I'll close this down.
You think he's willing to do so?
Click to expand...
Well, at least we've learned what set you off on this rabbit hole It took over 1200 posts.

No, I don't think he's willing to do so. After reading this thread, Mr. Strider owes you approximately NOTHING.
 
Boats said:
The M4 entered service in 1997. There would also logically be no "M4orgeries" prior to 1997 either.

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m-4_carbine/index.html
Click to expand...
There's plenty of time he could have gone to civilian tactical schools which utilized M4 and SAW training prior to his incarceration, and none of those involve any combat.

Hell, I have plenty of civilian friends who have paid money to go off into the woods and play war with the big boy toys. It doesn't make them posers.
 
NousDefions said:
I've had cops say some CRAZY shit to me before. I once had a friend (a female) who was pepper-sprayed by an LEO when she exited a bar while a fight was going on... for no reason. What happened? The cop arrested her and charged her with public intoxication (she wasn't drunk) and disturbing the peace (he argued that she was part of the large entanglement outside). If you were to check her records, you'd find these two charges... because she couldn't afford a good lawyer to defend her.

I'm not trying to change the subject, merely address a point: the prosecutor may very well have told Mick that he would go to Somalia. Who would he be to protest? He's no legal scholar, and in the courtroom, it's their word against his.

Is it probable? Probably not. Is it PLAUSIBLE? Absolutely. Regardless of that, you have no evidence either way... other than your own beliefs. Will you go on record and admit that?
Click to expand...

Nous, I have already discussed the legalities of the Somalia claim, you can search on my name for those posts with citation, but the short version is that 1) a federal judge can not sentence someone charged with 3 federal felonies to that, due to sentenceing guidelines and Army regs state that they can not enlist someone with pending charges. 2) the prosecutor, if he did make that offer, would have signed the plea agreement with Mick before the hearing that the judge presided over. Mick was represented by counsel, if the prosecutor had reneged, then Mick's counsel would have objected and demanded either specific performance of the agreement or a trial. If he had been overruled, he would have appealed that. None of that is supported in the record. Now, even assuming that all of the above was not true, wh ywould he go to Somalia? The sentencing hearing was in early May 1994 and by the end of that month, almost all US troops were withdrawn from Somalia- was he going there by himself? Would he have needed a train up period since he had been out for 8 years?

Having a friend that plead guilty to 2 C misdeamnors,, punishable by a fine only and no jail time is different from pleading out to 3 felonies punishable by 15 years max for each count.

And I suspect that if you survayed the typical prison, 90% of the inmates will tell you how the gov't set them up and they are completely innocent.
 
Grindhouse said:
Do you know how expensive litigation is?...Don't threaten litigation unless you have the bucks...This would not be a contingency fee case. I'm sure it would be a 25,000.00 dollar retainer just to start with....It speaks nothing to me really, If he could show losses to his income then maybe it would be worth pursuing...But rest assured, if the defendant could show that the planitiffs income was even or had increased, what would be your actual damages ? You can lose the case but owe really nothing.
Click to expand...
In most states, defamation regarding a man's occupation allows recovery of punitive damages (to punish) without proof of actual loss of income.
 
Horned Toad said:
One I am glad you have time to read all of Mick’s post to keep us abreast of what he happens to be saying.

Two I will let all my Ranger buddies that I know who were in Somalia, that you have got their back. You say you had buddies across the quad that went. I was at the train up prior to Somalia in Bliss. I remember talking to guys there who are now dead.

If Mick lied the truth will come out, fine. But as a Ranger who was in the 75th at that time and worked with the guys that went it gets old seeing you hide behind this one.
Click to expand...

You know what Mr Toad? I admitted straight up I didn't go. But I was in during that time, and could have gone, and would have if my unit was tasked. I have friends that did. I got an honorable discharge, and haven't been using my time in service to pretend I'm something I'm not.

Your buddy, Mick Strider, said that he was going to be sentenced to go, and that is a lie. If you are unwilling to call him on it, that's your burden to carry. But do not pretend that I'm wrong for calling a liar out. It wouldn't matter if I hadn't served a day in my life - Mick Strider's lies are his responsibility alone. Your attacking the messenger is low class.

Second, that's twice now you've attacked me for doing the right thing. As a Ranger who was in the 75th, why aren't you stepping up to the plate and questioning the nature of these claims? You've already admitted that this sounds unlikely to you. Why aren't you doing anything about it?
 
digitalrebelttu said:
And I suspect that if you survayed the typical prison, 90% of the inmates will tell you how the gov't set them up and they are completely innocent.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your legal analysis, and timeline analysis, and also agree that Mr. Strider's claim sounds fishy and strange. It does.

That said, no one here has any proof or evidence that it happened or not.

Following Mr. Spark's own demands, discussion of anything on this thread that is not VERIFIED FACT is not intended.

Is this incorrect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top